Content uploaded by Corwin E Smidt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Corwin E Smidt on Dec 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Evangelicals in the Post-Reagan Era: An Analysis of Evangelical Voters in the 1988
Presidential Election
Author(s): Corwin Smidt and Paul Kellstedt
Source:
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
Vol. 31, No. 3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 330-
338
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387123
Accessed: 05-12-2018 19:48 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Wiley
are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Research Note
Evangelicals in the Post-Reagan Era:
An Analysis of Evangelical Voters in
the 1988 Presidential Election
CORWIN SMIDT*
PAUL KELLSTEDT*
The 1980s was an important period of time in the political life of American evangelicals. While
evangelicals entered the decade as relatively apolitical citizens (Wuthnow 1983) with predominantly
Democratic partisan orientations (Hunter 1983), both of these political traits appeared to be changing
during Reagan's tenure in office. Since these changes were closely tied to the presidential candidacies
of Ronald Reagan, it was unclear what would happen once he was absent from the ticket. This research
note examines evangelical involvement in the 1988 general election in comparison to the 1980 and
1984 presidential elections. In so doing, it seeks to ascertain whether the recent changes among
evangelicals are likely to become permanent features of the political landscape.
EVANGELICALS AND THE 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Prior to the 1988 presidential election, a variety of different factors cast doubt upon
what was likely to be the level of political activism and partisanship evident among
evangelicals in that election. Some developments suggested that evangelical political
activity in the late 1980s might be waning from the levels evident at the turn of the
decade. Not only had voter turnout among evangelicals dropped between the 1980 and
1984 presidential elections (Smidt 1987), but the Religious Right had also enjoyed little,
if any, success in the 1986 congressional campaigns. Moreover, the PTL and Swaggert
scandals which erupted during 1987 and the early months of 1988 had undermined the
credibility and financial stability of many televangelists who had championed evangelical
political involvement.
Stirl other developments suggested that there might be greater evangelical involve-
ment in 1988 than earlier in the decade. While Falwell's move into the political arena
had mobilized fundamentalist segments of American evangelicalism, pentecostal and
charismatic evangelicals had remained largely apolitical.' Pat Robertson, however, had
*Corwin Smidt is a professor of political science at Calvin CoUege in Grand Rapids, MI 49546. Paul Kellstedt
is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
1. For a discussion of some differences between fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist evangelicals, see Wilcox
(1986) and Smidt (1988b); for differences between evangelicals and charismatics, as well as their overlapping
tendencies, see Smidt (1989a).
C Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1992, 31 (3): 330-338 330
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EVANGELICALS IN THE 1988 ELECTION 331
considerable appeal among these traditionally apolitical pentecostal and charismatic
Christians (Smidt and Penning 1990), and his candidacy seemingly had the potential
to mobilize these segments of American evangelicals.
There was also uncertainty regarding which party evangelicals would choose once
Reagan was absent from the ticket. First, many evangelicals, particularly those residing
in the South, had cast ballots for Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 elections despite their
Democratic partisan identifications, and it was unclear whether such "Reagan
Democrats" would also support the Republican nominee in 1988. Moreover, the
Democratic Party was making serious efforts to regain the electoral support of these
"Reagan Democrats" (Galston 1988; Quirk 1989). Second, early indications also sug-
gested that evangelicals were not strongly attracted to any of the announced Republican
candidates. Robertson's charismatic leanings were likely to draw opposition from more
fundamentalistic segments within the theologically diverse evangelical wing of American
Christianity.2 In addition, a majority of evangelicals claimed in 1986 that knowing a
particular candidate was an evangelical would make no difference in their voting decisions
(Smidt 1988a). Evangelicals also had considerable doubts about George Bush,
particularly early in the campaign. For example, a national poll conducted in 1986
revealed that "born again" Christians were less likely than other voters to prefer Bush
as the Republican nominee in 1988, with just over one-third of such "born again" Chris-
tians supporting the Bush candidacy (Shribman 1986).
