Since I’m always standing at the intersection of politics and religion, I’m always interested in fresh data on the subject, and wrote some up at New York:
One of the big predictions in American politics lately, of infinite comfort to embattled progressives, is that the increasing number of religiously non-affiliated Americans, particularly among younger generations, will spur a steady leftward drift. Perhaps that will mean, we are told, that Democrats will be able to build their elusive permanent majority on the grounds of abandoned houses of worship. Or perhaps, some hope, the religious roots of today’s Republican extremism will begin to wither away, allowing American conservatives to resemble their less intemperate distant cousins in other advanced democracies, ending the culture wars.
Both propositions may be true. But it’s a mistake to treat so-called nones as an undifferentiated secularist mass, as Eastern Illinois University political scientist Ryan Burge explains with some fresh data. He notes that “in 2022, 6% of folks were atheists, 6% were agnostics, and another 23% were nothing in particular.” This large bloc of “nothing in particular” voters may lean left, all other things being equal, but they tend to be as uninterested in politics as in religion, making them a less than ideal party constituency. He explains:
“To put this in context, in 2020 there were nearly as many nothing in particulars who said that they voted for Trump as there were atheists who said that they voted for Biden.
“While atheists are the most politically active group in the United States in terms of things like donating money and working for a campaign, the nothing in particulars are on another planet entirely.
“They were half as likely to donate money to a candidate compared to atheists. They were half as likely to put up a political sign. They were less than half as likely to contact a public official.
“This all points to the same conclusion: they don’t vote in high numbers. So, while there may be a whole bunch of nothing in particulars, that may not translate to electoral victories.”
As Burge mentioned, however, there is a “none” constituency that leans much more strongly left and is very engaged politically — indeed, significantly more engaged than the white evangelicals we’re always hearing about. That would be atheists. In a separate piece, he gets into the numbers:
“The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.
“The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.
“HALF of atheists report giving to a candidate or campaign in the 2020 presidential election cycle.
“The average atheist is about 65% more politically engaged than the average American.”
And as Thomas Edsall points out in a broader New York Times column on demographic voting patterns, atheists really are a solid Democratic constituency, supporting Biden over Trump in 2020 by an incredible 87 to 9 percent margin. It’s worth noting that the less adamant siblings of the emphatically godless, agnostics, also went for Biden by an 80 to 17 percent margin and are more engaged than “nothing in particulars” as well.
So should Democrats target and identify with atheists? It’s risky. Despite the trends, there are still three times as many white evangelicals as atheists in the voting population. And there are a lot more religious folk of different varieties, some of whom have robust Democratic voting minorities or even majorities who probably wouldn’t be too happy with their party showing disdain for religion entirely. There’s also a hunt-where-the-ducks-fly factor: If atheists and agnostics already participate in politics and lean strongly toward Democrats, how much attention do they really need? There’s a reason that politicians, whatever their actual religious beliefs or practices, overwhelmingly report some religious identity. Congress lost its one professed atheist when California representative Pete Stark lost a Democratic primary in 2012; the only professed agnostic in Congress is Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, whose political future isn’t looking great.
It’s a complicated picture. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat argues that American liberalism’s increasing identification with secularism is keeping a lot of conservative Christians from politically expressing their reservations about Donald Trump. And religious people beyond the ranks of conservative faith communities may feel cross-pressured if Democratic politicians begin to reflect the liberal intelligentsia’s general assumption that religion is little more than a reactionary habit rooted in superstition and doomed to eventual extinction.
Perhaps it makes more sense for Democratic atheists and agnostics to spend time educating and mobilizing the “nothing in particular” Americans who already outnumber white evangelicals and ought to be concerned about how they’ll be treated if a Christian-nationalist Gilead arises. Only then can “nones” become the salvation for the Democratic Party.
I’d welcome the passage of the Colorado initiative this year, as it would probably ensure Kerry at least a couple of electoral votes in the state (the Denver and Boulder-based areas.) Although it would also ensure Bush a couple (Colorado Springs and Eastern CO).
But I’m reluctant, on the other hand, to embrace this system for the whole nation, especially if it were keyed to congressional districts (as in Maine and Nebraska). Gerrymandering of districts has had generally negative effects on congressional elections; we don’t need it determining the presidency as well.
in other news, race2004.net reports a poll showing that Colorado initiative might just pass.
I still don’t like it, regardless, and I’d think that Colorado voters wouldn’t want it. It should make candidates less interested in working on Colorado.
It’s also not clear what the influence would be on this year’s vote. If it passes and only, say, New Hampshire and Colorado go from Bush 2000 to Kerry, then if Kerry loses Colorado, he’s still a vote short; if he wins, it’s a tie. In contrast, if it doesn’t pass, New Hampshire and Colorado (if they’re the only shifts) give Kerry the win.
On the other hand, if Kerry holds the Gore states and takes New Hampshire and Nevada, the Colorado states that would come in a loss would put him over the top.
Weird.
Keep watching this race. It’s gonna be interesting all the way.
pempel-
I’d attribute this to chance variation. There’s not much going on there, and a 4% Bush lead is in keeping with a good number of polls.
I agree with Wilbur about Ohio. There’s NO WAY that Bush is ahead by 11%. The Ohio Poll is notoriously pro-GOP. In 2000 Bush only won by 50-49% (combined Gore-Nader) and since then the Ohio economy has declined more than almost any other state.
