The religious left makes a play for red-state conservatives

Putting Christian faith at the center means candidates openly connect their beliefs, church experience, and policy goals. They present Democratic priorities as consistent with Christian teachings, rather than leaving religious language mainly to Republicans. This matters because many Christian voters do not strongly favor the GOP, even though white evangelicals do.

James Talarico invokes scripture against Christian nationalism and for protecting vulnerable people. His biblical slogan, “It’s time to start flipping tables,” links faith with a populist political message. Adam Hamilton draws on his work leading the nation’s largest United Methodist church and presents himself as a bridge-builder.

The strategy is an attempt to reach Christians who feel disconnected from conservative politics, including moderate and less engaged voters. It is not expected to erase the Republicans’ advantage among white evangelicals. Its success may depend on whether religious identity can make liberal candidates more approachable without losing voters who prioritize different political values.

James Talarico and Adam Hamilton are Democrats testing whether openly Christian candidates can compete in deeply Republican states. Talarico is a Presbyterian seminary student from Texas. Hamilton is a United Methodist pastor from Kansas. Their campaigns place their religious identities near the center of their appeals.

Talarico won a brutal Democratic primary against Rep. Jasmine Crockett and is now challenging Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, described in the article as scandal-plagued. Hamilton is running in Kansas, where his experience leading the largest United Methodist church in the nation supports his bridge-builder image. Both races are considered toss-ups.

The contests are historically difficult. President Trump won Texas and Kansas by double digits in 2024. Neither state has sent a Democrat to the Senate in the 21st century, and Kansas last did so in 1932. The candidates’ faith may help them reach voters previous Democrats struggled to approach.

Democrats face steep structural obstacles in both states. President Trump won Texas and Kansas by double digits in 2024. Neither state has sent a Democrat to the Senate during the 21st century. Kansas has not elected a Democratic senator since 1932. These facts show how unusual a Democratic victory would be.

Kansas presents an especially clear challenge because Republicans hold a massive voter-registration advantage. Political scientist Bob Beatty calls a Democratic Senate win “near impossible,” despite Kansas electing blue governors and voting to keep abortion legal. Hamilton’s pastoral background may give him an opening with western Kansas voters who distrust establishment Democrats.

Texas also remains strongly conservative, especially among white evangelical Christians. A September Marist survey showed Paxton leading Talarico 75% to 22% among those voters. Still, both races are classified as toss-ups. Their competitiveness suggests that coalition-building, faith appeals, and dissatisfaction with Republican candidates could disrupt normal state patterns.

The biggest potential consequence is Senate control. The article says victories by James Talarico in Texas and Adam Hamilton in Kansas would all but ensure that Democrats take the Senate. That makes two unusually difficult state races nationally important, far beyond the individual candidates or their religious appeals.

Their path would depend on building broad coalitions rather than simply converting large numbers of religious Republicans. Talarico is targeting Christians through scripture and visits to Black Baptist churches. Hamilton is trying to reproduce Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s coalition, including moderate Christians and center-right voters. Each approach seeks voters beyond the Democratic base.

The outcome is not guaranteed. Republicans retain major advantages, including strong support among white evangelicals and, in Kansas, a large registration edge. The races are nevertheless considered toss-ups. If both Democrats prevail, their wins would demonstrate that faith-centered campaigns can compete in hostile territory while reshaping the Senate balance.

The religious landscape is divided rather than uniformly Republican. Pew data cited in the article shows that white evangelicals still strongly favor Republicans. Many other Christian groups lean Democratic or are more narrowly split. Those differences matter because candidates can target religious voters differently instead of treating Christians as one political bloc.

Talarico’s campaign illustrates the strategy. A September Marist survey found Paxton leading him 75% to 22% among white evangelical Christians. Rather than relying on that group alone, Talarico uses scripture, opposes Christian nationalism, and visits Black Baptist churches. Hamilton emphasizes bridge-building and his United Methodist leadership to reach moderate and less engaged Christians.

The opening remains limited. Ralph Reed argues voters will not support candidates who profess faith but do not share their values. Democrats therefore must connect religious language to issues and political priorities. Catholic voters could become especially important if candidates win over people only marginally attached to their faith communities.

Earlier religious candidates and organizing groups gave Democrats a clearer model for faith-based campaigning. Raphael Warnock, the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, won a Senate seat in 2021. His election demonstrated that a Democratic candidate’s religious leadership could be central to a successful national campaign.

The newer effort also comes from organized training. Pastor Doug Pagitt leads Vote Common Good, a progressive Christian group that has helped politicians learn how to connect with faith voters. Pagitt says candidates’ personal convictions and years of work by groups like his are driving the religious left’s growth. He also argues Trump’s conduct has motivated some Christians to seek alternatives.

This model is expanding beyond Warnock and the two Senate contests. In Iowa, Lutheran minister Sarah Trone Garriott and Presbyterian pastor Lindsay James are running in tight House races. The longer-term test is whether clergy candidates can turn religious credibility into votes without being dismissed as “Pastors in Name Only.”

A candidate’s religious identity can influence voting because it signals values and creates a connection with voters who share that faith. A pastor may also have trusted relationships within churches and communities. Hamilton’s pastoral career gives him an “open doorway” to western Kansas voters, while Talarico’s scripture-based message helps frame liberal priorities in familiar religious language.

Religious identity works through credibility, not magic. Voters may appreciate a candidate’s faith but reject policies they consider inconsistent with their values. Ralph Reed argues that voters will not support someone who claims their faith without sharing their values. Talarico’s 75% to 22% deficit among white evangelical Christians shows the limits of religious language alone.

The strategy therefore must combine faith with issues and coalition-building. Economic struggles may affect conservative turnout, while abortion helped shape Kansas politics. Party affiliation remains powerful. Religious identity can open conversations, especially with moderate Christians and marginally attached Catholics, but it cannot guarantee support.