DATA AND METHODS
The data utilized to analyze the changing levels of politicization and partisanship
among evangelicals were drawn from the 1980,1984, and 1988 National Election Studies
conducted by the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan. Three criteria
were used to identify potential evangelical respondents. First, respondents had to state
that religion played an important part in their lives.3 Second, only those respondents
who stated that they had had a "born again" experience, or who called themselves "born
2. Dispensational theology, espoused by many fundamentalists, holds that the dispensation of gifts given to
the church at Pentecost are not given to the contemporary church; pentecostalists and charismatics hold that
the gifts given at Pentecost are gifts freely available to the church today. Thus, while pentecostalists and
charismatics argue that such gifts as speaking in tongues and healing are available to the church today, dispen-
sationalists would argue that any manifestations of these "gifts" are given by the deceiver Satan rather than
by God. For a more detailed discussion of dispensationalism and its empirical consequences, see Turner and
Guth (1989).
3. This first requirement need not be a definitional criterion by which to identify evangelicals, but this ques-
tion served as a filter for the second, more conventional, measure used to identify evangelical respondents, i.e.,
whether the respondent had had a "born again" experience. Only those respondents who stated that religion
played an important part in their lives were asked the "born again" question in 1980 and 1984. Consequently,
the fact that religion must play an important role in the respondent's life automatically becomes part of the
resulting operational definition of an evangelical. In 1988, respondents did not have to state that religion played
an important role in their lives to be asked the "born again" question. However, to ensure comparability across
the three surveys, the operational measure for identifying evangelical respondents in 1988 also required that
respondents state that religion played an important role in their lives. Whether religious salience or church
attendance should be crucial to the evangelical label is a matter of some debate and is related to the particular
analytical framework with which one approaches the study of American evangelicals (see, for example, Kellstedt
1989b and Smidt 1988a).
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
332 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
again" Christians, were classified as potential evangelicals.4 Third, respondents had to
acknowledge that they viewed the Bible as "God's word and all it says is true." Finally,
because evangelicals are conceptualized in this paper as a socio-religious group, only
Protestants who met the three criteria specified above were classified as evangelicals,5
and analysis was restricted to white respondents.6
Partisan Self-Images
In 1980, pluralities of both evangelicals and nonevangelicals identified themselves
as Democrats (Hunter 1983; Smidt 1987). However, an important shift in partisan iden-
tification took place between the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections, when a plurality
of evangelicals began to classify themselves as Republicans (Smidt 1987; Kellstedt 1989a;
Kiecolt and Nelson 1991). No similar increase occurred between 1984 and 1988, but the
earlier gains appear to have been solidified: The percentage of white evangelicals who
willingly classified themselves as strong Republicans was even greater in 1988 than in
1984 (data not shown).
Changes in mean partisan identification among white evangelicals and
nonevangelicals from 1980 to 1988 are presented in Table 1. Partisan identification was
measured so that scores ranged from 0 (strong Democrat) to 6 (strong Republican).
Several patterns are evident. First, evangelicals were more Republican in 1988 than were
nonevangelicals. Both groups had begun the decade with marginally Democratic mean
scores (less than 3.0), but both moved consistently toward the GOP after that. The mean
score for all evangelicals became more Republican than Democratic in 1984, and in 1988
nonevangelicals also had mean scores leaning slightly toward the GOP.
Second, striking regional differences in partisan identification continue to exist
among both white evangelicals and nonevangelicals. As of 1988, nonsoutherners,
regardless of religious standing, were more Republican than were southerners. Outside
the South, evangelicals were significantly more Republican than their nonevangelical
4. In 1988, the born-again question simply asked whether or not the respondent would classify himself/herself
as a born-again Christian.
5. Roman Catholics who met the three criteria above were excluded from the ranks of evangelicals because
their heritage is historically outside the evangelical movement and because their patterns of primary relation-
ships are likely to be part of another religious subcommunity. Various scholars have argued, either implicitly
or explicitly, that Catholics do not belong under the evangelical umbrella (e.g., Webber 1978:26-30; Hunter
1982:139-140). On the other hand, other scholars have treated certain Catholics who exhibit particular behavioral
patterns as evangelical Catholics (Welch and Leege 1989). Whether or not Catholics fall under the evangelical
umbrella depends heavily upon one's theoretical framework. If one wishes to treat evangelicals as a category
exhibiting certain types of behavior or professing certain religious beliefs or experiences, then certain Catholics
could be properly viewed as evangelicals. On the other hand, if one wishes to treat evangelicals as a social group,
and emphasize patterns of social interaction among primary groups, then it is likely that most, if not all, Catholics
would have to be excluded from the ranks of evangelicals.
