Berkley Center

One week until Election Day. Time to start making predictions on the basis of the Faith and Values story lines we have been pursuing since the Summer of 2007. Today, the Evangelicals (tomorrow Jews):

A higher percentage of Evangelicals will vote for Obama than voted for Kerry: I would mortgage the house on this one (if only someone would extend me a line of credit!). Somewhere between 21-22% of Evangelicals voted for Kerry in 2004. Even a small increase for Obama is cash for the Democrats insofar as these Christians have turned away from them in droves since the Carter administration. So I repeat what I have been saying for months: if Obama gets between 28%-33% of the Evangelical vote nationwide, he's President-elect Obama.

Fewer Evangelicals will turn out: This is a less widely discussed, but equally important, story. It is not inaccurate to claim that George W. Bush would not have won a second term had it not been for the "values voters." Many of the "values voters" were Evangelicals and their value lied in working enthusiastically on behalf of the party and showing up en masse at the ballot box. But Evangelical America is in flux and I predict a slightly smaller turnout this time around. That's (Country) music to Democratic ears.

Exit polls will reveal that when it comes to Evangelical voters, one ought not believe the hype: You know that image of Evangelicals as obsessed by abortion and gays? Some pollster out there will make me look very intelligent if she demonstrates that in 2008 they were far less focussed on these issues. I predict that concerns about the economy, poverty, the war in Iraq also weighed heavily on the minds of most Evangelicals.

In other words, there was something of a disconnect between certain high-profile leaders and the rank-and-file. As for the high-profile leaders and their penchant for culture warrioring. . .

After Election Day: The recriminations begin: I have always maintained that after Kerry's defeat in 2004, some canny Democratic strategist shouted something to this effect at the top of his or her lungs: "If we ever hope to win a national election again then we can no longer be perceived as a party of secularism--of a type of secularism that is hostile to religious people. So, stop yammering about 'separation of Church and State,' find yourself a spiritual mentor (on Craig's List for all I care) and get your keesters into the pews. And while you're there, take a couple of journalists with you! "

As I have chronicled elsewhere, the Dems seemed to have gotten that message. In 2006 they fronted Bible thumping candidates who played the Faith and Values game to perfection. The Establishment clause was discussed in muted terms--apparently a necessary step for the Party to redefine itself as friendly to religion. We saw the full-blown actualization of this strategy in the candidacies of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards--each sporting a solid religious outreach game plan.

If the McCain-Pailin ticket is routed, if downballot Republicans are sent packing, then it will be the GOP's turn to enter the "establish blame" phase. (And if they are anything like the Democrats then they will put that discussion off until Nov. 7, 2012).

In any case, at some point a mirror image of the preceding conversation will have to take place. Some visionary might make an impassioned--and preferably drunken--speech to this effect: "If we ever hope to win a national election again, we can no longer be perceived as the party of the Christian Right. We can no longer permit ourselves to be dubbed as extremists and we have to rid ourselves of a primary process that automatically handicaps any Republican who is a moderate on abortion issues. And while we're at it, could we please stop creeping out the Center with all this talk of a "Christian nation," the constitutional rights of a zygote, a federal amendment banning Gay marriage, and the anti-Americanism of all those who disagree with us?"