In live near Dayton and the normally GOP suburbs in my area have as many Kerry signs as Bush ones. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood for over four decades, and I’ve NEVER seen so many Democratic signs. Frankly, the poll showing Bush up by 2% is probably optimistic for Bush!
Unless something drastic occurs, I think Kerry will win Ohio!
Good state polls lately for Kerry-Edwards, but can anyone explain the widening national gap in favor of Bush on Rasmussen’s daily poll? The last four days show Bush moving up from 47.8% to 48.8% while Kerry’s numbers drop from 46.1% to 44.8%. Granted, small changes, but to me a worrisome trend. T.J.
The ARG polls are tremendous news for Kerry (how could polls be so different? Something wierd is going on this year). Here’s the reason they are even better than they look. For anybody who has ever done any political work in Iowa you know that this state is almost completely dependent on how you are organized on the ground – maybe more than any other state in the country. A month ago I saw an interview with somebody from the Des Moisnes register – who really knows this stuff – who said he has never seen the type of organization he’s seeing with Kerry (not the fake stuff there was with Dean, but real professional). So my take is if Kerry is with MOE he is probably ahead. You also have to believe that New Hampshire swings back to Kerry. Again, if you know anything about New England culture you know the whole “neighbor” thing runs deeper than political affiliation. It will be astounding if New Hampshire doesn’t go for Kerry in the end no matter what the polls.
Also, I live in Ohio and the organization here for Kerry is the best I have seen in my lifetime. In the Columbus area you see more K/E bumper stickers and lawn signs than B/C. Also many neighborhoods have organized so well they have their own unique signs like Upper Arlington for Kerry. I have never seen that before. I you have lived in Columbus for the last decade you would know how amazing this is.
Looking over the ARG results…first, they note a 47-46 Bush lead, across the country. They see Bush up 133-132 in states outside the margin of error. They see Kerry up 270-253 in states with any lead. Um, I keep saying this, but this race is gonna be close.
Here are the 27 states with single digit differences, starting with the most pro-Bush, ending with the most pro-Kerry:
Mississippi Bush +9
Louisiana Bush +8
Tennessee Bush +7
Arizona Bush +6
Missouri Bush +6
Virginia Bush +6
North Carolina Bush +5
Arkansas Bush +3
Iowa Bush +2
Nevada Bush +2
Ohio Bush +2
New Hampshire Bush +2
Colorado Bush +1
West Virginia tie
Wisconsin tie
Florida Kerry +1
Pennsylvania Kerry +1
Minnesota Kerry +2
Oregon Kerry +2
Maine Kerry +4
New Mexico Kerry +5
Illinois Kerry +6
Washington Kerry +7
New Jersey Kerry +8
Michigan Kerry +8
Delaware Kerry +9
Maryland Kerry +9
If you do the cut at states being within 3% one way or the other, that includes (12):
Bush 2000 states–Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia
Gore 2000 states–Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
For a 4-6% difference (7):
Bush 2000 states–North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Missouri
Gore 2000 states–Maine (and that danged distict…), New Mexico, Illinois
For a 7-9% difference (8):
Bush 2000 states–Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi
Gore 2000 states–Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland
I’d think those first dozen states are the main battleground these days, with Maine and New Mexico added given recent polls by other organizations. That yields 7 Bush 2000 states and 7 Gore 2000 states.
But keep an eye on some of those other states to see if there is a discernible shift in the near future.
Just a heads up. The ARG list of all 50 states is now up. I’ve not looked at it yet.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I agree that “Shrub” probably is leading, but there’s no reason for Democrats to despair. For example, Florida and Pennsylvania recently swung back (barely) to Kerry although the Rasmussen polls admittedly did not include Nader.
—
It is fascinating to compare the four vote projection sites out there: Electoral Vote Projection Map &
Race2004.net (run by Dems) and FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com (both right-leaning). I would love to see a retrospective “fact check” analysis after Nov.3 to find out which methodology proved most accurate in the end. To me, the probabilistic methods favored by FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com seem unnecessarily complicated; I suspect Race2004.net gets it right by simply putting states in a “tossup” column if the difference is small. Nobody really knows how PA and FL will work out, for now. It would be premature for “Shrub” supporters to start gloating now, just as it was foolish of Kerry supporters to think last month’s electoral vote tally of ~300 EVs was “safe”. A lot will depend on some very close state races.
MARCU$
Is there any detail available on the Ohio poll? Not good news there. Also, I just saw a report of a poll in Colorado showing a 12% Bush lead, from Ciruli Associates. That’s very different from everything else. ARG, Zogby, Rasmussen, and the Republican POS group all have had the race at only a 1% difference.
The state polls are more evidence that Kerry is in deeper trouble than Ruy thinks.
1. Ohio is basically a swing state- so if the race is even nationally Bush should be leading by no more than 4 or 5 points. Instead Bush leads by 11 – suggesting a 6-8 pt lead for Bush.
2. Iowa should be a Democratic state. Bush’s 5 point lead suggests that he has a big lead nationally.
On the other hand, Kerry’s leads in Michigan and Oregon suggest that this is not as bad for Dems as 1984- but certainly it is comparable to 1988, where Dukakis carried a decent number of states but still not enough to make it close nationally.
Bottom line: Bush doesn’t have the double digit lead that some national polls suggest- but it isn’t dead even either. If it was, Kerry would be leading in Iowa, and Bush’s lead in Ohio would be much smaller.