New York Times pretty hopeful that white evangelical women will dump Ted Cruz and back Beto

Hey, if you can’t dream, what’s the point of living? Especially when we’re talking about Texas, the left never quite seems to let go of the most delusional fantasies of what might happen on the next Election Day. In the previous presidential election cycle, there was a popular belief bubbling up on the left that Texas was about to turn blue! This usually fits into the Democrats “demography is destiny” notion that says the growing minority population is going to leave whitey in the dust and eventually hand the Democrats the power to rule us forever. (That of course ignores the fact that some of those minorities will undoubtedly become spectacularly rich and learn to vote Republican, but whatever.) All the Democrats have to do is let enough illegal aliens come across the border, figure out how to let them vote, and whammo! Blue wave forever.

---

Now from our ever-hopeful friends at the New York Times comes another big dream: Beto O’Rourke is going to take down Ted Cruz, you see, and evangelical white women are going to help him do it!

Listening to Ms. Mooney’s story, the four other evangelical moms standing around a kitchen island began to buzz with excitement. All of them go to similarly conservative churches in Dallas. All are longtime Republican voters, solely because they oppose abortion rights. Only one broke ranks to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this November, they have all decided to vote for Mr. O’Rourke, the Democratic upstart who is on the front line of trying to upend politics in deep-red Texas. In the Senate race, one of the most unexpectedly tight in the nation, any small shift among evangelical voters — long a stable base for Republicans — could be a significant loss for Mr. Cruz, who, like President Trump, has made white evangelicals the bulwark of his support. To Democrats nationwide, who have largely written off white evangelical voters, it also sends a signal — not just for the midterms but also for the 2020 presidential campaign — that there are female, religious voters who are open to some of their party’s candidates. The women, who are all in their 30s, described Mr. O’Rourke as providing a stark moral contrast to Mr. Trump, whose policies and behavior they see as fundamentally anti-Christian, especially separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, banning many Muslim refugees and disrespecting women.

---

---

“I care as much about babies at the border as I do about babies in the womb,” said Tess Clarke, one of Ms. Mooney’s friends, confessing that she was “mortified” at how she used to vote, because she had only considered abortion policy. “We’ve been asleep. Now, we’ve woke up.” Ms. Clarke, who sells candles poured by refugee women in Dallas, began to weep as she recalled visiting a migrant woman detained and separated from her daughter at the border. When an older white evangelical man recently told her that she couldn’t be a Christian and vote for Mr. O’Rourke, Ms. Clarke was outraged. “I keep going back to who Jesus was when he walked on earth,” she said. “This is about proximity to people in pain.”

So the New York Times found four evangelical women who have started parroting social justice warrior language and decided at their coffee klatch that they’re going all Beto. Well there’s the start of a trend if I’ve ever heard one. Here are a few things the New York Times might benefit from knowing, if it’s interested in learning them:

---

---

• Most evangelicals who vote Republican do not do so solely because of abortion.
• White evangelicals vote overwhelmingly Republican, but not 100 percent Republican. The fact that someone tracked down four Beto voters in a given church is not even a little remarkable.
• I question how much of an evangelical someone really is when they insist on talking about Jesus as mainly interested in “proximity to people in pain,” whatever that even means. Jesus came here to win a victory over sin and death. Many Christians who vote against the Democratic Party do so because they don’t seem to have much of a problem with sin, or even believe the concept exists.
• Most of the people who go around calling other people “not very Christian” are actually not Christians at all, but the media love to quote them just the same.

I don’t really do political prognostication in this column. Besides not being very good at it, I don’t think there’s any value to you if I attempt it. So I’m not here to predict to you that Ted Cruz will win or lose. I have no idea. I hope he’ll win because I happen to think he’s a very good senator and an asset to the country. But I will tell you this: If the Democrats want to start winning the votes of Christians, the way to do it is not to try to sell us the whole “Jesus was a socialist” garbage and convince us the only way to help the poor is with government redistribution policies. The way to do it is to stop being so antagonistic toward the authority of Jesus Christ over people’s lives, and toward the Word of God that tells us how to live under that authority. If you help poor people but mock the Lord of Glory, you’re not getting my vote. Oh by the way, your policies don’t actually help the poor. But keep dreaming, New York Times. It’s what you do.

---