Tag: Religious Right

I expected former four-term Governor Terry Branstad to drive all of the lesser-known Republicans out of the governor’s race. To my surprise, State Representative Rod Roberts has not followed the lead of Paul McKinley, Christian Fong, Jerry Behn and Chris Rants. Roberts has insisted that he is staying in the governor’s race all the way to the June primary, and another Republican has already filed in the Iowa House district Roberts has represented for five terms.

Join me after the jump for closer look at Roberts and his campaign strategy. I doubt he has any chance of winning the primary, but he is becoming a politically correct alternative to the more conservative Bob Vander Plaats for Republicans who aren’t wild about a fifth term for Branstad.

Rod Roberts faces long odds in the primary, having much lower name recognition than Branstad or Vander Plaats, less cash on hand for his campaign, no paid campaign staff and not much support from the GOP activist base. He started running radio ads in January to boost his name recognition. You can listen to the ads on his campaign website, but I decided to transcribe them as well. In this ad, Roberts reads the entire script himself:

This is State Representative Rod Roberts, Republican for governor. I’m running for governor because I think our state needs new leadership. State government is spending taxpayer dollars at record highs. Next year’s budget gap could run over one billion dollars, and over 100,000 Iowans are out of work. The Roberts for Governor campaign is about using common-sense conservative values to solve these problems. As a five-term state representative, I have real experience being both a fiscal and a social conservative. As governor, I promise to restore fiscal discipline and to stop out-of-control state spending, and I will continue to be a strong advocate for policies that are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. The Roberts for Governor campaign is about building a better Iowa. It’s time for new leadership, a fresh face, and a new direction for the state of Iowa. Visit www.robertsforgov.com to find out more about me, Rod Roberts, Republican candidate for governor. Paid for by Rod Roberts for governor.

The second ad features male and female voice-overs:

Man: Iowa needs leadership from their next governor. Over 100,000 Iowans are currently out of work. State spending is at a record high, and the state could face future budget deficits of one billion dollars or more. Who can Iowans trust as their next governor?

Woman: Rod Roberts, the conservative Republican choice for governor. Rod Roberts is a state representative. He has a record of being both a fiscal and a social conservative. Rod Roberts has fought for lower taxes, less spending and he has led efforts to give Iowans the right to vote on the definition of marriage.

Man: Rod Roberts will use common-sense conservative values to build a better Iowa. He doesn’t just talk the conservative talk, he walks the conservative walk. As governor, Roberts will work for everyday Iowans by creating new jobs and fighting for traditional family values.

Woman: Visit www.robertsforgov.com It’s  time for new leadership, a fresh face, and a new direction for the state of Iowa. Rod Roberts, Republican for governor.

Man: Paid for by Rod Roberts for Governor Committee

This generic Republican message is designed to help Roberts position himself as a unifying figure for the Iowa GOP, where social conservatives have clashed with establishment figures in recent years. Last May, Carroll-based journalist Douglas Burns depicted Roberts as a strong candidate for governor because he could appeal to both Republican camps. Even with Branstad in the race, some analysts see Roberts as the candidate with more potential to unite the party.

Republican moderates as well as some conservatives in the business community don’t care for Vander Plaats. Key donors recruited Branstad back into politics in part because Vander Plaats was the heavy favorite for the nomination among the declared candidates last summer.

Meanwhile, many social conservatives do not trust Branstad, partly because of his record as governor, partly because he is not emphasizing social issues on the campaign trail, and partly because his backers include Doug Gross, a longtime nemesis of the religious right wing. Some Republicans view Gross as “baggage” for Branstad.

Roberts doesn’t have much baggage and seems to have made no enemies during ten years in the Iowa House. In keeping with his nice guy reputation, he is mostly spreading a positive message at his campaign stops. He talks about creating a friendly business climate and advocates eliminating the state corporate income tax. He talks about the need to reduce spending and supports a constitutional amendment to “limit state spending to 99 percent of projected revenue.” Like most Republicans, he supports “the traditional definition of marriage” and promises to give Iowans the right to vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. He has pointed out his ability to win votes from independents and conservative Democrats in the Carroll area.

