You've said..."voting trends still seem to point out that the Evangelical Bloc will support candidates who remain conservative on the issues that they tend to focus on; gay marriage, abortion, and other highly controversial topics."

I can't tell you how sick I am of all the pandering to the evangelicals.  This country, including the evangelicals whose vote is as valid as mine, deserves what they vote for.  So if gay marriage, abortion, etc. are the only things important to the evangelicals then I say so be it....but don't come crying to me later when the Republicans once again destroy the economy, take us to war, and take away your Social Security and Medicare.  Go to your priests, ministers, rabbis and faith healers because the Republicans will be busy taking your money and your life. 

Evangelicals are pretty solid social-conservatives, and while in some smaller elections it may be better, nationally they are likely to support the conservative.

Now, 2008 will be a special case if Rudy is the nominee.  After all, we appeal to them more of charity, national healthcare, and the environment.  In that case, Democrats may have a striking point; we can appeal to them without shifting on our own beliefs.  But in general, pandering is unlikely to gain significant support, and more likely would result in the loss of liberal base voters.

I like the conclusions you reach in Part 4 of your paper.  Large fractions of White evangelical Protestants aren't going to vote for Democrats - they are the core of the Republican Party base (Black, Asian, and Hispanic evangelicals do vote for Democrats because of other issues).  However, going left on economic and foreign policy issues (opposing the War in Iraq and universal health care) can help to pick off swing (moderate) evangelical voters, both now and in the future. 

For a national campaign, the question is: who are your swing voters?  Are they moderate evangelicals, who want to hear populist economic themes?  Or are they richer Catholics/mainline Protestants who are concerned about government authoritarianism and their standard of living?  It's hard to say.  Virginia is starting to look like a reasonable cross-section of the rest of the country, so this applies to us as well.  Lookng at the 2007 elections here in VA, it seems like swing voters are richer, suburban Catholics and mainline Protestants.  All the seats the Dems won were in the suburbs of NOVA and Hampton Roads.  To target these people you run a campaign centered towards middle class Catholic and mainline Protestant concerns while treating moderate evangelicals with respect, even where you disagree with them.  Campaigns in rural, redder districts have to be run differently - you appeal to moderate evangelicals by sliding right on social issues where you must (abortion and/or guns, depending on the district) and going left on economic issues (like Jon Tester, who is pro-choice and pro-gun, fitting Montana).  In this case, you then talk about economic issues where you have the most advantage and frame the debate in your direction.