Another Expanding Demographic In Obama's Coalition: Religiously Unaffiliated

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
For the TLDR crowd, Romney predictably won Christians (and Christian derivatives) by high single digits to mid-teens, but Obama blew out Romney with those religiously unaffiliated by 50-70 points. Just like minorities, it's an expanding demographic which will ensure Democratic victories in future elections.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...as-winning-coalition-religiously-unaffiliated

The big demographic story out of the 2012 presidential election may have been President Obama's domination of the Hispanic vote, and rightfully so.

But as we close the book on the election, it bears noting that another less obvious bloc of key swing state voters helped the president win a second term.

They're the "nones" — that's the Pew Research Center's shorthand for the growing number of American voters who don't have a specific religious affiliation. Some are agnostic, some atheist, but more than half define themselves as either "religious" or "spiritual but not religious," Pew found in a recent survey.

They are typically younger, more socially liberal than their forebears, vote Democratic, and now make up nearly 20 percent of the country's population. Exit polls suggest that 12 percent of voters on Election Day were counted as "religiously unaffiliated."

"This really is a striking development in American politics," says Gregory Smith of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. "There's no question that the religiously unaffiliated are a very important, politically consequential group."

The religiously unaffiliated voters are almost as strongly Democratic as white evangelicals are Republican, polls show.

Their overwhelming support of Obama proved crucial in a number of swing states where the president lost both the Catholic and Protestant vote by single and low-double digits, but won the "nones" by capturing 70-plus percent of their votes.

Big And Growing Formal Religion Gap

Election analysts have hashed over the gender gap and the marriage gap. They talked about Hispanic voters and gay voters. But it was the religiously unaffiliated voters, says Iowa-based pollster J Ann Selzer, who gave her one of the election season's big "aha" moments.

Selzer tells us that in her last Iowa poll before Election Day, data she had compiled for the Des Moines Register showed that Obama was losing to GOP nominee Mitt Romney among both Protestant and Catholic voters.

Those voters make up 88 percent of the state's electorate, yet her final numbers still had Obama leading Romney by 5 percentage points.

"I see this in the data, and give a shout out to Michelle," Selzer says, referring to her research assistant, Michelle Yeoman.

"How is this possible?" Selzer recalls saying. "I was pretty much awestruck."

What Selzer found was that though her polling showed Romney leading among Catholics by 14 points and among Protestants by 6 points, Obama was winning the "nones" by a 52-point margin.

It defied conventional wisdom, she says, but Election Day largely bore out her numbers (though Romney's advantage with Catholics in the states was actually only 5 points) and the dynamic was replicated in a slew of other swing states the president carried.

— In Ohio, Obama lost the Protestant vote by 3 points and the Catholic vote by 11, but he won the "nones" — 12 percent of the state's electorate — by 47 points.

— In Virginia, Obama lost Protestants by 9 points and Catholics by 10 points, but won 76 percent of the "nones," who were 10 percent of the electorate.

— In Florida, Obama lost Protestants by 16 points and Catholics by 5 points, but captured 72 percent of the "nones." They were 15 percent of the electorate.

Similar results were seen in states including Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

"It was hard to think this was just Iowa," Selzer said. "And it wasn't. One of the reasons Barack Obama won was that he had the 'no religion' vote by a huge margin."

Nationally, Obama lost the Protestant vote by 15 points, won the Catholic vote by 2 points, and captured 70 percent of the "nones."

"My question is what is it about having no religion that makes you align so dramatically with the Democratic Party," Selzer says. "Sociologically, how fascinating is this?"

Some Answers

Pew took a deep dive into this dynamic earlier this year, and came up with some answers.

"One of the things that really jumped out at us in our analysis was that this is a group that's quite socially liberal," says Smith, of Pew's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

More than three quarters of them say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and a similar number support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The growth in their numbers as part of the electorate is driven in large part by generational change, and generational replacement, Smith says.

