Who are those “evangelicals” and how are they voting?
This is an instructive article about people who self-describe as “evangelicals”:
Thanks to data compiled by the Association of Religious Data Archives, we have a very good sense of how many people in a given locale regularly attend church. By this attendance metric, the geographic heart of American religiosity isn’t the Southeast, but the middle part of the country ”” from Texas and Oklahoma through Iowa and the Dakotas. When it comes to church participation, many parts of the South fare no better than liberal enclaves in in the Northeast…
The South Carolina election results suggest that practicing Christians in the state voted differently than their peers who attend church less regularly. Take, for instance, one of Trump’s strongholds, the area in and around Barnwell County, near the central part of the state. Trump won nearly 43 percent of Barnwell County, while Cruz collected less than 20 percent. Unsurprisingly, church-attendance rates in Barnwell lag behind those in the rest of the state. Compare that to Greenville County, which has one of the highest rates of church attendance in the state: It was one of Trump’s worst counties. The pattern generally holds across South Carolina: Cruz does well where people regularly go to church; Trump does better where they don’t…
The problem is that Cruz may depend on a group of religious voters who increasingly spurn church services and, consequently, traditional social conservatives like him.
That was written back in late February, and that’s the way things have played out, I believe. Yesterday’s primaries in southern New England and mid-Atlantic states were not in evangelical strongholds, and it’s difficult to know the characteristics of those identifying as “evangelical” there, but this is what exit polls indicated:
Barely more than four in 10 voters in the three states with exit polls were evangelical, 14 points off the average in primaries to date. And, remarkably, Trump beat Cruz by more than 25 points in this group, among his best performances among evangelicals. They split their votes between Trump and Cruz, on average, in previous contests.
My guess is that evangelicals in these states are not especially typical of evangelicals as a whole, but that’s just a guess.
At any rate, a political divide along the lines of “churchgoing vs. non-chuchgoing” makes sense to me. It would be something analogous to the political divide between observant (more conservative) Jews and secular (more liberal) Jews.
[NOTE: Here’s a previous post I wrote about Trump and his habit of questioning the sincerity of the religious beliefs of others, particularly whether Ted Cruz can really be an evangelical. I have no idea whether this accusation of Trump’s got traction, but it’s possible.]
“At any rate, a political divide along the lines of “churchgoing vs. non-churchgoing” makes sense to me. It would be something analogous to the political divide between observant (more conservative) Jews and secular (more liberal) Jews.”
You could add Catholics to that list as well, I think, although I don’t profess to know where the political-issues lines fall for them (abortion and contraception is probably a major one; constitutional and economic policies maybe not so much).
AesopFan,
You do have the Nancy Pelosi Catholics. And Benedict had lots of detractors among lefty do-gooder Catholics. Catholics who haven’t attended parochial schools probably know little about theology.
Powerline says Cruz will be making a major announcement at 4 Eastern Time. They don’t know whether it’s an endorsement or a VEEP pick.
NRO is saying it’s Carly.
As the power centers of society have become increasingly anti-Christian, you start to find those with traditional values identifying themselves as “evangelical” even though they do not, in fact, to to church much. It does not surprise me that those who actually go to church tend to be concerned with personal rectitude and sincerity, and hence less likely to support Trump, whereas those who have adopted the label “evangelical” as a thumb in the eye of the Establishment unsupported by actual religious practice tend to support Trump.
I don’t think comparisons to Judaism are particularly illuminating, since Judaism has a very different cultural valence than Christianity, and therefore means something very different to those of Jewish family background than Christianity means to those of Christian family background.
The Carly announcement is just sad and oh-so-predictable. He thinks this will help. She was a losing candidate. This will not help in CA where she lost a senate race very badly. I think I am starting to believe my theory that Cruz, Fiorina and Jeb all jumped in as a team to help Jeb. When Jeb failed, the job went to Cruz. Notice that Neil Bush is on Cruz’s team as is most of Jeb Bush’s campaign people. Both Cruz and Fiorina worked for G.W. Bush. This VP pick is so obvious and desperate.
K-E:
Why don’t you start parroting Sir Donald’s talking points about Carly’s appearance? Polly want a cracker?
K-E – would you be happier if they had worked for Obama?
Seriously. If Trump and the Trumpists hate the GOP and its conservative base so much that they slime anyone who was ever in the GOP track (of a two-party country, mind you) and treat its component members with just the same level of contempt as everyone else who hates conservatives, how can they be perceived as anything but a hostile takeover – no less an enemy of conservatives like me as Democrats themselves?
While I’m no great fan of Bush and never was, your attempt to prove inherent badness of something by mere association with GWB is a time-honored strategy of Democrats and the far left dating back 15 years. I won’t accept it as a debate strategy from them, and I certainly won’t accept it from someone who probably thinks I should vote for their wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing candidate who is here for one of only two reasons: stroking his planet-sized ego, or destruction of the GOP in order to pave the way for years of unopposed Democrat/far left rule.
Oh – was that not YOUR plan? Did you think that destroying the GOP would magically result in a “real” conservative party that you like, rising, Phoenix-like, from the ashes and vanquishing the evil foe?
This isn’t a fairy tale. At this point, whether he’s the nominee or not, Trump probably destroys the GOP, while we all sit in the rubble, lacking the political wherewithal to do anything whatsoever but look glumly out at the freak show parade of liberals, progressives and Democrats who will rule for years and shove their garbage down our throat. There’s a lot of suspicious political chicanery to blame, but there’s a pile of blame for every single self-described conservative or Republican that had anything to do with this happening.
