At the polls: Leizer Teitelbaum reads while waiting to vote Nov. 4 in the Crown Heights section of New York. Many Hasidic Jews live in the area. (Kathy Willens/AP)
Obama made inroads with religious vote
The Democrat prevailed with Roman Catholic and Jewish voters. He even picked up support among Evangelicals.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer/ November 6, 2008 edition
Reporter Alexandra Marks talks with CSMonitor.com's Pat Murphy about how various religious groups voted in Tuesday's presidential election.
New York
This year it appears the Democrats got religion, at least in terms of the vote.
In becoming the president-elect, Barack Obama made gains among religious voters of almost every type compared with recent Democratic presidential candidates. He handily won the Catholic and Jewish votes, and even picked up support among Protestants and some Evangelicals, long a pillar of Republican ballot-box strength.
Republican John McCain did win more support than President-elect Obama among people who attend worship services at least once a week. He also won almost three-quarters of white Evangelicals – a margin smaller than President Bush’s in 2004. In the end, it wasn’t enough to overcome voters’ dissatisfaction with the past eight years of Republican rule.
Some theologians suggest that the religious shift signals the emergence of a faith-based coalition that will counterbalance or, perhaps, replace the religious right. It’s made up of mainline religious progressives, black and Hispanic Evangelicals, and a growing number of younger, white Evangelicals and Catholics.
A “whole new faith coalition is coming together and reaching out to allies in other faith traditions, both Jewish and Muslim,” says Jim Wallis, a theologian on religion and public life. “The generational shift [among Evangelicals and Catholics] is very significant. Many young Christians cast a post-religious-right ballot.”
During the campaign, both presidential camps made a point of reaching out to the opponent’s core religious constituencies. Obama’s campaign spearheaded a grass-roots drive to bring in young Evangelicals and Catholics. The McCain campaign relied more on surrogates like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut to try to bring Jewish voters into the GOP.
Their success varied. The McCain campaign had hoped to exploit Jewish voters’ initial unease with Obama, raising questions about the depth of his support for Israel and his willingness to negotiate with its enemies, such as Iran. It ran television ads in Florida and other places with large Jewish populations that quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Ahmadinejad says Israel won’t survive…. Obama says he would meet with him personally.”
Senator Lieberman, a leading political Jewish voice and a former Democratic vice presidential nominee, was frequently with Senator McCain on the stump. When he wasn’t, he was often in Florida working on behalf of his GOP Senate colleague.
Some Republicans also sought to exploit fears that Obama was secretly a Muslim or had close associations with anti-Semitic black leaders such as Louis Farrakhan.
That did not sit well with some Jews, who organized rabbis and others to counter such attacks on Obama.
Then there was Sarah Silverman to contend with. The young Jewish comedienne became the spokeswoman for the so-called Great Schlep. It signed up more than 25,000 young Jewish voters and urged them to go to Florida to get their grandparents to support Obama.
In a video that went viral on Youtube.com, she urged people to threaten not to visit their grandparents in Florida for a year if they vote for McCain.
“If they vote for Barack Obama, they’re going to get another visit this year,” she says. “If not, let’s just hope they stay healthy until next year.”
Obama managed to solidify Jewish support: 78 percent supported him over McCain, according to an analysis of election polls by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In 2004, 74 percent of Jewish voters backed Democrat John Kerry for president.
“Jewish voters finally trusted Barack Obama, but their support of him also showed they care about more than just Israel,” says Mr. Wallis.
The Obama campaign was more successful in making inroads with some of the GOP’s core constituencies. It reached out to Catholic voters who attend mass regularly – a group that went for Mr. Bush by 12 percentage points in 2004. This year, Obama and McCain split that vote. Among Catholics who attend mass less often, Obama won overwhelmingly.
“In 2004, Bush split with Kerry those Catholics who attended less often, but Obama won that group by 18 percentage points. That is a very significant shift,” says Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Part of the explanation is the significant shift to Obama among Hispanic Catholics.”
Obama also worked to reach out to the Republicans’ white evangelical base, but he had less success there. He did win more support among them than Senator Kerry did in 2004, but only by a few percentage points.
“When we’re looking at white Evangelicals, we’re looking at one of the strongest Republican constituencies in the country – a group that would be very hard to move into the Democratic column under any circumstances,” says John Green, senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum. “From that perspective…, one could argue that this may be some evidence of success.”
Other analysts say Obama did make inroads with younger white evangelicals in key states like Colorado and Indiana, where he boosted his support among Evangelicals by 14 percentage points and 8 percentage points, respectively, over Kerry’s 2004 levels.
Comments
2. david tarbuck | 11.07.08
A lot of hope, not just in USA as several of your articles show.
