Religious Vote Data Show Shifts In Obama's Faith-Based Support

[cbayer]

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/obama-religion-voters-2012_n_2090258.html

Jaweed Kaleem
Posted: 11/07/2012 9:40 pm EST Updated: 11/08/2012 12:36 pm EST


Just as President Barack Obama's support varied greatly from state to state on Tuesday, he also did well among certain religious groups and not so well among others in his defeat of Mitt Romney. A Pew Forum analysis of nearly final exit poll data, released on Wednesday, found that Obama won among Catholics, Jews and non-whites across religious traditions, but saw dips in his support among white evangelicals and white Catholics, among others.

"The basic religious contours of the 2012 electorate resemble recent elections -- traditionally Republican groups such as white evangelicals and weekly churchgoers strongly backed Romney, while traditionally Democratic groups such as black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Jews and the religiously unaffiliated backed Obama by large margins," said the Pew analysis.

While the broad makeup of religious preferences did not drastically change, there were shifts in support for Obama since 2008. His share of the vote increased among four religious groups identified in exit polling data: Hispanic Catholics (from 72 percent to 75 percent), black Protestants (from 94 percent to 95 percent), non-Protestant black Christians (from 94 percent to 95 percent), and those affiliated with Islam and "other faiths" (from 73 percent to 74 percent).



more at link

[DURHAM D]

1. How can "exit poll" data be relevant?

For the first time only 31 states had exit polling.

Maybe PEW does it by land line??? That would not be accurate either.

[cbayer]

5. It's a preliminary report based on data from NBCNews, which I presume is exit poll data.

They plan to do a more comprehensive report once more data is available.

In general, I think PEW does a very good job, but the data available for these kinds of reports is limited.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Way to go Christians for your support of Romney

If it weren't for the minority members of Christianity, your numbers would have been more embarrassing.

So how long before the believers in this group actually own up to the fact that the conservative side of Christianity is the larger percentage side of the religion and/or certainly the more politically active.

[trotsky]

3. Never. It will never happen.

To do so for those Christians in denial about the state of their religion in this country would be a blow to their faith itself.

On edit: The most telling stat is the "non-evangelical" vote. You know, the so-called "mainline" denominations that liberal believers assure us are decidedly liberal, progressive, and tolerant. 44% Obama, 54% Romney.

[Goblinmonger]

4. I'm waiting for our resident preacher

to come in and talk about how it was religion that got Obama re-elected. At least his daughter already posted the evidence to be used as counter-evidence.

[jeepnstein]

18. In a backwards way, it might have.

I'm still trying to digest the data. Anecdotally, I've got lots. In Ohio they needed the religious right base of the Republican Party to get out and vote. I'm not convinced that happened. My best guess is right now lots of Evangelicals simply didn't cast a vote for President based on their religious views. It sure looks to me like Team Romney was counting on them to vote for him by default and didn't spend much time looking for someplace to make up those votes if they didn't. To many Evangelicals, the Republican Party left them when it embraced someone whose religious views were so far removed from their own. And those votes will remain in play for a while although I doubt the Democrats will make a move for them.

And of course since Obama owned Romney and his identity after the primaries making up those lost votes was easier said than done. The ads he ran about Romney early on paid off huge. He's a much smarter politician than I thought, and I already had a pretty high opinion of his skills.

[dmallind]

6. So a decreasing minority of the biggest religious bloc is GOOD news?

Protestans still well outnumber any other religious group. Obama lost big among them , and got a lower share than last time.

Sounds to me like believers abandoned him in droves. A few tiny steps up in amaller demographics where race is likely a massively confounded indicator don't make up for much bigger declines in much bigger Christian sects.

Incidentally yes I see the drop in"nones" support. I suspect it may even be there if we isolated atheists from that group. While the majority are and remain overwhelmingly Dem, the inclusion of Ryan certainly peeled off a few Randians no doubt.

But Christ so much for that "The Bishops are not the RCC" schtick. Looks like docility to the Episcopate massively overrode social justice concerns or what?

[cbayer]

7. Hispanic Catholics and "other faiths" (many presumably Muslim) are the groups to watch

here.

[dmallind]

8. Why?

Why should we ignore the pathetic and shrinking support from Christians who are a supermajority?

Why should we ignore the pathetic and shrinking support from white Catholics, who again are a massive majority within the RCC?

Why should we ignore the obvious implication that barring other concerns along ethnic, minority or immigration lines, religion is a huge driver of Republicanism? Or are Hispanic Catholics just THAT much better at the whole social justice gospel than whites? Either white Catholics are just clueless trogs in this area or it's not the Catholicism part of Hispanic Catholics that is causing them to vote Dem (and since the overall Latino vote is actually marginally better than the Hispanic Catholic I've got a sneaking suspicion the common thread for Dem support is the "Hispanic" bit instead).

Gotta be honest other than the fact that the Hispanic population will likely gain share (irrespective of belief that's good news) the only positive I glean from this is that Mormons, with one of their own running no less, showed a slight stirring toward sanity. In a couple hundred years that may help if the trend continues.

[cbayer]

9. Because they are both growing populations with increasing political impact.

No surprise that there were changes in the christian numbers, though I am not sure why there was a drop in the "nones" and would be interested in more of a breakdown in this area. Your proposal about Randians (libertarians) may be correct. The catholics were heavily lobbied by some in leadership, which is a change.