How are they going to call the ticket?
Cruzolina or Tedly?
Part I: I am a NH Evangelical, more in the theological than cultural sense, and y81’s assessment strikes me as accurate. Church attendance is a countercultural act in New England, a statement of “traditional” values, and that goes double for evangelicals. I know plenty at my church who always talk politics and culture in the narthex but never go to adult studies or the more religious events. I don’t say they are not believers but their focus is different.
Trump feels like William Jennings Bryan, who had a lot of similarly cultural Christianity rather than doctrinal matchup. Because some have overemphasised doctrine and been irritating about it, the modern fashion among Christians is to de-emphasise it.
I won’t:
Donald and Donald is the other ticked. Because he is so smart and listens to himself for all important decisions.
BTW, if Trump loses as badly as I expect, the result will not be the destruction of the GOP. Maybe in 1840 that could happen, but today’s parties are indestructible. What will happen is what happened after the Goldwater debacle. Trump’s nomination will be perceived as having been a conservative triumph, and the conservative wing of the GOP will be thoroughly discredited. The party regulars will alter the party rules to prevent a recurrence of such an event, and to ensure the nomination of moderate in the future. More superdelegates, fewer open primaries, maybe some mechanism to winnow the field more quickly to ensure a single moderate flag carrier, etc. (Remember, the party regulars are always here; most Trump voters are alienated from politics and certainly not involved in party governance, and the alt-right types don’t have any traction in the party.)
Part II: I am quite familiar with those areas mentioned about evangelicals. My second son works as a videographer for a Methodist Church north of Houston that has more Methodists than the whole State of NH. His area is very culturally churchy, and “evangelical” has a different meaning there. For that matter, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, and Conservative all have different meanings in NH vs TX. Son #3 went to the extremely conservative North Greenville University in SC for a year. They vote conservative there, but they actually don’t talk politics quite so much, they talk faith and culture.
y81 Says:
April 27th, 2016 at 4:03 pm
but today’s parties are indestructible.
Hmmm…
We’re not dealing with parties but one bureaucracy. The Repubics are a branch of the Uniparty.
This:
The Surprising Weakness of Invincible Institutions
y81 Says:
Trump’s nomination will be perceived as having been a conservative triumph, and the conservative wing of the GOP will be thoroughly discredited.
Then it’s up to us to set the record straight. It shouldn’t be that hard: you can’t find Trump supporters who call themselves conservative. They usually use the term as an epithet.
I won’t submit: You may consider the political parties to be morally bankrupt, but they are in no financial trouble. The Greek pension system may be collapsing (mind you, I don’t know that), but the Greek political parties continue their regular rotation.
Matt-SE: Conservatives aren’t doing a very effectual job in setting the record straight now, when everyone is paying attention, so it’s unlikely that they will suddenly become effectual later when attention has waned. And, FWIW, I know plenty of Trump supporters who consider themselves conservative; in fact, I don’t know any other kind.
We are bankrupt y81. The country is fiscally bankrupt. End of story.
Terse medium here. Didn’t elaborate.
Matt-SE: Conservatives aren’t doing a very effectual job in setting the record straight
Have been for a long time. Hence the new word:
cuckservative, ie:battered spouse syndrome.
Once shame on you, twice …
No one else to blame.
Mellifluously post on blog and then adjourn to hobnob and gallivant with communist ‘friends’ in spite of the reality of their cultish stance …
Decadent.
Article says,”Cruz does well where people regularly go to church; Trump does better where they don’t.”
The country as a whole did a great deal better when most people went to church regularly. Not mosques or temples, but churches. Christian.
Are regular church-goers “Evangelicals”? This E-word has become so tediously bandied about by anti-clericals in the media that it has become a label with negative connotations. Like stupid, or blue-collar, or white, lacking a college degree.
Church-going blacks likely will vote Democratic despite being Evangelical. Maybe not 95%, but 85% instead. Meh.
Hi, My name is Chris. I’m guessing that there is a zero percent chance of my getting a response, but I am absolutely intrigued with your writing. Is there any more of a bio for Neo for those of us who need to know more before I start binge reading? I’m also intrigued that you’re not a Christian but you are fair to those who are, like me, and did I say that your writing style and your perspective is intriguing. I think I have some kind of a blog crush. Now there’s less than a zero percent chance. Oh well, you’re a great writer. Thanks.
Chris:
I guess you underestimated your chances of a reply!
You probably don’t realize this, but when bloggers read their comments, all the comments on the entire blog are pooled, with the most recent comments at the top of all the list. So it’s very easy for the blogger to see the most recent comments wherever they may be on the blog, even if they’re on very old posts.
Glad you’re enjoying the blog.
The best guide to blog posts here would be to look at the “categories” on the right sidebar. For example, if you want to look at posts about religion, click on the “religion” category and there will be a link to every post here on the subject. Or, for example, if you wish to search the blog for the word “evangelicals,” type that in the search engine box and you’ll get the links to all the posts that mention that word. And the category “me, myself, and I” has a lot of information about me, as does the “A mind is a difficult thing to change” category.
You might be interested in these posts that have to do with religion and/or Christianity: this, this, this, this, this, and this.