Why Don't the Democrats Go After Non-Religious Voters?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/why-dont-democrats-go-after-non-religious-voters



For the better part of the decade that followed its bitter loss to George W. Bush in 2000, soul-searching by the Democratic Party led some of its leaders to a natural conclusion: the future of the party lay in the hands of church-going voters, and the party had better win them back. The only problem with that was that it was wrong.

Not only was it a wrong conclusion, but it was one that saw Democrats ignoring a key constituency: the growing numbers of voters with no religious affiliation -- voters whose values tend to fall naturally in line with the party’s professed goals.

Today, a new survey released on Monday by the Public Religion Research Institute confirms just what a mistake that was: Nearly one-fifth -- 19 percent -- of Americans now say they are unaffiliated with any religion, and 63 percent of them lean Democratic. But the survey also shows they’re significantly less likely to turn up at the polls than religious voters. Perhaps that’s because they feel left out of the dialogue, as leaders of the Democratic spent the last eight years trying to show the public that they love Jesus as much as anybody.

In 2007, I attended a breakout session at progressive conference on how to win religious voters. Afterwards, I asked one of the presenters what kind of outreach was being made to the then-14 percent of voters who identified as “unchurched.” He seemed flummoxed by the question. He’d never thought about it, he said.

[dimbear]

1. The Democrats are certainly more welcoming to the unchurched than the Rs. But this is a swamp,

the Dems have to go carefully, since the slightest overture toward humanism is leapt on by the Rs as some horrific attack on Christianity.

I'm a non-believer. I'm willing to put up with it for now.

[longship]

2. As much as it repulsed me, I agree w/ your post.

I find the overt religiosity in politics offensive and smarmy. The president has to say "God bless America" at the end of every speech. It's like a tic. It's empty rhetoric.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. As demographics change so will the politicians

As much as I love the democrats all politicians are the same. There have to be enough of that particular demographic voting for them to change who they cater to. That's why very few democratic politicians support legalizing marijuana. There just aren't enough votes for it yet. But there will be in the future. Look how long it took to get the democrats to include marriage equality in the democratic platform. It will happen in time.

[Swede Atlanta]

4. I disagree with the premise of "going after" the non-religious voter.......

The Democratic Party is the party of the "big tent". There is plenty of room in the tent for people with a religious affiliation whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists or some other faith community as well as those with no spiritual affiliation and those that are avowed agnostics or atheists.

The "religious" fall generally into two camps....fundamentalists and the rest of us.

The fundamentalists that believe (selectively) in each and every word in the Bible without respect to context, etc. They believe homosexuality is the same as "lying with a man" from the Bible. They think a woman should be at home, barefoot and pregnant and totally submissive to their "man". They believe in capital punishment but want to protect an unborn zygote at all costs.

The rest of us, myself included, have no problem reconciling today's social issues with the Bible. We ask for no "special" rights for our observation of our faith and don't want to deny others.

The Democrats will NEVER win over the fundamentalists because the Democrats believe in the separation of church and state and are the party that adopts policies that cares for the needy, the poor and the sick. We respect the right of religious individuals to hold their beliefs provided they don't cram those beliefs down others that don't share those beliefs through public policy.

At the same time the non-religious have no friend in the GOP and likely never will. Some GOP leaders support a constitutional amendment that call for a religious test for holding public office (Christian of course).

I believe as long as Democrats continue to respect the practice of faith while at the same time ensure that no one has another's faith imposed on them in policy they will do just fine.

[scheming daemons]

5. I am nonreligious... they already have us

[Fumesucker]

6. Because on average non religious voters aren't as bigoted as religious ones

Non religious voters will vote for candidates spouting religious rhetoric, religious voters won't do the opposite for the most part.

That means Democrats lose more votes from Christians than they would gain from the non religious if they try for non religious votes.

[msanthrope]

7. We are already here, in significant positions of power. nt

[dmallind]

10. Where? Not in the US for sure.

One nationally elected atheist who is not a major player and who only dared come out after 17 re-elections to one of the safest blue seats in the nation, and even then only when threatened with involuntary outing. Yes yes I've heard before that a lot of the muckamucks just have to be nonbelievers yadda yadda but even if true what's the fucking difference when they dare not say so or vote accordingly? Where's this "power" of the non-religious? Sure as hell not in the US political sphere.

[WinkyDink]

8. Because they are already smart Democrats? :-)

[RainDog]

9. k&r n/t