6. Because the religious subcultures of white and black evangelicals are likely to be different, and because the
patterns of social interaction between white and black evangelicals are likely to be less frequent than those
between black evangelicals and black nonevangelicals, white and black evangelicals were separated. However,
given the relatively small numbers within the resultant black categories, meaningful comparisons could not
be made between the two black groups. Therefore, analysis was restricted to a comparison and contrast to white
evangelicals and nonevangelicals. Blacks who subscribe to evangelical tenets of the Christian faith are less likely
to call themselves evangelicals than are whites who do so (see Sidey 1990 and Jelen et al. 1990).
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EVANGELICALS IN THE 1988 ELECTION 333
TABLE 1
PARTISAN SELF-IMAGES AMONG WHITE EVANGELICALS AND NONEVANGELICALS
1980 1984 1988
Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan.
All Respondents 2.77 2.82 2.92 3.29** 3.02 3.36**
(1017) (180) (1392) (285) (1356) (312)
Non-South 2.91 3.27 2.96 3.73*** 3.07 3.81***
(776) (95) (1104) (128) (1042) (173)
South 2.61 2.41 2.78 2.73 2.84 2.79
(241) (85) (288) (127) (314) (139)
Non-South
Young 2.85 3.17 3.02 3.84** 3.18 4.11**
(294) (35) (403) (51) (336) (44)
Middle-Aged 2.90 2.84 2.87 3.73** 3.01 3.93***
(252) (31) (381) (48) (382) (68)
Old 2.73 3.76* 2.98 3.64** 3.05 3.46
(230) (29) (320) (59) (322) (61)
South
Young 2.71 2.39 2.94 3.06 3.17 3.31
(93) (28) (114) (49) (108) (48)
Middle-Aged 2.77 2.88 3.04 2.41 2.72 2.80
(74) (24) (100) (39) (127) (45)
Old 2.27 1.91 2.19 2.64 2.60 2.24
(74) (33) (74) (39) (79) (46)
Source: CPS Election Studies
Note: Figures represent mean scores ranging from 0 (strongly Democrat) to 6 (strong Republicans).
*t = .05, **t = .01, ***t = .001
counterparts, whereas southern evangelicals were slightly more Democratic than their
nonevangelical counterparts. Yet, regardless of region, both groups moved consistently
toward the GOP after 1980. Future elections will shed additional light on whether these
changes reflect primarily a process of realignment or dealignment, but it is undeniable
that a significant movement toward the Republican Party occurred after the initial
election of Ronald Reagan.
Nevertheless, a "permanent" realignment, especially among white evangelicals,
seems a possibility. The youngest evangelical groups are the most Republican in their
respective regions, while the oldest voters (with the exception of nonsouthern
evangelicals) have been the most Democratic. A generational changing of the guard
appears to be taking place, to the benefit of the Republican Party.
Although great contrasts exist outside the South, no statistically significant
differences in partisan identification exist between southern evangelicals and southern
nonevangelicals (see also Kiecolt and Nelson 1991). The unique nature of the political
culture in the South seems to have a greater effect on a respondent's partisan identifica-
tion than does his or her religious grouping. The South is becoming more Republican,
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
334 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
but so is the North, and often at a rate equal to or more rapid than that found in the
South. Little support, then, can be found in Table 1 for the idea of southern and non-
southern convergence, at least in terms of partisan self-images (Little 1989).
Voting Turnout
Historically, evangelicals have been less likely than nonevangelicals to vote in
presidential elections (Wuthnow 1983; Kellstedt and Noll 1990:371). While evangelicals
flocked to the polls in 1980 (Brundy and Copeland 1984; Bruce 1988), they were less
likely than nonevangelicals in 1984 to have gone to the polls (Smidt 1987). Was
evangelical involvement in the 1980 election unique, or did it herald a new level of
politicization muted only by the anticipated Reagan landslide in 1984?