During this year’s legislative session, Roberts has introduced a bill to abolish the state corporate income tax as well as a bill that would increase the number of Iowa Supreme Court justices and require them to represent different regions in Iowa.

It’s fine for candidates to be positive, and I’ve never heard a Republican say anything bad about Roberts, but I don’t see how he breaks through in the primary campaign without making a more direct case against Branstad and Vander Plaats. It’s not enough to be a fresh face; Roberts has to explain why he would be a better governor and/or better general election candidate than the better-known candidates. So far he has criticized some of Branstad’s decisions as governor, but that hasn’t been a focus of his campaign speeches or press releases. The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich suggests the “nice-guy candidate” with a “vanilla ice cream” demeanor could “appeal especially to older Iowans, who in recent polls have been the least supportive of Branstad but still tend to be the most reliable voters.” For that to happen, Roberts would need to draw more contrasts with Branstad. But he’s not an attack-dog type like Chris Rants, and I doubt he will spend his campaign’s limited resources to go negative on Branstad.

To my mind, having Roberts in the race is great for Branstad, the clear favorite in the primary thanks to his campaign cash and establishment connections. The best hope for Vander Plaats would be to unite social conservatives who distrust Branstad. But Roberts is competing for the conservative niche, as this February 22 press release indicates:

The Roberts for Governor Campaign announced today that current State Representative Jason Schultz and former State Representative Dan Boddicker have endorsed Rod Roberts’s campaign for governor. Schultz, who is a seven-year veteran of the Iowa National Guard, is from the western Iowa town of Schleswig and represents Iowa House District 55. Boddicker, who served in the Iowa House from 1993-2005, lives near the eastern Iowa town of Tipton and represented Iowa House District 79.

“Iowa needs new leadership, and I believe that Iowa needs Rod Roberts as its next governor. In my time in the Iowa House, I have found Rod to be a strong advocate for the common-sense, conservative principles that are important to me and my fellow Republicans,” said Schultz, who currently serves on the Economic Growth Committee and the Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee in the Iowa House.

Boddicker echoed Roberts’s conservative credentials.

“Rod is the type of man we can count on to fight for conservative values, and I strongly believe he should be Iowa’s next governor,” said Boddicker. “By supporting limited-government policies, Rod will be a fresh face to take Iowa in a new direction.”

Jason Schultz doesn’t impress me, to put it mildly, but he may have clout with some conservative activists. He co-sponsored a bill this session to “remove sexual orientation and gender identity as definitions used for purposes of protecting students in public and nonpublic schools from harassment and bullying.” Schultz also co-sponsored a bill that would bring back elections for the Iowa Supreme Court justices.

So far in March, five more Iowa House Republicans have endorsed Roberts (see here and here). All of them are from western Iowa, where Vander Plaats probably needs to do very well to win the primary. One of the Roberts backers, Clel Baudler, also serves on the board of the National Rifle Association.

Branstad still has the most state legislator endorsements by far, but I believe Roberts has now surpassed Vander Plaats in that area. As far as I know, three current members of the Iowa House are supporting Vander Plaats for governor.

In addition, Bill Schickel, a former state legislator and Mason City mayor stepped down as secretary of the Iowa GOP in order to back Roberts. Schickel also maintains the the conservative news aggregator The Bean Walker, which attempts to be Iowa’s version of The Drudge Report.

One of Iowa’s leading conservative bloggers, Shane Vander Hart, endorsed Roberts last month:

Rod Roberts is a fiscal, small government, pro-life, and pro-family conservative.  He is the complete package.  I don’t want to have to choose.  He has demonstrated competency.  He understands how state government works, and how it can be better.  He knows what he will do on day one, but also knows how he’ll govern on day 2 and 100.  He is a man of integrity.  He is a servant-leader and has demonstrated not only in the Iowa House, but also in his role with the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in Iowa.  He is a humble man, but confident that he can lead Iowa competently.  He also isn’t overly partisan, and is genuinely likeable.  He has also run a very positive campaign.  I think he’s set up well to be competitive and end up being a surprise in June.

