As far as the Liberal-repulsion factor goes, I think it’s probably a better argument than you seem to think (or at least the EFC authors prove)…

Paul Martin’s appeals to “Canadian values” contra Harper in 2004 but also in 2006 certainly took on anti-evangelical dimensions. The campaign was quite definitely of the “devil you know vs. devil you don’t.” It was easy to see why the Liberals would use that tack. It had worked so wonderfully with Stockwell Day, and with W. in the White House, it had strong emotional currency at the time.

Martin’s goal was to paint Harper’s unstated (evangelical) beliefs as foreign (i.e. American or anti-Canadian), and dangerous (jeopardizing “women’s rights over their bodies,” “equality”). Evangelicals could easily construe this as a cartoonish depiction of their beliefs. Martin then assumed the moral high road and defined Canadianness as Liberal.

In 2004, I was a seminary student at Regent College in Vancouver, one of Canada’s best known evangelical institutions. I’m not especially smitten with any particular political party. At one time or other, I’ve voted for everyone but the Bloc (not currently possible in Western Canada). But at the time, Martin’s moral tone struck me as supremely arrogant and politically short-sighted. I’m sure I wasn’t alone.

Any assumed affiliation b/w evangelicals (or a mix of religious folk) and the Conservative party is troubling. It’s dangerous for any religious group to yolk itself with the powers that be. Still, in the wake of Martin, I can at the very least fathom why many would side with Harper rather than becoming fodder during Canada’s bi-annual stump fest.

Just as American evangelicals tend to support the Republican Party, Canadian evangelicals are more likely