Note from WilsonNCTeaParty.com: This article was taken from http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/more-than-6-million-self-described-evangelicals-voted-for-obama-why-what-else-do-the-exit-polls-tell-us-about-how-christians-voted]
[CORRECTED VERSION: In the first version of this column, I incorrectly reported a figure of 25 million evangelicals voting for Obama in 2012. The actual number, as now noted below, is about 6.4 million. Please forgive my error.]
As the smoke clears from the wreckage of the Romney defeat on Tuesday, some intriguing yet disturbing facts are coming to light.
* Fewer people overall voted in 2012 (about 117 million) compared to 2008 (about 125 million).
* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).
* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win — clearly it did not.
* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)
Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:
The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a “Massachusetts moderate.” The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romney’s 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romney’s 31%).
That said, what I’m looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble:
- 42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008.
- 57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008.
- When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012.
- You’d think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didn’t.
- 78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasn’t nearly enough.
- To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldn’t win.
- Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008.
- 48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasn’t enough.
Now consider this additional data:
- In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
- In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
- In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, –no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this.
- Of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, therefore, about 30 million (26%) were evangelicals. Of this, 21% — or about 6.4 million evangelicals — voted for Obama.
- By comparison, of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, 32.5 million (26%) were evangelicals. At the time, Obama won 24% of evangelicals, or about 7.8 million people.
- What’s more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls.
- In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic.
- Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.
What does all this mean? A few observations:
- During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters — they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)
- There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romney’s Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout.
- The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls — but it did not work.
- Despite Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record — a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics — Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obama’s evangelical and Catholic vote.
- If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – he would have won the election handily.
- It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?
- Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.
- This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action.
- Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.
- What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them? This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.
- That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.
- We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.
- None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being “salt” and “light” to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isn’t a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals — a Third Great Awakening. As men and women’s hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we don’t see a Third Great Awakening soon, I’m not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.
This report card will be updated from time to time leading up to November 6. CLICK HERE for the recent version.
Three years and five months into his first term, President Obama has shown what he can do. As we recall his promises and research his accomplishments with the big-picture in mind, we are able to answer the question of whether or not he deserves another term as our Commander-in-Chief.
So, consider the following:
- According to AAA, the average national price for a gallon of gas has increased from $1.84 on January 20, 2009 to $3.80 on May 1, 2012. In this regard, CNS News recently reported that “So far, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 83 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. During the same period, the price of ground beef has gone up 24 percent and the price of bacon has gone up 22 percent.” And how did this happen? Well, under the Obama administration, oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40% compared to ten years ago. Also, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984. Plus, the administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011.
- On June 9, 2008, then presidential candidate Obama, while giving a speech in Raleigh, NC, said, “…We must help the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure…” But, according to a New York Times report on January 1, 2010, Obama’s “…$75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.”And today, we have seen no improvement.
- President Obama told us Obamacare would cost us “around $900 billion over 10 years.” But, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has now reported that it will actually cost “$1.76 trillion over a decade,” which is almost twice as much as what we were told.
- Unemployment is currently above 8% even though we were told it would never rise above 8%. [By the way, these figures are misleading because the government calculates unemployment mainly by counting the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. So, when unemployment benefits expire, people are no longer counted and the unemployment rate actually falls. So, with this in mind, the current unemployment number is actually more like 22.4%.] Question: Where do you think the rate will be by Election Day? According to his own prediction, Obama will have unemployment at 5.2% — We shall see.
- Student debt is “roughly $1 trillion in size, greater than either auto or credit-card debt and second only to mortgage debt in the U.S.” and is a potential candidate for another massive government bailout, as touted by President Obama.
- When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. On February 23, 2009, at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit, he said, “…Today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term…” As reported by USA Today, he hasn’t even come close. Moreover, in September 2010, CNS News reported that “In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.” And now, as of May 2012, it is over $15.7 trillion, bringing government debt to “about $42,054 per household, which is almost four times the “official” number being reported by Washington.” Moreover, according to a new estimate from the CBO, Obama’s 2013 budget “would add $3.5 trillion in deficits through 2022.” Ironically, in June 2008 Obama called George Bush “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, amounting to “$30,000 for every man, woman, and child.”
- In March 2012, the Washington Examiner reported that “Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion.”
- According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 31.6 million Americans were on food stamps in December 2008; then, in January 2012, this number increased to 46.4 million – a total increase of 14.8 million; that is nearly 15% of the entire population. The CBO further reports that this number will continue to grow into 2014.
- According to the USDA, 39.8 million Americans were under the poverty line in 2008; then, in 2010, this number increased to 46.2 million – a total increase of 6.4 million.
- Regarding foreign policy, Pollster.com reports that the majority of Americans have never approved of President Obama’s policies; of course, his work with our Navy S.E.A.L.S. in killing Osama Bin Laden is praiseworthy, despite the fact that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration drafted a memo to protect the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture the al-Qaeda leader failed. The botched mission would’ve been the fault of commanding military officials, not the White House.
- President Obama supports same-sex marriage (and always has), a woman’s “right” to “choose,” and infanticide.
- According to the Huffington Post, which tracks an average of over four-hundred separate polls regarding President Obama job performance on the economy, 52% of Americans, in May 2012, disapproved of President Obama’s work, while 42% approved; what is more, the vast majority of Americans have disapproved of his economic leadership since October 2009.
- “…Only 33 per cent of Americans expect the economy to improve in the coming months.”
- The majority of North Carolinians disapprove of President Obama’s job performance.
- The majority of Americans believe we are on the wrong track.
Our country has been on the wrong track for a long time, starting mostly with the socialist policies of Theodore Roosevelt (R) in 1901 and continuing with Wilson (D), Hoover (R), FDR (D), Johnson (D), etc. Both parties, for the most part, have been unfaithful to “We the People,” putting their personal greed and agendas before their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And now, with what you have just read, do you think our country is on the mend? What does it say that Russian newspaper Pravda (former official propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party) has endorsed our President for his 2012 re-election campaign? What does it say that The Communist Party USA endorsed Obama in 2008 and has done so again this year? Is it just me or is this a “red” flag? (Pun intended)
Written by Joel M. Killion
 www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_30.pdf and http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/under-obama-oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-down-40
 In June 2008, on the campaign trail, then Senator Obama said, “The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the bank of China, in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents, number 43 [Bush] added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” (Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U)
 www.lifesitenews.com/news/gingrich-rips-obama-for-infanticide-vote and www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/wheres-the-outrage-over-obamas-past-infanticide-support