Reply #82: Lets talk about my math.

[Perky]

First of all, I said the voting population not the population as a whole. as a percentage of voters evangelical make up far more than their population in the general population

Second, Evangelicals are a far more powerful subset in the South and their for their voting strength is somewhat amplifies in Southern states like South Carolina.

Third, because evangelicals make up a higher percentage of the vote in southern states, their electoral influence is a substantial part of the Republican coalition and quite honestly they feel let down by the GOP. That is not to say they are going to abandon the GOP in droves just that 20% certainly could not see themselves voting for Guliani, Romney or Clinton. Obama has high acceptables across a larger swath of voters than any others so it stand to reason that the right message would appeal to some portion of disenfranchise Evangelicals. Please not that I am using the term evangelicals as opposed to fundamentalist. ONe ins note the subset of the other. but there is some overlap. those that overlap and those who are fundamentalist to the core are not who I am talking about. I am talking only about the non-fundamentalist evangelicals (regular/nominal churchgoers whose political lives are not dominated by Fox news or Dobson). I freely submit that 20% is a swag but certainly the GOP hold is tenuous on those voters.


Now as for thee atheists math. I submit that the 12% you identify in one breath as atheist and in the next rightfully identify them as non-religious , atheist and agnostic are not one in the same. So let's assume have of the Pew group are in fact Atheists. or six percent ot the gen-pop. Is that fair?

So what percentage of Atheists vote?
On a Percentage basis, does the atheist population mirror the evangelical in terms of how they are dispersed across the nation?

If you can show me with evidence that on a percentage basis that the 80% of the atheist vote is strategically more valuable in winning swing and southern states I will surrender the point. I will do so publicly.

Now honestly any message from any candidate that attacks that attacks Gays or Atheists would cause me to work against such a candidate. But there is a big difference between attacking some group and appealing for votes in language and situations that some find offensive.

Obama never should have been put in a situation where he was on stage with this guy.. Somebody did not do their homework. But the hostility reaped on Obama by the GLBT community likely made it impossible for him to walk it back without making it into a bigger story in South Carolina. Having a Gay Minister on stage will certainly be seen-as tokenism by some and pandering by others... but he will have to dig himself out of that hole.

The point is that I certainly understand that it upsets the Atheist community when a politician panders to the religious. It is fine to be upset with it.But understand in the final analysis (unless you can show me evidence to the contrary--and again I am open to empirical evidence, as you are free to poke holes in my numerical assumptions as well) I still say it make more campaign sense to reach out to any large identifiable demographic group, even if it wind up upsetting, offending or worrying a far smaller, less identifiable demographic which as a group has no organizational infrastructure.

If there was organizational structure..... if there was a get out the atheist vote effort,,, if their was an atheist phonebank or an Atheist, agnostic non-religions coalition with deep pocket behind. My view would be totally different.


If Obama was bashing Atheism, my view would be totally different,

But until you show me that atheists are anything close to voting bloc that pure evangelicals are, then I have to stand by what I have said. It has nothing to do with what you believe or what I believe, It has everything to do with winning elections.