Let us hope he can live up to it. There is still a large reactionary-right to contend with; that also exists inside and outside America, but here are a few suggestions.
1) The taxe increases on the upper income levels ought to be IMMEDIATE; repeal the Bush cuts and then some. The upper incomers are NOT a’stimulant’ in times of stagnation and when they due stimulate it is not in the direction now needed.
2) Get buzy on ending the war in Iraq! Bring combatants home! Any further involvement only as trainers (NOT advisers) to be requested and paid for at cost by Iraq (which has adequate oil revenues to pay its own way.
3) Caution on Afghanistan! Remember, the best chanch to catch up with bin Laden was in Autumn 2001 when he first was an UNINVITED visitor/immigrant to the then Taleban ruled country. As miserable as they were. are, and probably always will be, in this case they made a legitimate request that unfortunately the US and its friends/allies ignored and thus contributed to the mess of today. That request was for “EVIDENCE” of bin Laden and cohorts involvement in the 9/11 carnage. Ignoring such a request for something resmbling ‘due process’ and the attempt to substitute a “hand him over” vigilantie form of justice caused seven years of further carnages. And it does no good to say the Taleban were not sincere in their request and would never have deported/extrdited him when their request was given little or no chance.
3. Al | 11.07.08
Combining the faithful with the not so faithful is a meaningless category. For example, those who take their faith seriously and consider abortion an evil that cannot be supported did not vote for Senator Obama. It would seem to me that the categories of catholic and evangelicals etc. voting for Obama say more about the state of the people in those categories than about the faith itself.
4. Steven G. Poyzer | 11.08.08
While God will be the final arbiter of these so called religious people, I would suggest that term “cafeteria” Christians or Jews would apply to those of the religious community who could vote for Barack Obama, knowing his stance on the sanctity of life. In my judgement ones faith and belief in God and the Scriptures should override political or economic philosophy. Any candidate who could vote against giving medical treatment or aid to an infant born alive as the result of a botched abortion in my estimation is suffering from a severe separation form God and faith.
5. Duff Plunkett | 11.09.08
Is this article just speculative? What polls or data is the analysis based on? Or do we just take this “on faith”?
6. cris | 11.09.08
America’s strongest supporter of baby killing gets elected president and churches celebrate?
So a little murder is ok? How about we stop calling your place of worship churches and name
them devil’s dens because baby murder is not up for compromise in God’s house.
Shame and hypocrisy from the Sunday hand wavers and the houses of pedophile priests.
In case anyone forgot Abortion is Murder.
7. kitty Reager | 11.10.08
I don’t think I fit any of the groups above. I am a 76 year old Roman Catholic, life-long Democrat, go to church at least once a week and pro-life. Our Bishops almost 100% pointed out that voting for a pro-choice candidate was againest Catholic doctrine and Catholics who do so, would be risking not being able to receive Communion.
I really felt that the continuation of a Republican administration which would continue the war in Iraq, the loss of life of American soldiers and innocent Iraqui women and children was an equal evil compared to abortion and voted for Obama. Plus I felt a more humanitarian Democratic administration might reduce abortions, as it did during the Clinton Administration.
Today I was disappointed to read that President-Elect Obama was thinking of issuing an executive order to allow stem cell research on embryoes. To me that is a slap in the face to Christians who made the difference in his election. Why does that have to be a priority? God knows there are many issues that deserve his attenion more than stem cell research, which is a hot button for many of us. I did not disobey my Church to vote for Obama and then have him make a point out of picking an issue that is hot button one for Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews. I hope he rethinks and rearranges his priorities. A disappointed voter.
8. pencil | 12.14.08
This not one single issue thing . .. . . what is that? This is an argument I have heard more than once and its . . .weird. Are these evangelicals saying they had more in common with Obama?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Joe | 11.07.08
As one of those evangelicals, I feel that I should comment. I voted Obama because abortion isn’t the only issue. I still don’t support abortion and I’m leery of Obama’s position, though his compromise is at least a step in the right direction.
Even so, abortion wasn’t the only issue on my mind. How can I ignore the poor? Or the terrible state of health care? Or the war we were deceived into by Bush & co., with McCain as one of the first to (falsely) link Iraq & Afghanistan, even saying that we would be “welcomed as liberators”? And what of torture? Or the environment? Those are all moral issues, too! And Jesus was a lot more concerned about the poor than he was about looking bad for “palling around” with sinners & tax collectors (the ancient version of Ayers & Democrats).
Now, I’d prefer not to kill anyone at all, but if I must, I will certainly save many rather than few. The Republicans cannot expect to hold a lock on my vote with just one moral issue while violating so many others. That’s why I voted for Obama even though I’m a registered Republican and always have been.