I am proud to know him and consider him a friend.  I hope that my fellow Iowans will join me to support his candidacy.  Let’s help him become better known.  I believe that when Iowans get to know him they’ll like what they see.  I also encourage all conservatives to consider financially supporting the Reagan conservative in this race.

Vander Hart alluded to the fact that Roberts is an ordained minister. He hasn’t been playing up that part of his resume in this campaign, but it can’t hurt him with social conservatives.

Without Roberts in the race, the Republican primary for governor would be a clear choice between the old establishment and the more consistently conservative Vander Plaats. Roberts gives Republicans who are unsure about Branstad another place to go, which may be particularly appealing for those who doubt the wisdom of Vander Plaats’ promise to issue an executive order on day one halting gay marriage. Vander Plaats has been winning straw polls, but he hasn’t picked up many endorsements from within the Republican establishment since Branstad entered the race.

Roberts lacks the money to run a significant statewide paid media campaign, so I would be surprised if he became a force to be reckoned with in the primary. That said, every vote he gets lengthens the odds for Vander Plaats.

I wouldn’t go so far as to claim Roberts is a stalking horse for Branstad, but if he didn’t exist, the Branstad campaign might have reason to invent him. (Some Vander Plaats supporters also see Roberts indirectly hurting their candidate.)

Roberts may end up as Branstad’s running mate. His presence on the ticket might reassure social conservatives who are still upset that Branstad picked moderate Joy Corning to be his lieutenant governor in the 1990s. Other potential lieutenant governor choices for Branstad include the young conservative from Cedar Rapids, Christian Fong, and Des Moines-area insurance company executive Doug Reichardt.

I’ve been assuming for the past few months that there’s no way Bob Vander Plaats can defeat Terry Branstad in this year’s Republican gubernatorial primary. Branstad’s statewide connections from his four terms as governor and his support from major donors should give him an insurmountable edge, especially in the eastern Iowa counties. While Vander Plaats would have a great shot at winning a caucus or a statewide convention, I didn’t see any way he could keep Branstad below 50 percent in the primary, especially with Branstad likely to raise far more money.

I’ve started to rethink my assumptions as conservative Republicans have spoken out against Branstad.

Everyone knew the Iowa Family Policy Center’s political action committee would endorse Vander Plaats at some point, but their statement yesterday went far beyond expressing a preference for Vander Plaats. The IFPC made clear that they will not support Branstad in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination.

Follow me after the jump for more on the IFPC’s endorsement and how Vander Plaats could win the primary.

You can read the IFPC’s press release here and watch videos from yesterday’s rally outside the capitol against same-sex marriage rights. The group judged the candidates on the following criteria:

The Iowa Family PAC’s evaluation of the candidates was designed to seek out and promote a statesman and public servant who would commit to uphold the Biblical principle of individual responsibility, who recognizes family as the foundational unit for a stable social structure, who will boldly defend the sanctity of human life and of marriage, commit to limiting the size and cost of civil government, promote high quality education under the authority of parents, encourage an ethical free enterprise system, defend the Constitutional separation of powers, and like our Founding Fathers be guided by the absolute moral truth that comes from a regular reading of the Bible. We believe that Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate who best meets those requirements. We are especially pleased with his pledge to stand up to the Iowa Supreme Court and stay their effort to unconstitutionally legislate same sex “marriage,” until the Iowa Legislature and the people of Iowa act on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

They like Representative Rod Roberts but consider him “to have more of a legislator’s temperament than that of an executive.” The IFPC PAC also sounds concerned that Democrats could win Roberts’ Iowa House district in the Carroll area; they want Roberts to run for re-election there “for the greater good of the State.”

They like the way State Representative Chris Rants pushed for an Iowa House floor vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage last year, and they praised his “spirit and enthusiasm,” but they withheld their endorsement because of “his lengthy legislative record, his history in House leadership, and his past willingness to pursue questionable political pragmatism.”