I did not suggest that we ignore anything. I am looking at future allies.

[dmallind]

10. ...and both small minorities too.

Overall demographic impact is much slower and much more generic than people think. How long before Hispanics even in heavily Hispanic Texas allow us to control redistricting there? 250 years? 150? How long before we make inroads in Dixie, where we have several states with Black populations well into the 20s and Hispanis not far behind their norm? When will minorities become a majority in 270+ EV states? Again - centuries.

How much more white Christian support can Dems lose before they are unelectable nationally? About the same again as they lost this time.

[cbayer]

12. The christian right has some hard decisions to make here.

They can either double down and continue to lose or they can soften their agenda. They lost, and lost big, in this election. Not just the presidency, but in terms of LGBT civil rights, a woman's right to choose and other areas.

You can look at this with just criticism or you can look for solutions. What would you suggest?

[dmallind]

14. What would I suggest? Simple.

A blanket, strong, universal repudiation of religion as tool for politicking from all sane believers, and matching their fundy co-religionists in enthusiasm and effort and financial investment used to publicize what the message of Christianity should be.

That, done even poorly, would turn those 4 pt losses among Christians into 4pt gains within one cycle.

Not a word of criticism there.

Likely? Possible?

[cbayer]

15. Not going to happen, but you can continue the crusade.

The marriage equality initiatives that passed this round were strongly supported and, in some cases, driven by religiously oriented groups. I'm not willing to see that go away.

And that's just one cause. Issues around poverty and justice for the poor is another huge one.

To me, those are some of the messages of what christianity should be.

I'm going to ally with them and continue to marginalize those that preach hate in any form.

[dmallind]

19. Good - but why are you so few and so impotent?

Where is the liberal Christian TBC or 700 Club or AFA or FotF? About the only response I have ever seen to this question, not just on DU, is that the media seek out extreme spokespeople; that the fundies are better press.

Two retorts there are easy.

Why can't you have extreme spokespeople even if only to get attention? It's as easy to blast the homophobe as it is the homosexual. It's as easy to condemn the greedy using the words of Christ as it is to condemn the promiscuous. It's as easy to rail against Dominionists using religion as it is to rail against nonbelievers using it

Why can't you do as the fundies did and buy your own media?

Hell even we, way too few to do the second, make some attempt at the first. Why can't liberal believers who are far more numerous and far less loathed do much better?

[cbayer]

20. I'm not a part of any particular group, so I can't really answer that question.

I know it doesn't help when liberal/progressive religious groups are ignored or even attacked by those with whom they share political ideology. The press also ignores these groups - just not sexy enough.

There is no doubt that the religious right has out shouted the left, but I see that pendulum swinging.

There have been some vocal leaders. Gene Robinson, Sister Simone Campbell. You are not likely to see much of them, except on Bill Moyers and the like. Bill Moyers is another good example of an extremely vocal leader who makes no secret of his religiosity. There was a whole coalition of Catholic clergy who spoke loudly against the Ryan budget. And then, of course, there is the President and Vice President.

Because those on the left don't really practice "prosperity gospel", as those on the right due, resources are much more scarce.

The key seems to me to be in coalition building. That's why I support both religious and secular groups who support and fight for the causes I believe in.

[dmallind]

11. WHY is the Christian drop (not "changes") not a surprise BTW? nt

[cbayer]

13. Primarily born again/evangelical & Catholic communities, where the GOTV and campaigning efforts

were ramped up over the "religious freedom" issue. There were about 100 articles about it posted here before the election.

Also of note is the significant drop in Jewish support, which I suspect had to do with issues around Israel more than anything else.

BTW, the evangelicals may have given us Ohio, which is also interesting (up 8 points).

I'm more interested in the nones. That was the only thing that surprised me in this data. Despite showing significant increases in those who identify with this category, their share of the electorate did not change.

[dmallind]

16. If anything the fundy GOTV remained muted compared to 1980-2004. I'm interested in nones too.

I suspect that a large percentage of nones are simply those who have checked out of large societal constructs like religion and politics. Much of the same type of complaint about how both are carried out and how both impact lives can be made (the emphasis on tribalism, exclusion, extreme jingoism, hucksterism etc).

Of course any move to ameliorate these complaints and resort to simply positive, honest, compromising stances in politics would result in electoral annihilation for decades. I'm sure as hell not bright enough to suggest a solution that doesn't make you as irrelevant as Tsongas in the 92 primaries (he kind of tried the above).

[cbayer]

17. I think your theory about the nones has a lot of merit.

Merely anecdotal, but that has been what I have heard from those I have spoken with. What little data I have seen also seems to support that.

As you note, the solution is not easy, but, imho, Obama is moving in the direction you suggest. Money will continue to thwart the process, though.

[Leontius]

22. How about one simple fact everyone tries to ignore

Not just among the 'religious' did Obama lose support. There are a lot of people that are struggling and the president, rightly or wrongly, gets the blame. 8,000,000 less people voted for Obama than in 2008 they aren't are all docile religious people.

[dimbear]

21. Just close your eyes and imagine Bronco Bama had pulled out the economy. Then all those

numbers for him would have been thru the roof and we could have skipped the election.

Those numbers don't mean much, interesting tho they may be.

Throw in the racial factors and they mean even less.

Except maybe jobs > faith?