"Young people just now entering adulthood are not only significantly more religiously unaffiliated compared with their elders today," he says, but they are also more religiously unaffiliated than previous generations of young people.

He cautions, however, against conflating the "nones" with nonbelievers.

"Those two things are not the same," Smith says. The "nones' are certainly less religious than those who say they belong to a religious group, but many are also believers.

"The absence of a connection to an organized religion is not the same as the absence of a religious belief or practice," he says.

Pew has tracked their growth, and found that in 2010 about a quarter of those in the "millennial generation" defined themselves as religiously unaffiliated. That's up from the 20 percent of Gen X-ers who said they had no religious affiliation, and 13 percent of baby boomers who said the same.

The slow, but inexorable, growth of religiously unaffiliated voters is certainly a phenomenon political parties are watching, but Smith offers at least one word of caution about where the dynamic is going.

"Religious switching is a very common thing in the United States," he said. "People go in and out of the unaffiliated column, and it's always possible that if more people switch, it could have a countervailing effect on the trends."

This presidential election, however, and the one four years ago, suggest that Democrats have a firm hold on a not-inconsequential voting bloc, one that was among the reasons Obama is in the White House for four more years.

"They will be a big piece of what we are thinking about as we look forward," Selzer says, a sentiment no doubt shared by political strategists in both major parties.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Perhaps, but 1 party rule is not something to be proud of. If the opposition has little chance of winning then the reasons to try and fix what is broken in this country loses its urgency [at the risk of being voted out if you dont try and fix things]. Personally i would like to see stronger 3rd parties develop, the two party system is a crock to, its just less of a crock than a 1 party system.

The vast amounts spent last election is telling of how easy it is to influence and corrupt politics [2 billion+ were handed out by super pacs/corporations last election], if there are more than 2 viable parties then that corruption is lessened some...
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
It's a bad sign for the GOP when demographics are going in an opposite direction from the identity politics that the GOP depends on.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Perhaps, but 1 party rule is not something to be proud of.

Democrats have never been one party. Remember, the Republican platform is to make false promises to racists while only actually working to represent the 1%. Take away Republicans and there's still a lot of ideas out there on how to govern.
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,739
8,320
136
Democrats have never been one party. Remember, the Republican platform is to make false promises to racists while only actually working to represent the 1%. Take away Republicans and there's still a lot of ideas out there on how to govern.

Concise and factual. One the one hand, it's bad that the folks living in denial over this will never ever realize and accept this, yet, on the other, it ensures their obsolescence and inevitable demise.

The only proviso I'd add in is that there is a huge number of middle class reasonable moderate Repubs that got pushed aside and relegated to a back seat role in their party that can give their party relevance and legitimacy if they can get control of things over there.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Democrats have never been one party. Remember, the Republican platform is to make false promises to racists while only actually working to represent the 1%. Take away Republicans and there's still a lot of ideas out there on how to govern.

Exactly what promise did they make to racists?
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Interesting conclusion to draw after the results of one election.
And a pretty safe one, assuming politics were static. But they're not, and the right wing will adjust its message so as to not be marginalized in the future. It's happening now, where repubs are starting to flee their steadfast refusal to raise taxes since it's no longer politically expedient. As much as a lot of us want us to believe all politicians are functionally retarded, they're really not. At least not more retarded than 50.1% of the populations wants them to be.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Exactly what promise did they make to racists?

They promise to be the party of white Christians privilege. There is no Republican position that says anything but, "The white Christian perspective is right." The relativity is absolute -- white Christians thinking of nothing but, "Me, me, me," is the standard for objectivity and every other thought is deemed to be and dismissed as an excuse. There is no actual objectivity -- no scientific facts, no holding to a higher morality, only, "What do you feel," with a false importance attached to the answer to give the false impression that it will be acted upon, while they instead go about enriching the 1%.

Republican politicians create the impression that government power will be used over others when white Christians feel it should, and that "small government"/ "personal freedom" will slip into place whenever government is thinking of putting limits on white Christians that they don't like. Rather convenient to have a government promising to be so conforming and so responsive to white Christian needs if you happen to be a white Christian, eh?

Democrats aren't so accommodating.
You want your religion to be the state religion? "Fuck you."
You want the government to treat groups you don't like as second-class citizens? "Fuck you."
This is why Democrats get the minority vote. Democrats see government as a tool of the People, while the self-centered perspective of conservative white Christians allowed by the white Christian majority bandwagon results in them using government as a bludgeon they can use to promote and maintain white Christian power. (not that they recognize that their thinking is self-centered, so they can't recognize that the result is imbalanced. From a self-centered perspective, the "oneself" in "promoting oneself" is hidden as a premise. The reverse perspective is never truly considered -- only excuses applied to why they are wrong.)

But this is all outside your self-centered perspective. Good luck accommodating it.
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,972
140
106
why not. stand in line with all the other moochers and parasites. ObamaClaus is in town for four more years.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
why not. stand in line with all the other moochers and parasites. ObamaClaus is in town for four more years.

If all of your thoughts come straight from conservative talk, why do you bother to post? We don't really need proof that conservatard sheeple exist.

Also, does anybody else read "Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered" when they see his username?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
They promise to be the party of white Christians privilege. There is no Republican position that says anything but, "The white Christian perspective is right." The relativity is absolute -- white Christians thinking of nothing but, "Me, me, me," is the standard for objectivity and every other thought is deemed to be and dismissed as an excuse. There is no actual objectivity -- no scientific facts, no holding to a higher morality, only, "What do you feel," with a false importance attached to the answer to give the false impression that it will be acted upon, while they instead go about enriching the 1%.

Republican politicians create the impression that government power will be used over others when white Christians feel it should, and that "small government"/ "personal freedom" will slip into place whenever government is thinking of putting limits on white Christians that they don't like. Rather convenient to have a government promising to be so conforming and so responsive to white Christian needs if you happen to be a white Christian, eh?

Democrats aren't so accommodating.
You want your religion to be the state religion? "Fuck you."
You want the government to treat groups you don't like as second-class citizens? "Fuck you."
This is why Democrats get the minority vote. Democrats see government as a tool of the People, while the self-centered perspective of conservative white Christians allowed by the white Christian majority bandwagon results in them using government as a bludgeon they can use to promote and maintain white Christian power. (not that they recognize that their thinking is self-centered, so they can't recognize that the result is imbalanced. From a self-centered perspective, the "oneself" in "promoting oneself" is hidden as a premise. The reverse perspective is never truly considered -- only excuses applied to why they are wrong.)

But this is all outside your self-centered perspective. Good luck accommodating it.

Nice bloviating. Try again please without quoting the daily talking points. You said Remember, the Republican platform is to make false promises to racists while only actually working to represent the 1%. Seeing as how that is our actual platform you should easily be able to quote one of thos promises to racists.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The evangelicals and their ilk will continue to lose political power... and I couldn't be happier about that. It is long overdue.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The non-religious are the largest untapped minority in politics.

It is a larger minority than blacks, hispanics, jews, muslims, etc and is severely underrepresented in our government. In a few states you can't even hold public office if you don't believe in a higher power.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Democrats have never been one party. Remember, the Republican platform is to make false promises to racists while only actually working to represent the 1%. Take away Republicans and there's still a lot of ideas out there on how to govern.

This.

With obstructionism and old, literally proven false ideas removed from the stage, I see political battles on real problems in our distant future (probably still 20+ years down the road, unfortunately).
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
They promise to be the party of white Christians privilege. There is no Republican position that says anything but, "The white Christian perspective is right." The relativity is absolute -- white Christians thinking of nothing but, "Me, me, me," is the standard for objectivity and every other thought is deemed to be and dismissed as an excuse. There is no actual objectivity -- no scientific facts, no holding to a higher morality, only, "What do you feel," with a false importance attached to the answer to give the false impression that it will be acted upon, while they instead go about enriching the 1%.

Republican politicians create the impression that government power will be used over others when white Christians feel it should, and that "small government"/ "personal freedom" will slip into place whenever government is thinking of putting limits on white Christians that they don't like. Rather convenient to have a government promising to be so conforming and so responsive to white Christian needs if you happen to be a white Christian, eh?

Democrats aren't so accommodating.
You want your religion to be the state religion? "Fuck you."
You want the government to treat groups you don't like as second-class citizens? "Fuck you."
This is why Democrats get the minority vote. Democrats see government as a tool of the People, while the self-centered perspective of conservative white Christians allowed by the white Christian majority bandwagon results in them using government as a bludgeon they can use to promote and maintain white Christian power. (not that they recognize that their thinking is self-centered, so they can't recognize that the result is imbalanced. From a self-centered perspective, the "oneself" in "promoting oneself" is hidden as a premise. The reverse perspective is never truly considered -- only excuses applied to why they are wrong.)

But this is all outside your self-centered perspective. Good luck accommodating it.


If Republicans were truely for "White Christian" people then they would have attempted to stop illegal and legal immigration into this country during their time of control. Immigration today is almost entirely made up of non-white people AND a large number of them are not even Christian...That sounds win win for a racist party right, eroding the voter base by bringing in people they supposedly despise...Yea it makes no sense, because you are spouting bullshit.

GWB was one of the most pro-hispanic people to ever be elected and he pioneered trying to legalize illegal aliens. Democrats copied his initiative. Reagan [another Republican] legalized 8 million hispanics.

Im not going to go into how the Democrats are the KKK party either, or how the Confederate slave owning south was Democratic, while Lincoln was a Republican.


The truth is both parties are not racist: Both parties just want to milk the people for as much $$$ as they can, and they hope we wont notice it OR notice them off shoring as many jobs as they possibly can. Atleast 3rd parties are not bought and paid for.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Can those who place their faith in Uncle Sugar really be said to be religiously unaffiliated? Feeding a few hundred people with an armload of bread and fish is a card trick compared to what Uncle Sugar promises on Social Security alone.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
If Republicans were truely for "White Christian" people then they would have attempted to stop illegal and legal immigration into this country during their time of control.

The party ain't exactly made up of forward-thinking intellectuals. Conservatives are reactive. If they don't feel that control is slipping away from them due to immigration, it's not something that will show up on their radar that way.

There is a lot that conservatives don't think about. "Thinking" really isn't their thing.

GWB was one of the most pro-hispanic people to ever be elected and he pioneered trying to legalize illegal aliens.

54074b_4063154.jpg


GWB being an enlightened liberal in that area doesn't have anything to do with the Republican party. Republican = not enlightened.
 
Last edited:

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
If Republicans were truely for "White Christian" people then they would have attempted to stop illegal and legal immigration into this country during their time of control.

BULLSHIT. Cheap labor means more profit for the white slave masters. It drives down wages for actual Americans and allows them to basically wipe out insurance incentives through employers over the 30-40 years they were doing it. God, and people call ME naïve? lol wtf
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,659
9,963
136
BULLSHIT. Cheap labor means more profit for the white slave masters. It drives down wages for actual Americans and allows them to basically wipe out insurance incentives through employers over the 30-40 years they were doing it. God, and people call ME naïve? lol wtf

Oh, of course. A minority population growing so explosively fast as to assume majority control in multiple states by the end of the decade is pro "white supremacy" Gotcha.

Bush wanted brown people for the white people. /Troll.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
why not. stand in line with all the other moochers and parasites. ObamaClaus is in town for four more years.

If a business owner takes more than his fair share of the wealth that a worker creates, is he a moocher or a looter or a parasite? Is the ability to be a moocher, a looter, or a parasite restricted only to lower income people.