» News

The Data is Daunting

Home - by - December 11, 2012 - 08:15 America/New_York - 27 Comments

I took a lot of heat the other day for suggesting that the Christian right is a lot smaller than Christians think. They simply weren’t there for Romney. Either they sat on their hands because Romney is a Mormon, or they just aren’t a potent bloc for the right any longer.

I also suggested, with good intent, that politically, Jesus should not be the centerpiece of the right’s platform. God certainly can be, but not Christianity. It is too exclusionary, too intimidating to secularists and possibly alienating to a growing number of  people who are not necessarily Godless, but not practicing Christians. Christians, being fruitlessly pedantic, may believe that, technically, there is no such animal. But they are apparently out there, if this research is to be believed, pulling the lever for the current Messiah, and not Jesus Christ.

I look at all data with healthy skepticism. Often, the opposition releases data in a attempt to elicit the response they want from their foe. But the piece of data that is irrefutable is that Obama sits in the white house.

Could these numbers be a fabrication, so that the RNC, responding to the DNC’s bait, does what I have suggested, drop Jesus? It might.

But what if it’s accurate? Would Christians be interested in winning national elections any longer? Would they simply insist on an ecumenical platform, even if meant losing secular votes they might get otherwise?

Prepare for a fight. It’s coming. Life is never easy.

Story HERE

ht/ norm einstein

» 27 Comments

  1. Xavier

    December 11th, 2012

     
  2. Boobie the Rocket Dog

    December 11th, 2012

    @ BFH – Not to mention fragmented.

    Thumb up +1

     
  3. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    I red the article the other day(Drudge). I think it is important to note that when asked, I consider myself one of the “nones”. I belong to no formal religion, so I answer that question as “Religiously Unaffiliated”, and some take that to mean anti-religious…I am however far from it. As I have said before, this is coming from outside the party or being floated by the GOP power elite hungry to keep power without principle. Yes Big Fur Hat, it is “bait”.

    There are 72 pages of data with dozens of links to more data, and as we saw with the Politico poll yesterday, data can be used to mislead. I linked this in the other thread ( https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=442276959159242&set=a.403900242996914.106251.289575117762761&type=1&theater ), but could not find this graphic in the report, thopugh it appears to come from the same data. If you look, the numbers show that the religiou vote (including the “nones”) turned away from obama when viewed as a percentage. Most of them went for Romney.

    Bottom line for me is I see this as a stepping stone to remove God from our party. I will not stand aside and let “them” get a step ahead.

    Thumb up +1

     
  4. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    and Big Fur Hat, I never had any doubt that your intentions were/are good. You are also not afraid to touch the 3rd rail, and that should be applauded.

    Thumb up +4

     
  5. thirdtwin

    December 11th, 2012

    This is why I laugh whenever somebody says the GOP must woo Hispanics, blacks and Muslims because they are”natural allies”, since they have traditional family values, conservative morality, strong work ethic yada yada yada.

    All of that is secondary to money for most people. Capitalism succeeded for so long becausee it rewards greed and self-interest, while channelling the same proxuctively for society. Socialism is persuading many people currently, because it appeals to self-interest and security, and appears to present a viable alternative to capitalism, or at least a fairer way to harness the power of capitalism.

    That is bullshit, and we know it, but let’s face it: Most people would rationalize the mark of the beast on their forehead if it meant a steady check from somewhere. The GOP needs to persuasively argue that it can bring home the fattest paychecks to the most people and let the monks cloister themselves.

    Thumb up +5

     
  6. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    Here is some advice from a lib on why Republicans lose:

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/08/demographics-of-election-2012-behind-the-numbers-part-i/

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/09/demographics-of-2012-election-behind-the-numbers-part-ii-analysis/

    Not only are we too religious, but we are racist, anti-science, homophobic, war mongers, wrong on foreign policy…..

    Thumb up +1

     
  7. CrustyB

    December 11th, 2012

    This is a no-win situation. The goal isn’t to simply “win elections.” The idea of becoming more liberal in our views to win elections is self-defeating. We must win as Conservatives or not at all.

    The problem is that in a Democracy the majority rules and today the majority is made up of moochers, sluts, sexual deviants, wetbacks, overbreeders, Socialists, entitlement brats and hippies. We can’t appeal to them and we don’t want to. All we can do is sit back, cheat on our taxes, stop giving to charities that may help leftists and wish America the very worst.

