ADVERTISEMENT

The unchurched election.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoopsdoc1978

All-American
Apr 13, 2016
5,804
8,072
113
45
Epsom Indiana
https://world.wng.org/2019/04/unchurched_election

Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong. WORLD’s running survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 showed almost zero initial support for Trump. Not until his ascension left him as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton did he pick up broad support from church-going evangelicals, and the reason was obvious: the Supreme Court.

But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016? Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary: “The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”

Crunching numbers from the Voter Study Group, Carney and his research assistant Nick Saffran broke down by church attendance Republican voters in caucuses and primaries. Two out of 3 of the most frequent church attenders voted against Trump, but nearly 2 out of 3 of those who call themselves evangelicals but never go to church (a contradiction in terms) voted for him.

Carney compares the rural Iowa counties of Fremont and Winnebago, where the populations have similar incomes, similar educational attainment, similar unemployment, and similar crops, mostly corn and soy. One big difference: Winnebago, packed with churches, is one of the Top 10 Iowa counties in religious adherence, while Fremont, where churches were closing in 2013 and 2014, is 84th out of 99. Early in 2016 Trump received 19 percent of Winnebago’s votes, 43 percent of Fremont’s.

books1a_1.png



Trump’s worst county in Iowa, worse even than the counties housing the liberal University of Iowa and Iowa State, is highly churched Sioux County, which houses Dordt College. As dean of the World Journalism Institute, which holds our intensive college course at Dordt during the last two weeks of May every year, I’ve seen what a tight-knit place Sioux County is. Many residents are not looking for a Nietzschean superman to save them: They have a superman in their own homes—a faithful, hard-working dad—and they know a Superior Being looks after them.

Watch the evangelicals filling Sioux County churches on Sunday, and it’s no surprise that Trump did poorly there. Drive by closed or mostly empty churches in Buchanan County, Virginia’s little bit of Appalachia, and it’s no surprise that Trump did great in Buchanan. A Pew survey in March 2016 showed Trump down by 16 percentage points among white evangelical voters who attended church weekly, and up by 19 points among those who did not. Trump’s strongest support came among those unlikely to be in church but highly likely to say religion was important to them.

Carney points out how economic and religious institution collapse have followed parallel tracks in America. He cites a study by sociologist Brad Wilcox aptly titled “No Money, No Honey, No Church” and notes Wilcox’s finding that white Americans are less likely to attend religious services when they are unemployed: They’re also more susceptible to divorce.

It’s all part of a vicious cycle: Absent strong job prospects, fewer adults form families. Fewer weddings, fewer baptisms, fewer kids to teach about right and wrong: One result is less church involvement and a give-up attitude that among 10 percent of the populace worsens job prospects.
 
White evangelical Protestants support Trump at a higher rate than any other religious denomination. Only non-white Catholics have as little regard for Trump as the religiously unaffiliated; black Protestants are even more dismissive.

FT_19.03.12_religiousGroupsTrump_smallMultiple640px_new.png

As Carney notes, the Voter Study Group found that, within the 2016 electorate, churchgoing white evangelicals were less extreme on issues of race and immigration than their secular familiars (although they were all neanderthals on LGBT issues). But Pew shows that the churchgoers have come around -- they now support Trump at rates that are as high or higher than their secular familiars' support.

FT_19.03.12_religiousGroupsTrump_smallMultiple420px.png

Thus the moderating effect that churchgoing might have had on white evangelicals seems to have disappeared, at least insofar as it translates into support for Trump. Presumably this results from the tribal impulse that gives Trump a job approval rating of over 90 percent among Republicans.

Still, there seems little doubt that Trump's core supporters are alienated. And for alienated white evangelicals, maybe church attendance would be a good thing. From the VSG report:

Data from the Public Religion Research Institute finds that, since 1992, the number of people leaving their faith traditions has quadrupled among the general public and tripled among conservatives. Thus, a potential moderating force among conservatives has been receding. Research has found that conservatives tend to care more about being a part of, and loyal to, a community. But as conservatives withdraw from religious participation, they may redraw the boundaries of their group identity along the lines of immutable traits such as ethnicity and nation of birth rather than something people can choose. For instance, this could potentially bolster support for white nationalism and the so-called alt-right movement.
Anything that would make Trump supporters less virulent would be a good thing. So by all means, Trump supporters, go to church. Maybe that'll help.
 
