tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post2470852066739809755..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: On White Evangelicals, the "Nones," and Political Affiliation (guest post)Anthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-56449601775438489002018-02-08T09:54:46.292-08:002018-02-08T09:54:46.292-08:00Fernando, I addressed the anti-Hillary factor in m...Fernando, I addressed the anti-Hillary factor in my post. I also argued that Hillary is a thoroughly typical Democrat. I see no logical or principled basis for your saying that Hillary was any worse than any other Democrat who might have won the nomination. I'll add, I saw how the same people who vilified Hillary in 2016 also treated Obama the same way for the 8 years preceding. <br /><br />Also, if you're going to talk about those who rejected Clinton, you have to get used to talking about race at the same time you talk about religion. Clinton was not rejected by "many Christians." She was rejected by many white Christians. Christians of color voted overwhelmingly in her favor, both during the primaries and the general election. As I accept the Christianity of people of color as the genuine article, I can't accept the notion that there was something universally Christian in the white Christian rejection of Hillary.<br /><br />Finally ... I am not a Christian. But if I were, I think I'd object to your characterization of Hillary's Christianity as something "professed," as if it isn't real or sincere. I know a good number of Christians who are real and sincere, and voted for Hillary. But I don't think it's up to me to enforce the Christian border. Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-62338625617881397062018-02-01T21:06:12.446-08:002018-02-01T21:06:12.446-08:00Point taken. I might have wished instead that non-...Point taken. I might have wished instead that non-white Christians and white non-Christians had turned out to vote in greater numbers. Of course, if I HAD expressed myself in this way, I would have contributed to another unfortunate narrative that blames Trump’s election on a drop in Black voter turnout as compared to 2008 and 2012. Sometimes, it’s hard to engage in this kind of analysis of vote-by-group without stepping on one’s own tongue.<br /><br />We see relatively low voter turnout among young people, people of color, people without college degrees, and to a certain extent, men. More significant to our conversation, Christians voter turnout is higher on a percentage basis than turnout for the “Nones.” When voter turnout is high, we might see a narrowed difference between the voter participation rates of these various groups. Greater voter participation by people of color and non-Christians should help Democrats. But when more men and non-college graduates vote, that should help Republicans. The picture is complicated. <br /><br />If we limit our look to white Christian voter turnout, it’s hard to identify any large group of white Christians who favored Clinton over Trump. It’s true that Clinton won the youth vote, and the women’s vote, but she lost to Trump among white women and young white voters. Clinton did better with voters with college degrees, but she lost to Trump by 4% among white people with college degrees. You need to combine factors to identify a group of white people that supported Clinton—for example, white women with college degrees supported Clinton by a 6% margin. <br /><br />If 100% of white Christians had turned out to vote, that would have helped Trump, according to the available evidence. If 100% of everyone had turned out to vote, that would have helped Clinton. If people other than white Christians had turned out to vote in the same numbers as white Christians, I think Clinton would have won, too.<br />Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-31365596151174737662018-02-01T14:09:38.061-08:002018-02-01T14:09:38.061-08:00I think this analysis misunderestimates the reject...I think this analysis misunderestimates the rejection of Clinton by many Christians. When the primaries were over, I concluded that we had two horrible candidates, making it so that whatever happened it woukd end in tears. I coukdn’t vote for either one, but many of my friends told me that not voting would essentially be a vote for Hillary. I think the large turnout reflects the feeling that Hillary was unacceptable. That she professes to be a Christian only makes it worse!Fernandonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-2960093923938652752018-01-31T16:48:54.713-08:002018-01-31T16:48:54.713-08:00Larry, I guess that one point has got me concerned...Larry, I guess that one point has got me concerned. You quip (perhaps tongue-in-cheek?) that ". . . .white Christians turned out to vote in relatively high numbers compared to the rest of us; if Anthony wants to avoid election of candidates like Trump in the future, he might urge instead that more white Christians stay home on Election Day." <br /><br />This rubs against the grain of my post. I am firmly committed to the idea that more votes equals better results. And, for what it's worth, every study in the last decade (that I've seen) suggests that higher voter turn out is generally good news for democratic candidates. <br /><br />Moreover, the suggestion that we ought to encourage certain religious demographics to stay home.... well that's just not cricket, dude.<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.com