    Thumb up +6

     
  8. LizzieBee

    December 11th, 2012

    So, you can all see what divorcing their party from God did for the Democrats. It has made them quite successful. No more morals (or lack thereof) to worry about, except for the one that another poster mentioned: greed.

    As expressed by RINOS that means unrestrained capitalist greed.

    As expressed by Democrats that means statism.

    Eventually, the Democrats will run out of other people’s money. At that point they will attempt to stay in power regardless of the human cost in terms of money or lives.

    And if you have an ‘opposing’ party that’s only caveat is capitalist power (always with the elite on top), then there is nothing left for the vast majority of citizens but servitude and bread and circus.

    There is one way out and it has never revived a dying empire, and that is to recapture the virtues that won the day at its ascendency.

    It is the hard way because the goal is so far down the road and requires self-sacrifice and patience, two virtues not common in the best of us today.

    Thumb up +3

     
  9. super toe

    December 11th, 2012

    I fail to see where pandering to the left will give the republicans more votes.
    We are morally corrupt in this country and I REFUSE to give into the consensus that the Repubs have to “drop” God.
    Guess what? You get a mamby-pamby asswipe RINO that is going to give consent to homosexual marriage, make pot legal and continue to let taxpayers pay for abortions you will lose something more important than your country, which by the way is already lost….YOU LOSE YOUR SOUL.

    Thumb up +6

     
  10. bitterclinger

    December 11th, 2012

    “Could these numbers be a fabrication, so that the RNC, responding to the DNC’s bait, does what I have suggested, drop Jesus? It might.”

    How about fabricating Romney’s internal polling data because Soros and Co. outbid Romney’s payment? That’s among other things this piece suggests dems have done to get where they are:

    http://bit.ly/T2X6q1

    Thumb up +2

     
  11. BigFurHat

    December 11th, 2012

    My premise never includes removing God from the right’s platform.
    I’m talking about being less ecumenical and broadening the base by talking about more universal tenets of God.
    How is that becoming less conservative?
    It is if conservatives believe that it’s the Jesus way or the highway.
    And that, in my opinion, is a problem that needs to be addressed because it seems the left is exploiting this to win national elections.
    The left will achieve a Godless society on the backs of those who seek to establish Jesus as the nation’s faith.

    Thumb up +3

     
  12. super toe

    December 11th, 2012

    How would you establish universal tenets of God and convey it to non-religious voters ?

    Thumb up +2

     
  13. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    First, I don’t see the GOP, republicans or conservatives demanding that Jesus be part of the platform. I am not saying it doesn’t exist out there, but I am not seeing it. Second, and more importantly, I see a rise over all in the influx of religious people to the right. Even the “nones” left obama and moved to Romney. Obama dropped 5 points in that demographic and Romney gained 3. We are winning. If you look at total numbers and say Romney lost 3 million voters, you gotta say in the same breath that obama lost 6 million voters.

    Being told that the right needs to be less Christian to win makes about as much sense as saying that the right needs to be less racist to win. We are not racists, so I just ignore the bleating left and stick to my beliefs. I found 27 articles about the “Rise of the’nones’” and not one from a conservative group that took the view that you present. The left on the other hand is all over that view point.

    It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.

    Thumb up +4

     
  14. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    It is also my belief that there is a rise in the “nones” because main stream churches are moving away from their core beliefs. I was raised a Catholic and have no use for todays Catholic church.

    Thumb up +4

     
  15. BigFurHat

    December 11th, 2012

    How would you establish universal tenets of God and convey it to non-religious voters ? >

    You’re equating non-Jesus to non-religious. And that’s been my point all along.
    The article talks about unaffiliated believers in God.
    There are more out there than you think.
    Even Menderman, as he is arguing against my points, says he is a “none.”

    He’s a “none” that happens to believe in Jesus. But there are “nones” that don’t.
    Are they worth culling or is the Christian right not interested?

    If I go back to the original thread that first addressed this I see a lot of indignation that seems to support what I’m arguing here.
    The right believes that conservative=God and God=Jesus.
    When I suggest a platform of God but not Jesus everyone seems to be left scratching their heads.

    Thumb up +2

     
  16. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    Obama lost 9 points from the Jewish population.

    Thumb up +1

     
  17. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    Also, the atheists and non-religious I know don’t care where the right gets their moral compass from, they are just glad we have one.

