Comments

Perhaps, some rigidity in their belief system made Obama's CHANGE mantra less palatable. Obama defined his brand so well that he attracted voters he wasn't supposed to, but is it possible it pushed mainliners away as well? Mainliners might not be up in arms like evangelicals, but they have their own conservative tendencies.

Maybe it was prayer and God's Spirit moving His people?

I am not sure 5% is a flood. Looks like non-evangelical white protestants just vote like they always have. I would guess they are generally older and fairly set in their ways. Saw this when I moved to Texas - they always voted this party and always will. They didn't care who the candidate was or what the policy statements were.

Maybe it was the sudden realization that Obama was not and never has been anti-abortion and therefore is not a true Christian. I say this because in the last few days before the election, there was suddenly a burst of people on the internet bringing up this fact. I wonder why his minister??who was making inflammatory anti-white and anti-American statements for years not arrested for racism and put to death under the new anti-racist law. Whites who have just make one statement have been sent to jail. There were a couple instances where whites made remarks right before the election and the news and government officials made such a big deal of them and the arguements on the internet were heavy. How did Obama's minister get away for years being so violently racist not to mention anti-American. I thought our laws were supposed to be applied equally, or, maybe in the minister's case it was freedom of speech. These incidents was also all over the internet right before the election. And, on the other hand neither negatives might have had anything to do with the evangelical vote. Who really knows except them. Maybe some of them could tell us for sure.

I think evangelicals turned to Obama for moral reasons... namely his more Biblical approach to the economy and respecting others. Those denominations that are made up largely of more affluent people voted Republican because that party is the rich man's party, no matter how much they try to sell themselves as the protectors of moral and family values. Go watch or read A CHRISTMAS CAROL by Charles Dickens. Pre-repentant Scrooge would have been a Republican, repentant Scrooge would be a Democrat. Republicans watching that movie, if they were honest about their opinion, would say that the repentant Scrooge is a "socialist" for raising
Cratchitt's pay and "spreading the wealth," because that is what they believe every day, and think a little Christmas charity is going to balance everything out.

We can save the unborn, and let all the Tiny Tims die, or we can vote for the party that will do more for LIFE in general, and continue to fight for the rights of the unborn in the context of a party that is not totally unconcerned about the needs of the general population overall.

"Republicans...if they were honest...would say that ...Scrooge is a "socialist" for raising Cratchitt's pay and "spreading the wealth"..."

WOULD PEOPLE LIKE THIS PLEASE READ A DICTIONARY AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SOCIALISM IS????

No, Republicans would NOT call Scrooge a socialist. Scrooge used HIS OWN MONEY, out of HIS OWN POCKET.

Now, if Scrooge had been Mayor of London, and raised a levy on all the greedy, rich, people who made more than x pounds per year, and then gave some of the proceeds of the TAX to Cratchitt's family, THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM.

It's not that difficult of a concept. Come on.