I’m not sure it’s that Trump is drawing evangelicals in as so much as it is the Democrats seem hell bent on driving them away. Maybe it’s a little of both.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...19/jan/31/democrats-ongoing-problem-with-god/

“Oddly enough,” the Daily Caller wrote, “the proposal to remove references to God comes just two months after Democrats proposed to remove a 181-year-old restriction on wearing religious headgear on the House floor in order to accommodate newly-elected Muslim women members.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
I’m not sure it’s that Trump is drawing evangelicals in as so much as it is the Democrats seem hell bent on driving them away. Maybe it’s a little of both.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...19/jan/31/democrats-ongoing-problem-with-god/

“Oddly enough,” the Daily Caller wrote, “the proposal to remove references to God comes just two months after Democrats proposed to remove a 181-year-old restriction on wearing religious headgear on the House floor in order to accommodate newly-elected Muslim women members.”
What basis could the federal government have to demand that witnesses profess a faith in God? It may be that Democrats will drive evangelicals away if they don't make everyone swear to God, but this is a problem with evangelicals, and not a problem with Democrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops and MaxCoke
What basis could the federal government have to demand that witnesses profess a faith in God? It may be that Democrats will drive evangelicals away if they don't make everyone swear to God, but this is a problem with evangelicals, and not a problem with Democrats.
Dammit Rock, get it straight. It's the Democrats' fault these good God fearing folks are forced to vote for the lying, thieving, philandering, porn star raw dogging adulterer. You gave them no choice.
 
What basis could the federal government have to demand that witnesses profess a faith in God? It may be that Democrats will drive evangelicals away if they don't make everyone swear to God, but this is a problem with evangelicals, and not a problem with Democrats.
Predictably, you didn’t refute my point, especially as it relates to the vote of evangelicals.
 
Predictably, you didn’t refute my point, especially as it relates to the vote of evangelicals.
I just agreed that Democrats might drive evangelicals away by not making everyone swear to God, but as I said, this is a problem with evangelicals, and not a problem with Democrats. What other point are you making that I'm not addressing?
 
I just agreed that Democrats might drive evangelicals away by not making everyone swear to God, but as I said, this is a problem with evangelicals, and not a problem with Democrats. What other point are you making that I'm not addressing?
My point was that regardless of anyone’s opinion on the removal of that phrasing, it’s undoubtedly driving away evangelicals who may otherwise vote Dem.
 
https://world.wng.org/2019/04/unchurched_election

Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong. WORLD’s running survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 showed almost zero initial support for Trump. Not until his ascension left him as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton did he pick up broad support from church-going evangelicals, and the reason was obvious: the Supreme Court.

But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016? Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary: “The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”

Crunching numbers from the Voter Study Group, Carney and his research assistant Nick Saffran broke down by church attendance Republican voters in caucuses and primaries. Two out of 3 of the most frequent church attenders voted against Trump, but nearly 2 out of 3 of those who call themselves evangelicals but never go to church (a contradiction in terms) voted for him.

Carney compares the rural Iowa counties of Fremont and Winnebago, where the populations have similar incomes, similar educational attainment, similar unemployment, and similar crops, mostly corn and soy. One big difference: Winnebago, packed with churches, is one of the Top 10 Iowa counties in religious adherence, while Fremont, where churches were closing in 2013 and 2014, is 84th out of 99. Early in 2016 Trump received 19 percent of Winnebago’s votes, 43 percent of Fremont’s.

books1a_1.png



Trump’s worst county in Iowa, worse even than the counties housing the liberal University of Iowa and Iowa State, is highly churched Sioux County, which houses Dordt College. As dean of the World Journalism Institute, which holds our intensive college course at Dordt during the last two weeks of May every year, I’ve seen what a tight-knit place Sioux County is. Many residents are not looking for a Nietzschean superman to save them: They have a superman in their own homes—a faithful, hard-working dad—and they know a Superior Being looks after them.

Watch the evangelicals filling Sioux County churches on Sunday, and it’s no surprise that Trump did poorly there. Drive by closed or mostly empty churches in Buchanan County, Virginia’s little bit of Appalachia, and it’s no surprise that Trump did great in Buchanan. A Pew survey in March 2016 showed Trump down by 16 percentage points among white evangelical voters who attended church weekly, and up by 19 points among those who did not. Trump’s strongest support came among those unlikely to be in church but highly likely to say religion was important to them.

Carney points out how economic and religious institution collapse have followed parallel tracks in America. He cites a study by sociologist Brad Wilcox aptly titled “No Money, No Honey, No Church” and notes Wilcox’s finding that white Americans are less likely to attend religious services when they are unemployed: They’re also more susceptible to divorce.