The IFPC saved its harshest words for Branstad:

With a 16 year record as Iowa’s Governor, much is known about who he is and how he would govern. For instance, Iowa faced financial challenges similar to today’s when Branstad first became Governor. His answers to those problems included growing government, raising taxes, legalizing gambling, and keeping what State Auditor Dick Johnson referred to as “two sets of books.” He did demonstrate pro-family support at times, like helping to de-criminalize home schooling, fighting rampant “no-fault” divorce, and helping produce pro-marriage public service announcements. Still, significant portions of his record cause Christians serious concern, such as approving immoral “Human Growth & Development” sex education (which is used by Planned Parenthood and others to promote abortion and homosexuality), allowing homosexual advances in his Dept. of Human Services, appointing pro-homosexual Supreme Court Justices who unconstitutionally try to legislate from the bench, and opening Iowa to the ravages of gambling.

Branstad also brings with him a loyalty to long term political partners that seems to trump his loyalty to Biblical principles and the people of Iowa. He continues to refuse to publicly distance himself from his former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, even when she blatantly promotes and defends abortion on demand, state sanctioned sodomy, and the evil that has been loosed on the state as a result. When his former Chief of Staff, Doug Gross, chastised those of us who desire to see Biblical principles promoted in politics and public policy, Terry Branstad was silent. He needs to understand that Christians are tired of being poked in the eye by political elites and then being told to “go along and get along.” He appears to lack an understanding of the deeply important principles that current policies threaten, or at the very least seems to lack the fervor necessary to address them.

Traditionally, most issue driven special interest groups wait until after the primary to engage in an election. Pragmatists will argue that should Branstad win the primary, he will be better than the current Governor, and that we ought to position our organization to support anyone but Culver. As a Christian organization we will always be ready to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that God can change anyone. However, should Branstad become the Republican nominee, apart from clear evidence of a fundamental transformation, the Iowa Family PAC will not endorse either Terry Branstad or Chet Culver in the general election.

Last week State Representative Kent Sorenson endorsed Vander Plaats and vowed never to vote for Branstad, but he is relatively new in Iowa politics. Sorenson was first elected to the Iowa House in 2008, and as he likes to remind audiences, he got virtually no help from the Republican Party in that race. He has struck an outsider’s tone before, writing this open letter to Senator Chuck Grassley last summer.

In contrast, the Iowa Family Policy Center’s chairman, Danny Carroll, has long been a Republican insider. He was first elected to the Iowa House in 1994 (while Branstad was governor) and represented district 75 until he lost in the 2006 election. After failing to win back his seat in 2008, Carroll fell just two votes short of being elected chairman of the Iowa GOP in January 2009. At yesterday’s rally, Carroll said, “Now is the time to put principle, biblical principle, before political parties […] I’ve been a part of that Republican machine for too many years, and where [has it] gotten us?”

When someone of Carroll’s stature comes out so strongly against Branstad, it makes me wonder how many other Republicans harbor similar feelings. The IFPC has worked closely with the Republican establishment, most recently during last summer’s special election in Iowa House district 90.

More important, the IFPC can put a lot of boots on the ground for Vander Plaats in the Republican primary. In the early weeks following the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien, the IFPC circulated petitions around the state urging county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They didn’t persuade any county recorders to defy the court ruling, but one can only imagine what a list-building bonanza that petition drive was for the IFPC.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan called yesterday’s endorsement “huge” for Vander Plaats:

“Branstad’s fatal miscalculation is in underestimating the Vander Plaats campaign. Bob Vander Plaats is the former Huckabee for President campaign chair, and he knows how to organize in their communities, at churches, and even at Tea Parties, like the one he’s going to tonight.

“The social conservative movement in Iowa that vaulted Huckabee to the top in the 2008 Iowa caucuses is poised to do the same for Vander Plaats.  Regardless of what the campaign finance reports show next week, it is clear that the grassroots momentum that surprised the nation during the caucuses is on the side of the Vander Plaats campaign and can spur on a legitimate third party candidate.”

Speaking of the Huckabee campaign, Vander Plaats has hired the highly-regarded Eric Woolson as his campaign manager. Woolson was Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager in 2007 and 2008. He also ran Doug Gross’s gubernatorial campaign in 2002, when Gross narrowly defeated Vander Plaats and a state legislator in the GOP primary. Woolson helped Mariannette Miller-Meeks win a three-way GOP primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district in 2008.

