Evangelical Voters and the 2008 Election

@ParaTed2k (21915)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
November 2, 2007 2:09pm CST
Recently there was a big meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. The members of over 50 Pro Family organizations met to discuss the Evangelical vote in 2008. The question at hand, could the Evangelical Pro Life voters back a republican or demacrat candidate who doesn't respect the sanctity of human life and family values. It was decided unanimously that they would not vote for a third party candidate. The problem then became, what third party candidate could they back in good conscience? I notice something pretty telling about the leaders at this meeting. While they all agreed to vote for someone other than a Republican or Democrat if no candidate shared their family values, not one of the movers and shakers at the meeting was willing to stand up and announce his or her intent to run. If the single issue voters want someone who they can rally around, why are they waiting for someone else to agree to their single issue? Why aren't any of their leaders running?
5 people like this
6 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
3 Nov 07
The single issue vote is a none starter, mainly because the country has many issues. The only thing that a person or group can do, is find the one candidate who is the closest match in the most important issues. If family values is important, then that candidate would have to support traditional family values, and also share the a big portion of the same goals as the people who support them. If people are voting on a single issue instead of groups of issues, then this next election is going to be very interesting indeed. As to why single issue voters are waiting on the perfect candidate for their chosen agenda, that is a good question.
1 person likes this
@lecanis (16664)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
2 Nov 07
You know, that's an excellent point. Why doesn't one of them run if they're so determined to have someone who shares this particular view? That just makes no sense to me. Perhaps they know they wouldn't really have a chance, or they don't even really trust any of their own, or perhaps... none of them are quite as dedicated as they claim to be to their "cause".
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Nov 07
Let's face it, no one wants to run for office.You need so much money to run and you have to be a saint run these days.Everyone has something in their past and the way the press is these days, it would come out.It must be hard when you are pro life and everyone is pro choice. I know if there were no one were pro choice, no one would get my vote.
@ParaTed2k (21915)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Nov 07
But everyone isn't "po choice", in fact, that issue is as close to down the middle as it gets. I'm just saying that, if this group of single issue voters can't get themselves to vote for the candidate who is closest to their views, it seems like even ONE of their leaders should be willing to go for all those votes.
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Nov 07
I guess they aren't that organized.If there is only one issue that is a deal breaker, they should find or make a candidate that they can vote for.
@RosieS57 (889)
• United States
5 Nov 07
Money is indeed the issue. There's much more money to be made from the pulpit than from the White House. Most of the prominent guys don't want to take a cut in pay in the event they actually WOULD win. As an illustration: what did Georgie Bush say when he was asked what he wants to do upon leaving the White House? Go to Disney World, perhaps? Noooooooo. He says he wants to hit the lecture circuit so he can make a hundred thousand dollars per speech just like his Daddy and Billy C. do!
@ParaTed2k (21915)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
6 Nov 07
Not all the leaders at that meeting were prominent Evangelists. In fact most of the leaders aren't preachers at all. My point is, they have decided that they can't back any of the people running right now, so it only stands to reason that they should put up one of their own.
@villageanne (8554)
• United States
5 Nov 07
I think that the people who would make a difference when it comes to an elected official, cannot afford to run. The people who have the best values and care about others are usually middle class incomes. I do wish money was not an issue when it comes to running for a office but it is.
@ParaTed2k (21915)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Nov 07
Sorry Villageanne, but I don't buy into class warfare arguments. Money and income have nothing to do with values or concern for others.
@JaLuvYa (175)
• United States
5 Nov 07
It's funny because I'm a Christian and a Democrat which many Evangelical voters feel don't go together, like my father. We argued so much about Bush in both elections. I wish they would throw their own candidate in the mix because if they don't we risk them putting another Bush into office which they voted for because he was a Christian and shared their view on their single issue. They do hold alot of voting power and it's a shame to see it go to waste. But I of course, cannot be a single issue voter... there are simply too many issues. But to answer the question... money would be the biggest issue. Then finding someone with a big enough name that's recognizable by more than just the people that they go to church with to be able to even have a chance of winning. Because in a general election, this candidate is going to have to swing votes on both sides of the fence in order to win.