Another reason Clinton lost....

[blutoski]

Honestly I'm not sure if we can treat "Evangelicals" as the boogeyman in this. Religious affiliation is on the downslide in America and I'm not buying that as the population ages and dies off we're seeing more Evangelicals now then we did in, say, the Reagan era. I don't see how they could be a bigger factor in this election then the last one or one before that.

It's the growth in their ability to get out the vote that makes them increasingly important.

Back in the 1970s, Evangelicals were mostly bankrupt and anyways, just learning how to broadcast to mass media, and they were anxious about endorsing candidates due to the risk of losing their tax status.

By 2016, they own billions of dollars worth of overlapping media networks and have learned that nobody's going to slap their wrists if they overtly endorse candidates. They've become a vote factory, so they need to be mollified.

Having said that, the news stories I've read about this are pretty vague. "evangelicals" "reached out". Who specifically? All of them? What did they expect Hillary to do exactly, such that she let them down? Realistically, if she felt there was zero prospect of gaining their allegiance, spending one second with them would be wasted time and she did the right thing.

 

[paulhutch]

Having said that, the news stories I've read about this are pretty vague. "evangelicals" "reached out". Who specifically? All of them? What did they expect Hillary to do exactly, such that she let them down? Realistically, if she felt there was zero prospect of gaining their allegiance, spending one second with them would be wasted time and she did the right thing.

Here's the beginning from the article linked in the opening post, not at all vague:

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama sat down for an interview during the primary with the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. He spoke about his conversion, his longtime church membership, and his belief in “the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” He said abortion should be less common and that “those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it.” The interview was a valentine to evangelicals, and inside it read: “I’m listening.”

This election cycle, Christianity Today made multiple attempts to request an interview with Hillary Clinton, according to Kate Shellnutt, an editor there. The campaign never responded. Of course, campaigns turn down interview requests all the time. But the Clinton campaign was the only one that didn’t reply at all.

As I've said in other posts at least a polite reply was in order. This is not some fringe publication, it has a readership of over 1/4 million evangelicals most of whom are influential in the congregations to which they belong. So the 1/4 million readers influence many millions more voters. Rudely snubbing them was a mistake that should not have happened.

 

[Mycroft]

It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious

She should have reached out to them.

If you want to be the democratically elected leader of a nation, you should understand that nation is comprised of many different peoples and even though you may have differences with them, there are also issues where you have common ground.

Would evangelicals ever vote for a politician who supports the right to an abortion?

Some would. They're not all single issue voters.

 

[Mycroft]

Why, because I classify a group as bigots because of their actions ?

IMO they're free to believe whatever they like - however misguided I think it is - but when they see it as their duty to convert others, that's when they cross the line into bigotry.

If I try to convince someone else of my political beliefs, would that make me bigoted in the same way? If not, what is the essential difference?

I personally think evangelical Christians are rude and annoying, but bigoted for being intolerant of other beliefs? From their point of view you would be "bigoted" for refusing to consider their point of view.

 

[The Don]

If I try to convince someone else of my political beliefs, would that make me bigoted in the same way? If not, what is the essential difference?

It depends on whether you are tolerant of other political views. If you are tolerant then you're not a political bigot, if you aren't tolerant, then you are a political bigot. There are political bigots of all flavours on this board.

I personally think evangelical Christians are rude and annoying, but bigoted for being intolerant of other beliefs? From their point of view you would be "bigoted" for refusing to consider their point of view.

I'm tolerant of their view, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Unlike evangelicals, I don't hold with people of any faith (or lack thereof) attempting to proselytise aggressively and certainly not as a core tenet of their religion. I'm an atheist and am happy to discuss my atheism with people of whatever faith. I've never attempted to convert any to atheism (unlike many of those people of faith who have attempted to convert me) nor would I initiate a conversation about my religious beliefs.

 

[The Don]

She should have reached out to them.

If you want to be the democratically elected leader of a nation, you should understand that nation is comprised of many different peoples and even though you may have differences with them, there are also issues where you have common ground.

I'm sure Hillary understands and understood that. I have no idea why she decided not to reach out to white evangelical Christians but if I were in her shoes I'd think very carefully about how that might look to other groups and whether in attempting to reach out to white evangelicals she would explicitly or implicitly be sending a message to other groups that may as a result no longer support her.

My bigger concern is that this seems to be to be an attempt by the evangelical movement to infiltrate a second party (having taken over the GOP). I don't think that's good for democracy.

 

[Tero]

The Nasty Woman is an abortionist. Trump will appoint a judge to strip or repeal Roe vs Wade. Case closed.

 

[jakesteele]

It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots(liberal bigotry) to get elected (rolls eyes-sadly shakes head back and forth)

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious

Clinton is an ugly pander bear. She would sniff dog butt to get elected.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Nasty Woman is an abortionist. Trump will appoint a judge to strip or repeal Roe vs Wade. Case closed.

Wait....seriously?

The next judge to be appointed will take the place of Antonin Scalia. You do get that don't you? On abortion, the court will go back to what it was last year. That's the same court that gave you gay marriage, and no one even bothered trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So, perhaps over the course of the next four years one of the liberals, presumably Ginsburg or Bryar, will resign or die, and Trump might have some chance to shift the ideology of the court, but unless that happens Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere.

 

[Upchurch]

The Nasty Woman is an abortionist. Trump will appoint a judge to strip or repeal Roe vs Wade. Case closed.

It'll never happen. Republicans have mistresses.

Plus, without Roe v. Wade, they have nothing to rally the Religious Right.

 

[LSSBB]

The Nasty Woman is an abortionist. Trump will appoint a judge to strip or repeal Roe vs Wade. Case closed.

Homework assignment: When does life begin? Please use scientific principles. Religious text quotations are also acceptable since it is a matter of personal belief after all - although please note in a nod to the Constitution to include all religious beliefs found among U.S. citizenry.

 

[KwamiFabu]

Bubba actually did pretty well with evangelicals. At least he didn't take them for granted, or ignore them entirely under the assumption he didn't need them.

Just file under Worst Presidential Campaign Ever.

 

[jakesteele]

It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Sounds like the Democrats right now as you speak.

 

[logger]

She should have reached out to them.

If you want to be the democratically elected leader of a nation, you should understand that nation is comprised of many different peoples and even though you may have differences with them, there are also issues where you have common ground.

If folks just think about the things she and other leading dems say about these people, it's not too hard to understand where her thinking is or to see her contempt for them.

 

[logger]

It'll never happen. Republicans have mistresses.

Plus, without Roe v. Wade, they have nothing to rally the Religious Right.

Its a very good chance it will happen, its bad law and the thinking will be that its good law to send it back to the states where it belongs.

 

[The Don]

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Sounds like the Democrats right now as you speak.

Some Democratic Party members are no doubt political bigots and some will be bigots of other kinds.

That said studies have shown that conservatives are less empathetic than is the norm so it's also more likely that conservatives are bigoted than the population at large - make of that as you will.

 

[Upchurch]

Its a very good chance it will happen, its bad law and the thinking will be that its good law to send it back to the states where it belongs.

I don't know why you quoted my post. Your post in no way related to what I wrote.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't know why you quoted my post. Your post in no way related to what I wrote.

He's saying that they've bought their own dog-food.

They think their mistresses will still be able to access the service. They're proper rich people after all, the ruler not the subject.

 

[Upchurch]

He's saying that they've bought their own dog-food.

They think their mistresses will still be able to access the service. They're proper rich people after all, the ruler not the subject.

That'd be a neat trick. I have no idea how they would pull that off.

But imagine a world where abortion was illegal. What pulls the religious right to the Republicans without abortion?

 

[The Don]

That'd be a neat trick. I have no idea how they would pull that off.

But imagine a world where abortion was illegal. What pulls the religious right to the Republicans without abortion?

A natural conservatism of outlook ?

Even with abortion issue off the table then the Republican Party's attitude to equality especially as it pertains to allowing Christians to discriminate against, say, gay people on religious grounds is attractive. Indeed the GOP's stance, resisting the forces of liberalism (or at least paying lip service towards it) aligns nicely with the religious right who at the minimum want no more progress and ideally would like a return to an idealised version of the 1950s.