It’s all part of a vicious cycle: Absent strong job prospects, fewer adults form families. Fewer weddings, fewer baptisms, fewer kids to teach about right and wrong: One result is less church involvement and a give-up attitude that among 10 percent of the populace worsens job prospects.
That's interesting, but it's not actually unknown. This was recognized as early as the primary season. But regardless of who got there first, once Trump became the nominee, just as you note in your first paragraph, the rest of the white evangelicals came around.
 
My point was that regardless of anyone’s opinion on the removal of that phrasing, it’s undoubtedly driving away evangelicals who may otherwise vote Dem.
I doubt it. Any evangelical who might vote Dem would see this non-issue as the nonsense it is.
 
You have a party that celebrates baby murder by lighting buildings pink. Removing God from the platform was merely the rubber stamp on a lifetime of taking a dump all over religious people, particularly of the evangelical variety.

"You people suck, you are hateful, we don't believe in your God or your religion, and we believe that abortion is great.....I mean, that we would not choose it for ourselves but we are going to kill them when they grow up anyway so why not get them before they can put up a fight, you deplorable bastards."

"Now why would evangelicals go and vote for a dirtbag like Donald Trump? Can't they see how much closer we adhere to their values than that cheating, arrogant, hateful, jerk of a man?"

When you beat a dog for years, don't be shocked on the day it turns around and joins in when you are being attacked. It isn't that it likes the person beating you up, it just does not like you.
 
With all due respect, that’s nuts. Some may see it that way but I’d be willing to bet the majority don’t.
What would be nuts would be for the Dems to cater to "evangelicals who may otherwise vote Dem". They've proven they will sell their souls to anyone, and I mean anyone, who claims to be against abortion. Nothing, and I mean nothing else matters.
 
You have a party that celebrates baby murder by lighting buildings pink. Removing God from the platform was merely the rubber stamp on a lifetime of taking a dump all over religious people, particularly of the evangelical variety.

"You people suck, you are hateful, we don't believe in your God or your religion, and we believe that abortion is great.....I mean, that we would not choose it for ourselves but we are going to kill them when they grow up anyway so why not get them before they can put up a fight, you deplorable bastards."

"Now why would evangelicals go and vote for a dirtbag like Donald Trump? Can't they see how much closer we adhere to their values than that cheating, arrogant, hateful, jerk of a man?"

When you beat a dog for years, don't be shocked on the day it turns around and joins in when you are being attacked. It isn't that it likes the person beating you up, it just does not like you.
This is the caricature of liberals that exists in the minds of people who care about nothing but abortion. You are going to vote for the Republican no matter how religious the Democrat is, so there's no point trying to win your vote. If you're offended by a discussion about the appropriateness of "So help me God" when swearing before a Congressional committee, then bully for you. The Democrats can appeal to religious voters. You're not the kind of religious voter they can win - nor should they want to.
 
What would be nuts would be for the Dems to cater to "evangelicals who may otherwise vote Dem". They've proven they will sell their souls to anyone, and I mean anyone, who claims to be against abortion. Nothing, and I mean nothing else matters.

So?

How many Dems have sold their souls to anyone who is for unrestricted abortion? And nothing else matters. Your blinkers are galactically-huge.
 
This is the caricature of liberals that exists in the minds of people who care about nothing but abortion. You are going to vote for the Republican no matter how religious the Democrat is, so there's no point trying to win your vote. If you're offended by a discussion about the appropriateness of "So help me God" when swearing before a Congressional committee, then bully for you. The Democrats can appeal to religious voters. You're not the kind of religious voter they can win - nor should they want to.
It's also striking to see support for Trump explained as a sort of temper tantrum by butthurt white guys who claim it's Democrats' fault that they're acting out like petulant two-year-olds. "I'm going to stamp my feet and hold my breath until you start showing me some respect," they might as well argue.

Meanwhile no one gives a shit about offending liberals like me. (Apparently I support murdering babies, which obviously isn't the way the Trumpbots demand to be approached.) To the contrary, owning the libs seems to be a central purpose of most #NewGOP political messaging. But people like me aren't elevating obviously unfit cartoon characters to our highest office because we're butthurt over the daily slanders from Team Republican.

And finally, this little dustup was triggered by a report that a government agency might stop requiring witnesses to profess truth "so help me God" -- which by the way is not a thing that any government agency can constitutionally require in this country. It's inconceivable to me that there are any significant number of white evangelicals who would have voted for a Democrat until they learned about the whole "so help me God" thing, but neither Democrats nor Republicans should humor evangelicals on religious oaths. I wonder how many here disagree with that.
 
https://world.wng.org/2019/04/unchurched_election

Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong. WORLD’s running survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 showed almost zero initial support for Trump. Not until his ascension left him as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton did he pick up broad support from church-going evangelicals, and the reason was obvious: the Supreme Court.