    Thumb up +2

     
  18. Wyatt, Insensitive Progressive Jerk

    December 11th, 2012

    In the middle ages, the Catholic Church forbid lay people to read, or even possess a Bible. Although most people couldn’t have read the Bible anyway, the thinking was that if the Church controlled the interpretation of the Bible, then the Church controlled Christianity.

    Much of the protestant reformation was centered around removing Biblical interpretation from the clergy only, and making the Bible available to the masses. While this is generally good, it has lead to numerous virulent, and frequently violent disputes over the teachings of Jesus.

    My point is that in the realm of secular politics, what does Jesus really stand for, and how does one follow Jesus? Even in the Christian community, various sects have differing interpretations on what this means and how to best do this.

    By all means keep God in politics – I would argue that politics without God is actually dangerous. However, at a minimum there is too much confusion about what a “Christian” party is, or exactly what they stand for. As a protestant, I don’t identify with Catholics, and disagree with certain aspects of other protestant denominations. But we all believe in God.

    Thumb up +4

     
  19. Tragic Redemption (formerly muddjuice)

    December 11th, 2012

    I am a Christian first and a conservative second. In fact, my conservatism comes out of the fact that I’m Christian, not the other way around.

    Politically speaking, I don’t care what someone believes as long as they don’t murder, cheat, steal, etc.

    Just like my neighbor. I don’t care, politically, if they are dem or repub as long as they do the right thing. I don’t care if they’re Christian or Hindu as long as they don’t murder, cheat or steal from me or others.

    Spiritually, I DO care deeply that people find Jesus and accept the truth. I pray that everyone accepts the truth before they face judement after death. But I would never force someone to accept it. It has to come from a truly contrite, receptive heart.

    So, in short, I agree with Jefferson, I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t harm me or others (harm my person, property or liberty)…..

    Thumb up +4

     
  20. Stranded in Sonoma

    December 11th, 2012

    The democrats say they believe in God. Of course, being good democrats, they had to vote on it. And now you know why math is hard for democrats; they think a 50-50 voice vote is actually two-thirds.

    I agree with BFH. God is God and there are non-believers that are conservative and understand the 1st Amendment. So they are not against you believing in God, just so that the party platform reflects it as a personal decision and “God” does not become national policy.

    In the video above, the democrats had a nasty time in adding God back into their party platform. We need to show everyone that God has always been a part of our platform and will remain so. We need to understand that God ≠ the Judeo-Christian God. Watching the video, you see an Arab-American women voting no. Because the term “God” in this country is believed to be the Christian God. If you support the 1st Amendment, that belief is not so.

    And that’s what we need to make clear, not just to the non-Christian religious, but to the Christian religious and the non-religious conservatives as well.

    Thumb up +1

     
  21. Florida Girl

    December 11th, 2012

    “In the middle ages, the Catholic Church forbid lay people to read, or even possess a Bible. Although most people couldn’t have read the Bible anyway, the thinking was that if the Church controlled the interpretation of the Bible, then the Church controlled Christianity”

    The Catholic Church did not “forbid” lay ppl from having a bible. The fact is that it was hard to make them(there wasnt paper and Barnes and Nobles didnt exist back them ) and took the monks years to transcribe them by hand, that most people wouldnt have been able to afford it(and yes the ppl couldnt read)

    The Church didnt want to “control ” the interpretation of the bible , it compiled created and preserved the bible for over 1000 years( You’d think they knew what it meant being they put it together with a perpose in mind,ALL 73 BOOKS!) Then came the an Xpriest with an ax to grind. The rest is history

    THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, so they told the pple about its meaning. Without the catholic church you wouldnt have a bible

    SO save the Catholic bashing , Im NOT havin it.

    Thumb up +2

     
  22. Chief

    December 11th, 2012

    Looks like they discovered the genetic link for what causes homosexuality this week, so gay marriage will become a dwindling issue as time goes by, as a vaccine or a gene therapy can’t be far behind, correct? Or at least, disability benefits?

    If nothing else, we should probably give it (DOMA, etc.) a rest if it’s really an inherited disability…not like it’s a choice at that point for the afflicted, right? Plus, it makes us look like intolerant bullies, which is what they’re inclined to believe anyhow.

    I think we’re on much firmer footing with Liberty and Free Markets and upward mobility/the American Dream. Classic American Freedom & Opportunity, baby.

    As I say every time I wade in on this, get them in the tent first and perhaps they will be better positioned then to explore what else we believe in. But nothing happens if the party keeps withering.

