Evolving 'God gap' may hurt Barack Obama in ongoing struggle with Hillary Clinton

The God Gap may be turning against Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries.

Buried within the exit polls from Pennsylvania are some signs that Obama's appeal may be declining among culturally conservative regular churchgoers.

That may not be too surprising given the controversies Obama encountered in the six-week run-up to the primary. Despite Obama's later explanations, his comments at a San Francisco fundraiser that "bitter" small-town Americans "cling to" guns and religion are hardly likely to have endeared him to small-town churchgoers.

That followed circulation of well-publicized video highlights of his former pastor's incendiary sermons, including one in which the Rev. Jeremiah Wright declares blacks should sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America," and another in which he explicitly accuses the federal government of causing the AIDS epidemic as genocide against people of color.

Not only Wright's comments but the African-style garb that the pastor is shown wearing every time the video clip is rerun no doubt feeds a suspicion that Obama's outlook on life is far removed from the moral certitudes of religious traditionalists.

And while that damaging controversy had started to fade, the reappearance of the forceful Wright on television last week and in ....

.... a series of speeches defending himself starting this weekend, and including a sold-out one at the National Press Club on Monday, is certain to draw intense media attention and almost certain to revive those strong feelings among many.

In his "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace today, Obama said he understood Wright wanting to defend himself. But Obama's strategists have to cringe at the thought of this smoldering issue flaring up again right before the crucial Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6.

But it is easy to forget that at the beginning of his presidential campaign, Obama was celebrated as a political figure who could reach out to the faithful. His candidacy held out the possibility of at least blunting among political moderates the enormous advantage the Republican Party has amassed over Democrats among religiously observant voters.

Shortly after his election to the U.S. Senate, he delivered a well-received address arguing faith should have a greater role in public discourse. He has courted high-profile moderate evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life." Warren hosted Obama at a well-publicized appearance at his Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., shortly before Obama announced his presidential bid.

The memoir that essentially launched Obama's presidential campaign took its title, "The Audacity of Hope," from a sermon, albeit one delivered by the now-controversial Wright. And the book featured an account of his conversion from a secular life to Christian faith.

On the trail, Obama often weaves the language of faith into speeches, and his campaign has devoted considerable effort to an outreach program directed at religious voters.

Early in the campaign, that appeared to pay dividends.

Back in the nation's first primary, in virtually all-white New Hampshire, Obama actually was the leading candidate among the most-religious voters. Hillary Clinton may have won the New Hampshire primary, but Obama picked up the most votes from people who attend church once a week, winning 37% of them against 32% for Clinton and 21% for John Edwards, according to exit polls.

By contrast in Pennsylvania, which Obama lost last week by 9 percentage points, his margin of defeat was doubled among regular churchgoers. They voted 59% for Clinton against 41% for Obama, according to exit polls. And that's in a primary which included a sizable number of African Americans, who as a group are much more likely to be regular churchgoers. Blacks overwhelmingly support Obama, 9 to 1 in Pennsylvania.

As recently as seven weeks ago, in neighboring Ohio, a state with many similarities and a Democratic electorate with only slightly more African Americans, regular churchgoers did not contribute disproportionately to Clinton's 10-percentage-point win. Her margin was actually tighter among them, though not significantly so: Weekly churchgoers voted 51% for Clinton against 47% for Obama.

Of course, Catholic voters have always been more disposed toward Clinton than Obama, and there are lots of Catholic voters in Pennsylvania.

But back in the nation's first primary, even though New Hampshire Catholics as a group favored Clinton, religious devotion worked against Clinton among Catholics and did not work against Obama.

In New Hampshire, Clinton did best with Catholics who do not attend church regularly, winning them 47% against 26% for Obama and 22% for Edwards. Among Catholics who attend Mass weekly, Clinton was supported by a much-lower 36% against 28% for Obama and 29% for Edwards.

Well, suggested one Obama campaign aide, New Hampshire Catholics are culturally different in significant ways from the white ethnic Catholics of lower New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.

In other Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states with large white ethnic Catholic populations that previously have held primaries -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland -- Catholic voters all did favor Clinton. However, church attendance did not make them more likely to do so.

In each case, exit polls found regular Mass-goers registering within a few percentage points of Catholics who do not attend church regularly. In most of the primaries, Mass-goers were slightly more likely to vote for Obama -- though not by a statistically significant margin. The same was true in the March primary in Ohio, a neighboring industrial Midwestern state that is much like western Pennsylvania.

But now, that was not the case in Pennsylvania.

Catholics who attend church weekly turned against Obama in much greater numbers than less-observant Catholics. Catholics who attend church weekly voted 74% for Clinton and 26% for Obama; Catholics who do not attend church weekly voted 65 % for Clinton and 35% for Obama.

That's a 48-point margin for Clinton among observant Catholics versus a 30-point margin among Catholics who are not regular churchgoers.

And that even with the antiabortion, socially conservative Catholic Sen. Bob Casey Jr (D-Pa.) at Obama's side throughout most of the Pennsylvania campaign.

Church-going among whites -- and in Pennsylvania Catholics are mostly white -- can be can be a marker for other traits. Older whites go to church more often than do younger whites. And whites without college degrees go to church in greater numbers than those with degrees. Both those groups are more supportive of Clinton.

Still, there is some reason to suspect that may not be the full explanation. Exit polls suggest Obama improved his showing with elderly voters in Pennsylvania compared to March. His performance among non-college graduates was about the same as in the Ohio primary in March.

It's always possible that the Pennsylvania primary was simply an anomaly. And it's also possible that the specific controversies leading up to the primary had a uniquely intense effect there, since voters facing an imminent election tend to be more engaged in a campaign and are exposed to much greater media coverage of the presidential contest.

Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said that nationally divisions over the Democratic candidates among churchgoers have been pretty well set at least since mid-February, and he has not detected a significant shift since then.

Newport looks at the views of non-Latino white Democrats, in order to avoid the impact of the heavy support for Obama among African Americans and the heavy support for Clinton among Latinos, both groups that attend church in disproportionately large numbers.

Among non-Latino white churchgoers, Clinton has been consistently the favored candidate since at least Feb. 15, which is when Gallup first added a question on how often voters attend religious services to its daily presidential tracking poll, Newport said. That is well after most of the mid-Atlantic and lower New England states voted in the Feb. 5 "Super Tuesday" primary.

Nationally, at least, the "God Gap" between the Democratic candidates has been both durable and sizable.

Among non-Latino white Democrat weekly churchgoers, 55% favored Clinton against 32% for Obama in responses Feb. 15 through Feb. 29; 56% favored Clinton against 32% for Obama in March; and 53% favored Clinton against 36% Obama April 1 through April 20.

But, for Obama, the Pennsylvania primary results may be a warning of more trouble ahead from those who sit in the church pews and go to the voting booth.

-- Mike Dorning

Mike Dorning writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.       Photo Credit: Trinity United Church of Christ

Comments

[Jim]

You got exit poll results from ONE STATE (white, poor, elderly) of PA and you are making a "general election problem" out of it.

You are just as short-memoried as the rest of the media, which after six weeks without election decides that the state of PA is the center of the political universe. Never mind that the demographics of PA has nothing in common with the next biggest state, North Carolina, or most of what's left.

You are thinking just like Hillary, who thinks a streak of one win makes it a turning of the tide.

There is NO WAY Obama will lose the nomination. She cannot overcome any of his leads (delegates, popular votes, states won). And then 80% of those voting for Hillary will vote Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Aren't you writers and bloggers aware of your tendency to turn PA into the United States of Pennsylvania? It's just one old, poor, uneducated state, demographically speaking.

Hillary won PA. Big deal. She turned her 25% lead into 9.2% win. She won 12 delegates after six weeks of campaigning in HER STATE (old, white, poor, uneducated voters are her best friends). This demographic makeup will not be seen again for the rest of the nom process.

Why don't you ask about Hillary's "AFFLUENT, EDUCATED, YOUTH GAP??" She claims to be winning all the big states but she is still irreversibly losing in states won, popular votes, delegates won, and losing fast in the superdelegate count too. So, what's wrong with her that makes her unelectable?

What about Hillary's TRUST GAP??

[Al]

Why do people keep calling Barack Obama a Christian?

Christians believe what Jesus said. Mr. Obama by his own admission does not. He writes this regarding a conversation he had with his daughter about life after death:

“I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang.” — Barack Obama (Time, book excerpt, Oct 15, 2006)

But Jesus spoke unequivocally about eternal life. He promised it to every believer in Him. Jesus said: "... I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25b-26).

He also said, “In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” (John 14:2-3).

If you believe Jesus, then you know that you have eternal life both now — and after death. Jesus promised it (see John 3:16-18; 5:24-25). Mr. Obama claims to belong to Christ while simultaneously claiming agnosticism on the fundamental promise that Jesus made.

[Sam]

How a candidate —either Obama or Hillary— can claim to stand for God while simultaneously welcoming abortion on demand escapes me.

On a practical level, this means that both would stand idly by in the presence of a partial birth abortion — the extermination of a "partially delivered living fetus".

Sorry. Neither one of these candidates stands for God.

[alderdice]

Why is there no data on African American Catholics vs African American non-Catholics?????

[N.E. BodybutHillary]

Hillary announced to the press that she would not have attended Barack's church. I think it important to discover what other religions she dissaproves of and feels neccessary to attempt to discredit. It may become crucial in the future to be affilliated with only approved religions.

[Core Democrat]

I just love these polls! First, they use the original polls from 2007 when NOBODY knew who Obama was and therefore Hillary did have 20 and 25 point leads. But that changed In January when he was shown by the media to be this wonderful candidate that unites Americans and the savior, even without experience, of this country! He was on a roll. And the media let it roll and roll and never informed the public about all the controversy, most of it appearing not only UNAmerican, but totally contrary to what Obama was "inspiring" to American voters about, Unity. That is why he is ahead now! And NO other reason. He could never carry Wisconsin now and Colorodo and maybe even Iowa. These states are very America oriented! And that is IGNORED! Additionally, the latest polls ALWAYS show Obama leading Clinton, but offer NO backup for these polls and yet, he NEVER carries any of these states as these polls say he will. Why? Because I did get the backup for some of these polls and it is so flawed and biased toward Obama that they are not polls but more of an endorsement. They, combined with the media, think that if they keep telling Americans he is ahead in the polls, they will feel their vote is wasted if they do not vote for Obama! Well this will not work on the majority of Americans! He lost the popular vote in California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others when the polls said he had the lead! Well he never did. They only call areas where they can get the data they want to interject into the public and then try and influence voters. We are all on to this now! It will no longer work! And if the poll says Obama is leading by 6 or 10 points, that means that Clinton is actually leading by 4 to 5 points. Ad the same for the Democratic nomination poll and the General Election polls! Obama has run the better campaign, but Hillary Clinton is the better candidate! Americans are not voting for the campaigns, they are voting for PRESIDENT of the United States. And Americans want a President that is not only experienced and qualified, but truly represents ALL the people of America. And that is Hillary Clinton. She is also the ELECTABLE candidate as it is Clinton that carries the Democrat states and the CRUCIAL key states. Obama is too polarizing and cannot carry any of these crucial states to win a General Election. His way of saying he can carry these "new states" is math at its worst or total inexperience of how the United States elects a President. Obama is not the candidate to represent all Americans. He has even divided Democrats!