Much ink has been spilled (if that’s still an intelligible expression in this digital age) about the likely evangelical resistance to voting for Mitt Romney. But, to my mind, the recent Pew poll paints a different picture. Here’s what we learn:
- Protestants favor Romney over Obama 51-43.
- White non-Hispanic evangelicals favor Romney over Obama 73-20.
- White non-Hispanic mainline Protestants favor Romney over Obama 50-42.
- Weekly church attenders favor Romney over Obama 56-38.
- White non-Hispanic evangelical weekly attenders favor Romney over Obama 80-16.
In other words, the most religiously observant white evangelicals are more likely–indeed, significantly more likely– than their less observant brethren to say they’re going to vote for Romney. (Evangelicals who attend less than once a week favor Romney over Obama 58-31.)
Need I say more?
April 19th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
That was never the question. The question is how many of that group might choose to not vote, NOT how many will vote for Obama. I don’t see whether that proposition is being tested in this poll.
April 19th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
Any data about how Catholics will vote when given a choice between Romney and Obama?
April 19th, 2012 | 3:23 pm
The Pew poll has Catholics breaking for Romney 50-45, white non-Hispanic Catholics breaking 57-37, and white non-Hispanic weekly attenders breaking 64-31, while non-weekly attenders still support Romney 51-43.
April 19th, 2012 | 3:31 pm
Much ink has been spilled (if that’s still an intelligible expression in this digital age)
I actually like the phrase better when it’s digital.
:D
April 19th, 2012 | 6:54 pm
So what? Do you think Romney is a better choice? He is a chronic deceiver with NO core value and belief – just says whatever the audience wants to hear – never produced a thoughtful, sincere, and honest statement! He has an empty soul and looks awfully fake compared to Obama even though Obama has a lot of problems of his own.
As a Christian, one of the our highest characters should be the love and respect for the truth. What does Romney have in this area?
I am a pro-life now even though I used to be a pro-choice
I am against mandate healthcare now even though my biggest achievement is a mandate healthcare
I am pro-gun now even though I used to be for gun control
I will enhance the safety net for the poor by substantially reducing federal support for this
I have nothing to hide even though I refused to release my income tax return on time this year and many years in the past
I don’t believe in global warming/climate change is caused by human while I used to think so
I believe that everyone has the right to fire their health insurance (how many can do that?)
Corporate is people! (corporate is not people – corporate is a profit machine)
…
Is this correct that Jesus once said “The truth will set you free…”?
April 19th, 2012 | 11:03 pm
I am a pro-life now even though I used to be a pro-choice
I am against mandate healthcare now even though my biggest achievement is a mandate healthcare
I am pro-gun now even though I used to be for gun control
I will enhance the safety net for the poor by substantially reducing federal support for this
I have nothing to hide even though I refused to release my income tax return on time this year and many years in the past
I don’t believe in global warming/climate change is caused by human while I used to think so
I believe that everyone has the right to fire their health insurance (how many can do that?)
Corporate is people! (corporate is not people – corporate is a profit machine)
If we applied the same standard to Obama, he’d look just as bad if not worse.
And btw I really dislike Romney, and therefore resent feeling compelled to defend him, but I am myself pro-life, though I used to be pro-choice. If you believe that changing one’s mind on that is bad, then you better not vote Democrat; you have any idea how many prominent Democrats are now pro-choice, though they used to be pro-life?
And corporations are people, in the sense of Romney’s original statement. Your statement relies on taking him out of context.
April 19th, 2012 | 11:04 pm
I will enhance the safety net for the poor by substantially reducing federal support for this
Why is this bad? The “safety net” is bad for the poor. They are not thriving. They are worse off because now they’re not only poor, they’re dependent and suffering from a condition known as ‘learned helplessness’.
Compare the poor in 1955 vs. now: has increasing the safety net done away with poverty in America?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact