Jump to content

Democrats' Religion Problem


JDaveG
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/democrats-have-a-religion-problem/510761/?utm_source=fbb

The money shot:

"(T)here’s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. It’s tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers. This is very different from, like, James Carville in Louisiana in the ’80s. James Carville is not the most religious guy, but he gets religious people—if you didn’t get religious people running Democratic campaigns in the South in the ’80s, you wouldn’t win.

* * *

(T)here’s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. It’s tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers. This is very different from, like, James Carville in Louisiana in the ’80s. James Carville is not the most religious guy, but he gets religious people—if you didn’t get religious people running Democratic campaigns in the South in the ’80s, you wouldn’t win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great quote:

"A lot of pro-life Democrats were formerly saying, 'My presence here doesn’t mean I agree with everything—I’m going to be an internal force that acts as a constraint or a voice of opposition on abortion.' Those people have mostly left the party.

Third, I think Democrats felt like their outreach wouldn’t be rewarded. For example: The president went to Notre Dame in May of 2009 and gave a speechabout reducing the number of women seeking abortions. It was literally met by protests from the pro-life community. Now, there are reasons for this—I don’t mean to say that Obama gave a great speech and the pro-life community should have [acknowledged that]. But I think there was an expectation by Obama and the White House team that there would be more eagerness to find common ground."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to how it likely impacted this election:

"America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

As to how it likely impacted this election:

"America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives."

White evangelicals are a lost cause... politically speaking. The lack of outreach to Catholics is an issue though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats bash Christians for their religious beliefs but hold Muslims in a politically correct light and ignore their atrocities. Liberals are anti white and anti Christian but try not be forthcoming about it, imo. They've been pushing the minority victim propaganda for 8 years now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

White evangelicals are a lost cause... politically speaking. The lack of outreach to Catholics is an issue though.

Probably correct, but I think it's still worth some effort. At the very least, you can't go out of your way to piss them off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Probably correct, but I think it's still worth some effort. At the very least, you can't go out of your way to piss them off. 

Frankly speaking, most evangelicals have an issue of blurring the line between religion and social conservative politics while also looking for reasons to be offended by the left. The only way to get around this is to bend to everything they want which will not happen. So, they are a lost cause not even worth attempting to court.

As for Catholics it's about half and half (at least in my experience) between the ones that follow a similar mindset, what I like to call Santorum Catholics, while the other half prefers the promote social justice teachings of the Church, what I like to call Biden Catholics. Democrats are definitely able to court the latter. That also applies to other sects and religious people who have a similar political approach since there is certainly common ground there.

They may have the irreligious vote in their back pocket, at least until the GOP stops being the party of God (whenever that will be), and that is a rapidly growing segment of the population, but they still need active outreach to religious groups where common ground exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MAD597 said:

Trump certainly proved the the religious right aren't very concerned with actual religious issues as Trump is probably the least evangalisitc candidate to ever run.

Trump proves that people care more about the economy and jobs than identity politics- Religion, LGBTQIAPK, SJW's...

His message resonated across every demographic, except hollywood celebrities.

Edited by Doozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

If Trump were worried about the popular vote he would've campaigned harder in California and NY, but he knew you win the election with the EC.  Reason why he spent so much time late in the campaign in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  I guess we're all lucky the smarter candidate won...we still have hope now

If he were worried about the popular vote he wouldn't be saying the the number of votes he lost it by were all illegal.

Oh, wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2016 at 6:56 PM, Serge said:

Given who just got elected president, it might be safe to say that for the time being, evangelicals are a better bet to vote for who adopts their preferred social and economic positions rather than who appears to get them spiritually. 

Actually I think Trump gets them more than most Republicans have since Reagan. Trump figured out that Gay marriage was just a contrived Neocon issue but allowing grown men in the women's room is a bridge too far. He also realized we would prefer to build the country up as opposed to tear others down. You lost not because of a radical right that wants reasonable immigration and does not want to import our enemies. You lost because under a Soros purchased party you have surrendered your party to the most radical elements. You did not lose to a radical right. You lost because of the radical left. It is why your party was uninspired and since the election you continue to drive the more moderate elements of your party away.

Edited by Sobeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Actually I think Trump gets them more than most Republicans have since Reagan. Trump figured out that Gay marriage was just a contrived Neocon issue but allowing grown men in the women's room is a bridge too far. He also realized we would prefer to build the country up as opposed to tear others down. You lost not because of a radical right that wants reasonable immigration and does not want to import our enemies. You lost because under a Soros purchased party you have surrendered your party to the most radical elements. You did not lose to a radical right. You lost because of the radical left. It is why your party was uninspired and since the election you continue to drive the more moderate elements of your party away.

"You lost because your most convenient narrative was invalidated and ours wasn't" isn't a particularly useful place to start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Serge said:

"You lost because your most convenient narrative was invalidated and ours wasn't" isn't a particularly useful place to start. 

It is the truth though. It is a fact. There are only a couple of areas you won and it is the most far left areas in the country. Where they are bathed in the propaganda from cradle to the grave. You even lost states that have been blue since Reagan. Some of those people are Christians and Catholics and they either broke for Trump, stayed home or went 3rd party.

Edited by Sobeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

It is the truth though. It is a fact. There are only a couple of areas you won and it is the most far left areas in the country. Where they are bathed in the propaganda from cradle to the grave. You even lost states that have been blue since Reagan.

See, I'm not really sure how to proceed because it would come off as so condescending if I actually explained how this uses the election to forward an expansive narrative for the attitude of the nation collectively, yet it would also come off as condescending if I acted like you already knew all that and just came here to get a fix like all the other times you tried to start an argument with someone in the middle of the night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2016 at 4:26 PM, Serge said:

You'd think Hillary only managed 30% of the popular vote given all the groups the Democrats ignored, antagonized or flat-out betrayed. 

doesn't matter if she did or didn't

a lot of you are making this far too complicated. It has been shown over and over that the average American knows nothing of a presidential candidate's past voting record or positions/associations and barely has any idea of what their candidate stands for. When voting day comes, all that matters is that R or D....it's become a Pavlovian response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 31, 2016 at 10:39 AM, MAD597 said:

Trump certainly proved the the religious right aren't very concerned with actual religious issues as Trump is probably the least evangalisitc candidate to ever run.

If your takeaway from an interview with the former director of faith outreach for President Obama detailing problems Democrats have with religion and religious issues is to 1) smear Trump, and 2) blame the evangelical voters, then I think you're not learning any lessons from what just happened.

That's just my takeaway.  For the record, I know a whole lot of religious people of all stripes, and so I get a pretty broad cross-section of views.  It isn't just the evangelicals who were concerned by Obama Administration policies and Democratic rhetoric.  This is a real thing.  You don't have to like it, but if your party doesn't do something about it (and I hope they do), it won't go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

doesn't matter if she did or didn't

a lot of you are making this far too complicated. It has been shown over and over that the average American knows nothing of a presidential candidate's past voting record or positions/associations and barely has any idea of what their candidate stands for. When voting day comes, all that matters is that R or D....it's become a Pavlovian response

It matters if we're ever going to become a nation that concerns itself with the world as it is rather than the world that exists only as we perceive it. We already know the system is ******, it was always ******, in order to build something we have to at least be able to live in something resembling a reality we all share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Serge said:

See, I'm not really sure how to proceed because it would come off as so condescending if I actually explained how this uses the election to forward an expansive narrative for the attitude of the nation collectively, yet it would also come off as condescending if I acted like you already knew all that and just came here to get a fix like all the other times you tried to start an argument with someone in the middle of the night. 

It is not my job not to offend you. I do not have the handbook and would not take the time to read it if I did. That is the beauty of free speech. If you want a serious discussion great if you want me to be pretentious in order not to offend you then talk to someone else. Their your feelings, deal with them.

Edited by Sobeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...