Table 2 reveals that when the levels of voter turnout over the last two presidential
elections are compared, there was a marginal increase among white evangelicals and
a modest decrease among white nonevangelicals. This slight increase in evangelical
turnout is better depicted as a modest increase outside the South, coupled with a slight
TABLE 2
VOTING TURNOUT AMONG WHITE EVANGELICALS AND NONEVANGELICALS
1980 1984 1988
Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan.
All Respondents .715 .771 .763 .695* .721 .712
(1039) (183) (1427) (292) (852) (222)
Non-South .731 .750 .783 .753 .753 .797
(792) (96) (1132) (162) (688) (137)
South .664 .793* .688 .623 .614 .607
(247) (87) (295) (130) (164) (85)
Non-South
Young .623 .722 .684 .635 .608 .682
(302) (36) (414) (52) (169) (30)
Middle-Aged .799 .774 .839 .824 .807 .838
(254) (31) (385) (51) (280) (57)
Old .795 .759 .843 .797 .830 .833
(234) (29) (322) (59) (239) (50)
South
Young .516 .767** .576 .620 .457 563
(97) (30) (118) (50) (42) (27)
Middle-Aged .750 .792 .777 .634 .708 .622
(76) (24) (103) (41) (75) (28)
Old .770 .818 .743 .615 .681 .638
(74) (33) (74) (39) (47) (30)
Source: CPS Election Studies
Note: Figures represent proportion reporting they had cast a ballot.
*p = .05, **p = .01, ***p= .001
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EVANGELICALS IN THE 1988 ELECTION 335
drop in turnout within the South. Actually, the gap in turnout rates between southern
and nonsouthern evangelicals widened during the 1980s, with a 30% difference in 1988.
Regional differences among nonevangelicals, while obvious, are less dramatic.
Although turnout rates of nonevangelicals were also higher outside the South than within
the South, regional differences in participation rates were smaller for nonevangelicals
than for evangelicals.
However, a new generation of relatively politicized evangelicals might be enmerging,
as younger white evangelicals appear to be more active politically than their
nonevangelical counterparts. Since 1980, young southern evangelicals have consistently
voted at higher rates than have young southern nonevangelicals. Likewise, outside the
South, young evangelicals have also been somewhat more politicized, the exception being
the 1984 election. In 1988, young evangelicals once again voted at higher rates than
did young nonevangelicals (68.2% versus 60.8%, respectively), as they had in 1980. If
this level of politicization among young evangelicals continues as they grow older, then
the overall evangelical turnout rates might, over the course of the next several elections,
exceed the nonevangelical rates.
Voting Behavior
Prior to the 1988 election, it was unclear whether evangelical support for the
Republican presidential candidate was simply tied to the candidacy of Ronald Reagan
or represented a more fundamental shift toward the Republican Party. The 1988 election
constituted the first real test of evangelical loyalty to the GOP in the post-Reagan era.
It might be too early to assess the permanence of any such shift, but it is at least possi-
ble to analyze what hints, if any, the election offered about the future behavior of
evangelicals.
As can be seen from the top portion of Table 3, the voting patterns among
evangelicals and nonevangelicals became significantly different during the 1980s. While
white nonevangelicals voted consistently for Republican presidental candidates during
that period, the percentage of white nonevangelicals voting Republican monotonically
declined. On the other hand, the percentage of white evangelicals voting Republican
was greater in 1988 than it was in 1980, although not as high as it had been in 1984
when Reagan sought reelection.
Regional differences also continue to be noteworthy in the voting behavior of white
evangelicals and nonevangelicals. Outside the South, evangelicals supported Bush at
a much higher level than did nonevangelicals (71% versus 55%), although they did so
at a lower level than they had supported Reagan in 1984. Within the South, however,
evangelical support for the Republican ticket continued its monotonic growth upward,
while southern nonevangelicals supported Bush at a slightly lower rate than they had
given Reagan in 1980, and at much lower rate than in 1984. Previously, southern
evangelicals and nonevangelicals tended to mirror each other in their political behavior
(Smidt 1989b), but the patterns found here suggest that there might be a growing
divergence.