Woolson is a very smart guy with lots of statewide connections. That will help Vander Plaats build on his network of support from his prior runs for office. Both Branstad and Vander Plaats have been endorsed by many Republican activists at the county level, as well as a few members of the State Central Committee.

In the coming months I expect to hear more from Vander Plaats campaign co-chair Richard Johnson. Johnson was the state auditor during most of Branstad’s tenure as governor. In the 1994 GOP gubernatorial primary, he endorsed Congressman Fred Grandy against Branstad because of the three-term incumbent’s record of fiscal mismanagement.

Going into this year’s primary, Branstad had two trump cards: he will raise far more money than any other Republican, and he could claim to be the party’s best chance to defeat Governor Chet Culver. Next week we’ll find out how far Branstad has outpaced Vander Plaats in terms of fundraising. I expect Vander Plaats to be way behind but to have raised enough to run a credible statewide primary campaign. He should get some out-of-state money thanks to supporters like David Barton, Chuck Norris and Focus on the Family.

Governor Culver’s recent slide in the polls has severely undermined Branstad’s electability argument. Rasmussen and the Des Moines Register have released public polls showing Vander Plaats with a lead on Culver (albeit a smaller lead than Branstad). Republicans are rumored to have an internal poll showing both Vander Plaats and Branstad way ahead of Culver.

The Des Moines Register is likely to release at least two more Iowa polls before the June primary. If Culver is still underwater, Vander Plaats may be able to persuade a critical mass of GOP primary voters that they shouldn’t settle for Branstad when a more conservative option is available.

I haven’t seen any polls of the Republican primary since Branstad joined the race. Branstad recently robocalled Democrats to ID supporters willing to cross over for the primary, which makes me wonder what their internals show about his matchup with Vander Plaats.

I still consider Branstad the prohibitive favorite in the GOP primary. He will outspend the competition and should be able to roll up big margins in the populous eastern Iowa counties. However, the Vander Plaats campaign has a lot of resources at their disposal. With groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center out there making the case against Branstad this spring, it will be hard for Republicans to present a united front if Branstad is the nominee.

Final note: despite the recent poll findings, I’m not the least bit concerned that Vander Plaats might defeat Culver in the general election. I believe he would get crushed in Polk County and almost everywhere east of I-35.

Any comments about the Iowa governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

Five-term Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley’s seat is safe for him as long as he wants it. He’s never had a tough re-election challenge, and Democrats failed to field any candidate against him in 2004. [CORRECTION: Art Small did file against Grassley in 2004. The fact that I forgot he ran should tell you something about how much effort the Iowa Democratic Party put behind his candidacy.]

However, I think this race bears watching, because Grassley is out of favor with some of the Christian conservatives who gained more power at the Iowa GOP’s July 12 state convention. In fact, the Iowa Republican Party’s central committee broke with tradition and did not give Grassley a slot as a voting delegate to the GOP’s national convention.

Grassley’s staff downplayed the significance of that decision, since he will have access to the convention floor in St. Paul anyway as a member of Congress. However, many observers think evangelicals snubbed the senator because he has been investigating the activities of six tax-exempt “television-based ministries.”

Grassley seems to enjoy his job and his popularity in Iowa, but he was frustrated recently that the Senate passed a Medicare bill over Republican objections. According to Grassley, he and Democrat Max Baucus of Montana had worked out a different version of the Medicare bill that would have had bipartisan support.

If Democrats make big gains in the 2008 Senate elections, and relations between Grassley and Iowa Republicans continue to go downhill, this may be a seat to put on retirement watch. No big name is likely to challenge Grassley, but if he ever gets fed up enough to retire, this becomes a prime pickup opportunity for Democrats in 2010.

Possible Democratic contenders for an open seat include former Governor Tom Vilsack and current Governor Chet Culver, whose father John Culver held the seat before Grassley rode Ronald Reagan’s coattails into office in 1980.

One of the most widely known axioms in modern politics is the belief in the “God Gap” which says, essentially, that the higher the frequency of church attendance, the higher the likelihood a person will vote Republican. Essentially it has declared Republicans as the party of the faithful and Democrats as the secular or athiest party.