    And tut-tutting people’s life choices (as shitty as we may find them) is resulting in too many painful electoral ass-kickings.

    Thumb up +1

     
  23. Chief

    December 11th, 2012

    I’m with Florida Girl on this one, Brother Wyatt. The Catholics were the water-carriers for 1,500 years after the Crucifixion/Resurrection…did things eventually go less than perfectly?

    Well, Catholics are humans, so yes, of course they did.

    But there wouldn’t be a Martin Luther or a John Calvin or any of the others if it wasn’t for the long and much despised Catholics. It’s us that you guys are “Protesting” with your Protestantism.

    But at some level it’s like being pissed at your parents.

    Thumb up +1

     
  24. super toe

    December 11th, 2012

    I am to the point where I feel this isn’t worth arguing or debating.
    Moral corruption is in both parties as far as I am concerned and I don’t see where you can win over people with social conservatism, whether they are religious affiliated or not, because we are a nation of immoral degenerates.
    When a country or people that was founded upon Judeo/Christian beliefs ( and yes IT WAS), has to question whether those beliefs are a thorn in it’s side, then it doesn’t deserve to exist.

    Thumb up +5

     
  25. Whom

    December 11th, 2012

    Personally I think people turned out in droves for ABO. I think the vote was really cooked, something we just don’t want to accept.

    I’ve never seen election results slip out before the election like they did on several occasions here. Oopsie. No surprise that when they did they always favored Dear Leader. Apparently nobody is very concerned about that, especially those in our vaunted “press” “corpse”. Maybe corpse IS the right term here..

    Afraid I agree with Ann B- we’re far more sunk already than most are willing to accept yet.

    Thumb up +3

     
  26. Tragic Redemption (formerly muddjuice)

    December 11th, 2012

    Well said @ super toe.

    I’m not interested in convincing criminals and moral degenerates to vote for me.

    At some point, bad company corrupts good character.

    What does darkness and light have in common? How do you convince someone who thinks that it’s okay to murder children that they should vote for you when you’re pro-life?

    There’s no common ground there…..

    Thumb up +4

     
  27. Wyatt, Insensitive Progressive Jerk

    December 11th, 2012

    @Chief and Florida Girl: I’m not bashing the Catholic Church. It was, for centuries, the universal church (hence, the name “Catholic”), and, as is not uncommon with any long term organization, had it share of scoundrels (See e.g. Alexander VI) as well as saints (See e.g. Bernard of Clairvaux), and many in between.

    However, it is a fact that for a long period of time, the Church opposed translation of the Bible into any language but Latin, and opposed the general distribution of the Bible. Until the printing press became popular, this was not difficult to do, and combined with the fact that a significant percentage of people were illiterate, the Bible as a whole was not available to the vast majority of people except as preached from the pulpit. Furthermore, and probably consistent with the times, the Church was frequently very political, and went to great lengths, including executions and purges, to stamp out heresy – especially when that the heresy was a threat to the established order. (See e.g. Cathars). Keep in mind also that particularly up to the time of the Reformation, the ranks of the higher clergy were drawn from the ranks of the nobility, and many of these folks wanted to maintain their power and station in life.

    Are Protestants any better? No, they have also had their share of saints and scoundrels, and various denominations have different beliefs on what it means to be a Christian and how to follow Jesus. Moreover, virtually all denominations have traditions that they follow which may or may not be purely Bible based, but which are accepted as part of their religion.

    This is a political blog, and it was not my intent to bash Catholics or any other religious denomination, or discuss distinctions in religious dogma, which I am not qualified to do in any event. However, I do enjoy studying history, and frequently the Catholic Church is a point of discussion because it has been around for centuries, and for much of that time, and particularly in Western Europe, was about the only game in town. However, on balance, and probably by a long shot, the Catholic Church has been a positive influence on Western culture.

    The point I was trying to make was that in the political arena, one can define a “Christian” as a follower of Christ, but what that entails, exactly, has been the subject of sometimes long and acrimonious dispute – in point of fact these disputes led to Protestantism. Particularly in a nation which prohibits the establishment of a theocracy (see First Amendment), trying to tailor a political party that is “Christian” seems virtually impossible.

    And, to complete the point, I am not advocating removing God from any political party, and I do want our political leaders to have religious backgrounds and beliefs. The only other alternative, as I see it, is a belief in human beings as rational, wise and altruistic – and even I’m not that gullible.

    Thumb up +2