The major portion of growth in white evangelical support for the Republican ticket
appears to have been largely limited to the South. Evangelicals outside the South have
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
TABLE 3
PRESIDENTIAL VOTING BEHAVIOR AMONG WHITE EVANGELICALS AND NONEVANGELICALS
1980 1984 1988
Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan. Nonevan. Evan.
All Respondents .623 .669 .610 .763*** .560 .703***
(626) (139) (1022) (198) (822) (219)
Non-South .623 .700 .596 .828*** .552 .713***
(477) (70) (831) (117) (661) (136)
South .624 .638 .670 .667 .590 .687
(149) (69) (191) (81) (161) (83)
Non-South
Young .624 .840* .595 .906*** .559 .733
(141) (25) (269) (32) (161) (30)
Middle-Aged .661 .565 .597 .875*** .548 .750**
(165) (23) (308) (40) (272) (56)
Old .580 .682 .595 .727 .553 .660
(169) (22) (246) (45) (228) (50)
South
Young .636 .696 .694 .774 .537 .769
(44) (23) (62) (31) (41) (26)
Middle-Aged .673 .895 .722 .654 .573 .679
(52) (19) (79) (26) (75) (28)
Old .566 .407 .560 .542 .667 .621
(53) (27) (50) (24) (45) (29)
Source: CPS Election Studies
Note: Figures represent proportion reporting they had cast a Republican ballot among those casting ballots
for the two major parties.
*p = .05, **p = .01, ***p= .001
always been heavily Republican in their partisan preferences, and no major growth in
support for the Republican candidates occurred during the decade. Within the South,
however, there was a steady, though modest, growth in support for the Republican ticket
among evangelicals across the three elections. As a result, by 1988, support for the
Republican candidate among evangelicals living within the South approximated that
among evangelicals living outside the South (68.7% versus 71.3%, respectively).
When age differences were analyzed in conjunction with regional differences, several
patterns became noteworthy. Outside the South, evangelicals were more likely than
nonevangelicals, regardless of age, to vote for the Republican presidential candidate,
and young evangelicals, generally speaking, were the most Republican of any of the
groups analyzed. Within the South, young evangelicals were also the most consistently
Republican of any of the groups analyzed, and the differences in voting patterns between
young southern evangelicals and young southern nonevangelicals grew over the last
three elections. By 1988, young southern evangelicals were substantially more Republican
in their voting choice than were young nonevangelicals. Yet, even among the most
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EVANGELICALS IN THE 1988 ELECTION 337
Democratic of southern groups, the winds of change are apparent as older evangelicals
and nonevangelicals have both grown more Republican in their voting.
CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there has been an important
shift in the partisan identification of white evangelical voters during the past decade.
A shift toward Republican identification took place during the early 1980s, and this
shift appears to have solidified during Reagan's second term. Moreover, this shift is
most evident among younger evangelicals, and, as a result, its effects are likely to be
felt in elections to come.
Second, it would appear that white evangelicals have become more politicized during
the past decade. Whereas this segment was less likely to have been politically active
than their nonevangelical counterparts prior to the 1980s, it was just as likely, if not
more likely, to have been politically engaged during the past decade. This increased
activism was evident in the presidential elections of 1980 and 1988, as well as in the
1988 presidential selection process (Smidt 1989c). Previous conclusions concerning the
relatively apolitical nature of evangelicals need to be reassessed in light of these
new patterns.
Third, there is a growing divergence between the voting patterns of white
evangelicals and white nonevangelicals, with evangelicals being more likely to cast their
ballots for the GOP presidential candidate. These differences in voting patterns were
not statistically significant in 1980, but they had become so by 1984 and remained so
in 1988. However, of the various categories of voters analyzed, a monotonic increase
in support for the Republican ticket occurred only among white southern evangelicals.
Finally, there might be a growing divergence between the political behavior of white
evangelicals and nonevangelicals within the South. In the past, the political attitudes
and behavior of southern evangelicals and nonevangelicals were somewhat similar in
nature. By 1988 there were some notable differences between the two groups. These
differences were evident not only in voter turnout and candidate choice in the Super
Tuesday primaries (Smidt 1989c), but also in candidate choice in the general election.
As a result of this growing divergence, southern evangelicals seemingly have begun
to reflect more closely the patterns evident among nonsouthern evangelicals than among
southern nonevangelicals. While there might not be a growing convergence between the
South and the rest of the country, there could be a growing convergence in the political
attitudes and behavior of southern and nonsouthern white evangelicals.
REFERENCES
Bruce, Steven
1988 The rise and faU of the new Christian right.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Brundy, Jeffrey, and Gary Copeland
1984 Evangelicals as a political force: Reagan
and the 1980 religious vote. Social Science
Quarterly 65:1072-1079 (December).
Galston, William
1988 Did Super Tuesday work? Election Politics
5:2-5 (Summer).
Hunter, James D.
1982 Operationaiizing evangelicalism: A review,
critique, and proposal. Sociological
Analysis 42:363-374 (Winter).
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
1983 American evangelcalism. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Jelen, Ted, Clyde Wilcox, and Corwin Smidt
1990 Biblical literalism and inerrancy: A
methodological investigation. Sociological
Analysis 51:307-313 (Fall).
Kiecolt, K. Jill, and Hart M. Nelson
1991 Evangelicals and party realignment,
1976-1988. Social Science Quarterly:
forthcoming.
Kellstedt, Lyman
1989a Evangelicals and political realignment. In
Contemporary evangelical political involve-
ment, edited by Corwin Smidt, 99-117.
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of
America.
1989b The meaning and measurement of
evangelicalism: Problems and prospects. In
Religion and political behavior in the
United States, edited by Ted Jelen, 3-21.
New York: Praeger.
Kelstedt, Lyman, and Mark Noll
1990 Religion, voting for president, and party
identification, 1948-1984. In Religion and
American politics, edited by Mark Noll,
335-379. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Little, Thomas
1989 Southern and nonsouthern political
behavior: The nature of convergence,
1964-1988. Paper presented at the Southern
Political Science Association, Memphis,
November.
Quirk, Paul
1989 The election. In The elections of 1988, edited
by Michael Nelson, 63-92. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Shribman, David
1986 Michigan results expose weakness of
Robertson and other Republican presiden-
tial candidates. The Wall Street Journal,
August 7, p. 42.
Sidey, Ken
1990 What's in a word? Christianity Today 34
(3):40-41 (February 5).
Smidt, Corwin
1987 Evangelicals and the 1984 election: Con-
tinuity or change? American Politics
Quarterly 15:419-444 (October).
1988a Evangelicals in presidential elections: A
look at othe 1980s. Election Politics 5:2-11
(Spring).
1988b Evangelicals within contemporary
American politics: Differentiating between
fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist
evangelicals. Western Political Quarterly
41:601-620 (September).
1989a "Praise the Lord" politics: A comparative
analysis of the social characteristics and
political views of American evangelical and
charismatic Christians. Sociological
Analysis 50:53-72 (Spring).
1989b Change and stability among southern
evangelicals. In Religion in American
politics, edited by Charles Dunn, 147-159.
Washington, D.C.: C. Q. Press.
1989c Evangelicals and initial presidential can-
didate preferences in 1988: An analysis of
the Super-Tuesday primaries. Paper
presented at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, San Fran-
cisco, January.
Smidt, Corwin, and James Penning
1990 A house divided: A comparison of Robert-
son and Bush delegates to the Michigan
Republican state convention. Polity 23:
127-138 (Fall).
Turner, Helen Lee, and James Guth
1989 The politics of Armageddon: Dispensa-
tionalism among Southern Baptist min-
isters. In Religion and political behavior in
the United States. See Kellstedt 1989b,
187-208.
Webber, Robert
1978 Common roots. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Welch, Michael, and David Leege
1991 Dual reference groups and political orien-
tations: An examination of evangelically
oriented Catholics. American Journal of
Political Science 35:28-56 (February).
Wilcox, Clyde
1986 Evangelicals and fundamentalists in the
new Christian right: Religious differences
in the Ohio Moral Majority. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 25:335-363
(September).
Wuthnow, Robert
1983 The political rebirth of American
evangelica.s In The New Christian Right:
Mobilization and legitimation, edited by
Robert Liebman and Robert Wuthnow,
167-185. New York: Aldine.
This content downloaded from 153.106.59.12 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:48:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