Democrats have tried in recent years to reach out to religious voters in far more concrete ways, from forming a Faith in Action office in the DNC, to specialty political consulting firms forming to help Democrats do faith outreach. Candidates like Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Ted Strickland in Ohio were undeniably helped by this type of religious outreach and GOTV.

A recent study by the Henry Institute at Calvin College now reveals how the 2008 political religious map looks, and has some surprising and interesting findings about both religious voters partisanship and their evolving views on social issues. What’s also nice is how this study breaks voters down (unlike exit polls) by not just religious denomination but also orthodoxy. This is the type of study Democratic strategist should be looking at as they prepare their outreach.  

The first point to take is that Evangelical partisanship has not changed in the last four years (still a 29% GOP advantage) and, though stagnating, has widened significantly since 1992.

This group, which represents a little more than a quarter of the electorate favored the Republican Party over the Democratic Party 48 percent to 32 percent in 1992, but now leans Republican 54 percent to 25 percent.

Republican’s now have this quarter-sized voting bloc firmly wrapped up, and the Democrats have thus far proved ineffective in their outreach. (Though it is perhaps a small victory that the gap has not widened.)

Better news: Mainline Protestants, about 20% of the electorate, have made a massive swing to the left. Alienated by the extremism of the Religious Right, Mainlines are for the first time in modern history, siding with the Democrats.

Historically, Mainline Protestants have been the mainstay of the Republican coalition.  Even as late as 1992, Mainline Protestants were heavily Republican in their partisan identifications (50 percent Republican to 32 percent Democratic). But, in 2008, Mainline Protestants are for the first time since at least the beginning of the New Deal more Democratic than Republican in their partisan identifications (46 percent to 37 percent, respectively).

Roman Catholics, again about a quarter of the electorate are again the ultimate swing vote. Catholics have sided with the popular vote winner in every presidential election since Truman.

In 2008, a plurality of non-Hispanic Catholics remain Democratic in their partisan identifications-but only barely so.  As a result, non-Hispanic Roman Catholics (whose total numbers are similar to that of Mainline Protestants) continue to remain the largest religious tradition most evenly divided in their partisan inclinations and most likely to be “up for grabs” in the 2008 presidential election (38 percent Republican; 41 percent Democratic).

Now there is a growing theory that there really is no Catholic vote. The argument goes that Catholics tend to vote along socio-economic lines (or ethnic lines) but their vote is rarely directly tied to their Catholicism. It is important to note here though that those self-identifying as traditional Catholics due side with Republicans.

On social issues there is again mixed news for the Dems. Since 2004, the support for environmental regulation has dropped. This is surprising with the recent “Creation-Care” theology of leaders like Rev. Richard Cizik and Joel Hunter. Younger evangelicals too have been thought to have been better on the environment. I tend to agree with Mark Silk who said,

The explanation has to do, I think, with the way the question is asked: “Strict rules to protect the environment are necessary even if they cost jobs or result in higher prices.” In other words, less support for environmental regulation may simply reflect higher economic anxieties…and not all groups show this tendency. Jews, Blacks, and Latinos all have become more environmentalist, by modest amounts, and the unaffiliated, by a hefty amount. Atheists and Agnostics are not the most pro-environment group in the country, at 81 percent. Environmentalism is their religion.

Allowing a woman to solely decide on abortion is supported by 53 percent of the entire religious sample, as opposed to 40 percent against. And by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, respondents do not agree that gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry legally. Surprisingly for some, Catholics support abortion rights 51-43, and are almost evenly split on gay marriage, 43 percent against and 45 percent for. It is this growing demographic change on gay marriage that should certainly frighten social conservatives (although studies show that young people are more pro-life than their parents.

Finally only one group now fully supports the US Occupation of Iraq: evangelicals, 57 percent to 35 percent. Among them, the traditionalists support our having gone to war 64-27, while centrist and modernist evangelicals are barely in favor. All other groups are opposed. One could argue that the question of Iraq is now a religious question, with only the most conservative Christians supporting it. John McCain will win the far religious right vote with his saber-rattling with Iran and Iraq, however he risks losing the moderate Evangelical vote if he overplays his hand. Moderate evangelicals are in play for Obama in this election.