60 percent evangelicals? Yes, but ...

Before the 60 percent evangelical figure ossifies, we go Behind the Numbers for an important caveat about the data. (Please remember Tuesday night.)

On last night's network entrance poll six in 10 GOP caucus-goers described themselves as "born-again or evangelical Christian." That's a much higher proportion than many expected; it's also much higher than it would have been had the poll used what's become a standard definition of this voting bloc.

(See here for another proviso about entrance and exit polls.)

In Washington Post-ABC News surveys we frequently write about "white evangelical Protestants," as do many other survey organizations. In 2000 and 2004, the National Election Pool, sponsor of the entrance and exit polls, highlighted results among this group as well, so almost all the reporting on "evangelicals" from the last two presidential elections is based on this definition.

This year's one-page entrance poll questionnaire included evangelical and race questions, but not religion. This omission was crucial, as some Catholics and other non-Protestant Christians consider themselves to be born-again. (In a December Post-ABC Iowa poll two in 10 likely GOP caucus-goers who called themselves evangelical were non-Protestants.)

Pre-election polls from Post-ABC and the Pew Research Center pegged the proportion of Iowa GOP caucus-goers who are white evangelical Protestants at just under four in 10. By this classification, 15 percent of likely GOP primary voters in New Hampshire were evangelical in a December Post-ABC poll; Pew put the number at 18 percent. A Pew poll in South Carolina had white evangelical Protestants making up a majority, 53 percent, of the GOP electorate.

The 60 percent figure out of Iowa, then, is a solid estimate, but it may not be comparable to what we've reported in the past, or may see out of New Hampshire on Tuesday night, and beyond.

By Jon Cohen |  January 4, 2008; 12:38 PM ET Polls
Previous: Change Drives Democrats, Religion Republicans | Next: Five Key Findings from the Iowa Entrance Poll

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Hillary crossed a red line with evangelicals when she participated in a demonic seance purportedly with Eleanor Roosevelt.This is considered high profile demonic activity, as opposed to garden variety sins.

Pop Warner school football vs. the NFL if you will.

Imagine if these evangelicals had voted Dem!!Hilllary would have been severely spanked.

Posted by: JaxMax | January 4, 2008 02:39 PM

The survey was obviously flawed in it's questions. As an Iowan, I caucused for Huckabee last night, who won 1/2 the vote in my precint, which is NOT 60% Evangelical. I would say most where Chritian, but across many denomenations. Personally, I hate the fact that being the press want to box in all people who are Christian and conservative as extreme. In fact, there was a great debate last night about proposed planks of the platform for regarding abortion and gay rights. I think the rest of the country would be surprised if they new that Iowan's decisions are driven foremost by "COMMON SENSE!" I hope the rest of the country follows suit and put common sense back into government and our leaders direction.

Posted by: Back40 | January 4, 2008 04:58 PM

America need to feel at ease with itself and the world. There is lot going for her if only she would pause and think for a moment. Over hasty decisions on Iraq, climate change and foreign policy decisions based on prejudice and actions based on so-called self interest
which turns out to be self-destructive have turned peoples all over the world switch off. That is why a new face in America would help. I do not think historians will be as kind to Clinton era as Hilary and her supporters imagine. She needs to address current issues it is going to be difficult given the baggage she is carrying. That is why a fresh start with Obama is to be welcomed. Edwards is by all account a decent politician but neither the world or America is ready for his ideas.

Posted by: sinna mani | January 4, 2008 05:31 PM

"the fact that being the press want to box in all people who are Christian and conservative as extreme". The fact is that it's not governments role to do values. It's governments role to function. When it's distracted by legislating "morality" roads, bridges, schools National parks, Border security, FEMA, etc. can't function. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Don't like same relationships, don't have one. We've just seen what happens when you try to impose "faith" into politics. No, No, No, No.

Posted by: thebob.bob | January 4, 2008 05:52 PM

Ron Paul is most prepared for the real threat, not another 911, but our govts run away spending thats sinking the dollar and making Americans need second jobs. The $300 billion war cost will make us retire later. I worked 3 years at the #2 retailer with ~40 people usually in the store- 4 in their 20s 30s and 40s died- falling asleep driving home from second jobs, diabiatic complication because they couldn't go to Dr. because of 2nd job schedule... US debt is consuming more liftimes than 911. Paul would immediately withdraw troops from Iraq.

Posted by: Joe Schnable | January 5, 2008 01:20 PM

Hispanics tend to be ignored by most politicians. All you hear these days is illegal immigration. Although it's true that immigration affects many Hispanics, there is a great number of Hispanics not directly affected by this phenomenom, except in the greater scheme of things. As a Hispanic, I believe in fairness, but borders must be sealed. At the same time, I believe that greater efforts should be made to allow legal immigration. I am not sure that candidates on either party have a good understanding about Hispanic sentiments. In fact, there is no one though about immigration which brings all Hispanics into agreement about this topic. One thing which I do believe all Hispanics agree on is that illegals should not be mistreated by their employers, and that illegals should not exploit. I was born a U.S. citizen, I'm Hispanic, and I believe entry into our country must be orderly. We need to know who is coming into our country, and we do not need to inherit the burden of other irresponsible countries by allowing people in the country who have violent criminal background and serious mental health issues.

Posted by: J.R. | January 6, 2008 07:16 PM

If Mike Huckabee had made racial comments about a leading black candidate or sexist comments about a leading female candidate, he would have been castigated by the media. How he was able to launch his surge on religious bigotry is dumbfounding to me. It seems that everyone is oblivious to the obvious.

In the event that Mitt Romney does not win the nomination, then history will show that Mike Huckabee pulled off the political crime of the century. It was Mike Huckabee that raised religious issues among Iowa evangelicals by comments toward Romney's religion.

As Huckabee's tactics started to show in the Iowa polls, Mitt responded with his "Faith in America" speech. Romney was then forced to work on damage control. Romney's efforts in Iowa payed off and he continued to rise back in the polls but the damage gave him a second in a state he held firmly until Huckabee's misuse of the public forum.

McCain saw his window and concentrated on New Hampshire while Romney was being unduely "occupied" in Iowa. Romney was forced to agressively address things detracting from what his positive messaging had been and did so famously. Romney then relied on comparison ads to contrast differences. These ads were constantly referred to as "attack ads" by Huckabee, who continually portrayed him as "desperate", and "attacking".

Now Huckabee is able to capitalize on such tactics. Because of his use of the majority evangelical state of Iowa and with the ignorance of the media toward the Mormon religion, he flew under the radar of a nation that has worked since Lincoln to erase such bigotry.

A majority of the nation now sees only that Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus and know nothing of the back story. I think it important to present it. Observe for yourself and pass these perspectives along. We need a TRUE man for change and a proven record of turning things around in the oval office.

Vote Mitt Romney

Posted by: Kelly Warnick | January 9, 2008 01:21 PM

How can the Post report that Hillary is doing great at 58% approval but Edwards is a loser at 57% approval? Surely both those scores have a margin of error greater than 1%. What is clear is that the Post sees diversity as being one woman and one African American man, and discussing the issues with three is too hard if the third man is white. Like WMD, reading all that "stuff" is too much like work; let's wait util the big money guys spin it out for us. Picking winners by color or sex is pretty much the same moronic way we had a "compassionate conservative" picked for us in 2000. This is not a game it is our kids and their kids futures, and right now they are being pissed away by a press to lazy to do candidates lacking color or a story.

Posted by: Harrison Picot | January 15, 2008 05:45 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

©   The Washington Post Company