But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016? Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary: “The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”

Crunching numbers from the Voter Study Group, Carney and his research assistant Nick Saffran broke down by church attendance Republican voters in caucuses and primaries. Two out of 3 of the most frequent church attenders voted against Trump, but nearly 2 out of 3 of those who call themselves evangelicals but never go to church (a contradiction in terms) voted for him.

Carney compares the rural Iowa counties of Fremont and Winnebago, where the populations have similar incomes, similar educational attainment, similar unemployment, and similar crops, mostly corn and soy. One big difference: Winnebago, packed with churches, is one of the Top 10 Iowa counties in religious adherence, while Fremont, where churches were closing in 2013 and 2014, is 84th out of 99. Early in 2016 Trump received 19 percent of Winnebago’s votes, 43 percent of Fremont’s.

books1a_1.png



Trump’s worst county in Iowa, worse even than the counties housing the liberal University of Iowa and Iowa State, is highly churched Sioux County, which houses Dordt College. As dean of the World Journalism Institute, which holds our intensive college course at Dordt during the last two weeks of May every year, I’ve seen what a tight-knit place Sioux County is. Many residents are not looking for a Nietzschean superman to save them: They have a superman in their own homes—a faithful, hard-working dad—and they know a Superior Being looks after them.

Watch the evangelicals filling Sioux County churches on Sunday, and it’s no surprise that Trump did poorly there. Drive by closed or mostly empty churches in Buchanan County, Virginia’s little bit of Appalachia, and it’s no surprise that Trump did great in Buchanan. A Pew survey in March 2016 showed Trump down by 16 percentage points among white evangelical voters who attended church weekly, and up by 19 points among those who did not. Trump’s strongest support came among those unlikely to be in church but highly likely to say religion was important to them.

Carney points out how economic and religious institution collapse have followed parallel tracks in America. He cites a study by sociologist Brad Wilcox aptly titled “No Money, No Honey, No Church” and notes Wilcox’s finding that white Americans are less likely to attend religious services when they are unemployed: They’re also more susceptible to divorce.

It’s all part of a vicious cycle: Absent strong job prospects, fewer adults form families. Fewer weddings, fewer baptisms, fewer kids to teach about right and wrong: One result is less church involvement and a give-up attitude that among 10 percent of the populace worsens job prospects.
I can speak for myself. I was a Cruz guy and voted for him in the Indiana primary. But he didn't make it.
 
What is worse than the Devil? It would have been Hillary.

I saw a poll about a year ago, maybe posted in this forum, where roughly 30% of Christian evangelicals said that if the known biblical Antichrist were running against Hillary Clinton, they would vote for the Antichrist. I must admit, I thought of you for some reason. Would you vote for the Antichrist over Clinton? It’s remotely possible you’ve already done that, Pastor.
 
I saw a poll about a year ago, maybe posted in this forum, where roughly 30% of Christian evangelicals said that if the known biblical Antichrist were running against Hillary Clinton, they would vote for the Antichrist. I must admit, I thought of you for some reason. Would you vote for the Antichrist over Clinton? It’s remotely possible you’ve already done that, Pastor.
At least the Antichrist isn't a damn woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morrison
A lot was said that uneducated whites voted for Trump do to “economic anxiety.” I believe it’s fair to think that view oversimplified things a great bit. This poll certainly indicates that there other things that motivated them to vote overwhelmingly for Trump - a woman in power causes them great anxiety.
CNN
Head-to-head
@CNN
2020 poll among whites without a college degree:
Trump +13% over Biden
Trump +15% over Buttigieg
Trump +16% over O'Rourke
Trump +17% over Sanders
Trump +28% over Harris
Trump +34% over Warren
Trump +37% over Clinton '16
 
A lot was said that uneducated whites voted for Trump do to “economic anxiety.” I believe it’s fair to think that view oversimplified things a great bit. This poll certainly indicates that there other things that motivated them to vote overwhelmingly for Trump - a woman in power causes them great anxiety.
CNN
Head-to-head
@CNN
2020 poll among whites without a college degree:
Trump +13% over Biden
Trump +15% over Buttigieg
Trump +16% over O'Rourke
Trump +17% over Sanders
Trump +28% over Harris
Trump +34% over Warren
Trump +37% over Clinton '16
Neither link leads to directly to an article or poll that is related to what you’re talking about. You got s link that does that?
 
Neither link leads to directly to an article or poll that is related to what you’re talking about. You got s link that does that?

Sorry it was not a link but rather a copy of the CNN poll results posted on Twitter. Regardless, the poll says what it’s says.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT