Skip to comments.How the Faithful Voted: 2012 Preliminary Analysis [Evang. up; other Prot. + white Catholics down]
Posted on 11/08/2012 2:10:53 PM PST by Colofornian
In his re-election victory, Democrat Barack Obama narrowly defeated Republican Mitt Romney in the national popular vote (50% to 48%)1. Obamas margin of victory was much smaller than in 2008 when he defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin, and he lost ground among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. But 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.
Vote Choice by Religion and Race
Religiously unaffiliated voters and Jewish voters were firmly in Obamas corner in 2012 (70% and 69%, respectively). Compared with 2008, support for Obama ticked downward among both Jews and religiously unaffiliated voters in the exit polls, though these declines appear not to be statistically significant. Both of these groups have long been strongly supportive of Democratic candidates in presidential elections. Black Protestants also voted overwhelmingly for Obama (95%).
2012 presidential election exit polls and analysis
At the other end of the political spectrum, nearly eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants voted for Romney (79%), compared with 20% who backed Obama. Romney received as much support from evangelical voters as George W. Bush did in 2004 (79%) and more support from evangelicals than McCain did in 2008 (73%). Mormon voters were also firmly in Romneys corner; nearly eight-in-ten Mormons (78%) voted for Romney, while 21% voted for Obama. Romney received about the same amount of support from Mormons that Bush received in 2004. (Exit poll data on Mormons was unavailable for 2000 and 2008.)
Compared with religiously unaffiliated and Jewish voters on the left and white evangelicals and Mormons on the right, Catholics and white mainline Protestants were more evenly divided. Among white mainline Protestants in the exit poll, 54% voted for Romney, while 44% supported Obama. This is virtually identical to the 2008 election, when 55% of white mainline Protestants voted for McCain and 44% backed Obama.
White Catholics, by contrast, swung strongly in the Republican direction relative to 2008. Nearly six-in-ten white Catholics (59%) voted for Romney, up from 52% who voted for McCain in 2008. Three-quarters of Hispanic Catholics voted for Obama, and Catholics as a whole were evenly divided in 2012 (50% voted for Obama, while 48% backed Romney).
Vote Choice by Religious Attendance
As in other recent elections, those who attend religious services most often exhibited the strongest support for the Republican presidential candidate. Nearly six-in-ten voters who say they attend religious services at least once a week voted for Romney (59%), while 39% backed Obama. Romney received as much support from weekly churchgoers as other Republican candidates have in recent elections.
Those who say they never attend religious services were again among the strongest Democratic supporters in the presidential election. More than six-in-ten voters who say they never attend religious services voted for Obama (62%). Voters who say they attend religious services a few times a month or a few times a year also supported Obama over Romney by a 55% to 43% margin.
Religious Composition of the 2012 Electorate
The religious composition of the 2012 electorate resembled recent elections, though there are signs that both the white Protestant and white Catholic share of the electorate are gradually declining over the long term.
Slightly more than half of 2012 voters describe themselves as Protestants (53%), compared with 54% in each of the three previous elections. Roughly four-in-ten voters were white Protestants in 2012 (39%); by comparison, 42% of 2004 and 2008 voters were white Protestants, as were 45% of 2000 voters. The decline in white Protestants share of the electorate is most evident among non-evangelicals, whose share of the electorate has declined slightly from 20% in 2004 to 18% in 2012. White evangelical Protestants constituted 24% of the 2012 electorate, compared with 23% in 2008 and 21% in 2004.
One-quarter of 2012 voters were Catholics, including 18% who were white Catholics. By comparison, white Catholics constituted 21% of the electorate in 2000, 20% of voters in 2004 and 19% of the electorate in 2008.
Jews accounted for 2% of the 2012 electorate, and Muslims and members of other non-Christian faiths together accounted for 7% of the electorate. The religiously unaffiliated made up 12% of 2012 voters; the religiously unaffiliated share of the electorate is unchanged from 2008, even though the religiously unaffiliated share of the adult population has grown significantly over this period.
For more election-related analysis from the Pew Research Center, see "Changing Face of America Helps Assure Obama Victory, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Nov. 7, 2012, "Latino Voters in the 2012 Election," Pew Hispanic Center, Nov. 7, 2012 and "A Milestone En Route to a Majority Minority Nation," Pew Social & Demographic Trends, Nov. 7, 2012.
Now RINOs -- including what Mark Levin calls "pseudoconservatives" -- those who railed vs. GoP "purists" on this and other venues...are trying to blame the Romney loss on Evangelicals.
#1 Per these polls: Evangelicals voted for Romney 79-20% [CNN exit polls says about the same thing -- 78-21%]; Mormons voted for Romney 78-21%...meaning Evangelicals supported Romney better than Mormons did!
#2 What about the turnout?...even if, as expected, Evangelicals didn't commonly vote for Obama...was the turnout suppressed?
Per the Pew Forum: White evangelical Protestants constituted 24% of the 2012 electorate, compared with 23% in 2008 and 21% in 2004.
Now in terms of raw #s, I calculated this then at: almost 31 million white Evangelicals in 2012; about 30 million in 2008; and over 26 million in 2004.
So...what religious groups turned out less?
Per the Pew Forum: Roughly four-in-ten voters were white Protestants in 2012 (39%); by comparison, 42% of 2004 and 2008 voters were white Protestants, as were 45% of 2000 voters...One-quarter of 2012 voters were Catholics, including 18% who were white Catholics. By comparison, white Catholics constituted 21% of the electorate in 2000, 20% of voters in 2004 and 19% of the electorate in 2008.
So...in my rough estimates, it appears that non-Evangelical white Protestants dropped off about 4 million voters in turnout since 2008; and white Catholics, who supported Romney 59-40%, dropped off about 2 million voters in turnout.
Some of these were simply those who went to the grave -- and weren't "resurrected" by Dems -- and weren't replaced by young voters of the same Demographic.
'Twas Latino Catholics, btw, who were responsible for giving the overall Catholic vote to Obama (50-48% per CNN exit polls). Hispanics overall went 71-27% for Obama.
To see the graphs, go to the link accompanying the article.
So those of you who feel the need to take a crap on “evangelicals” for “losing” this election can be more accurate with your criticism.
One Mormon blogger thinks they found one: The Deep South...tho it effected NONE of the state outcomes for POTUS or electoral votes.
See the blue-red dot U.S. map at: The Impact of Mitts Mormonism: Bible Belt Blue
If you look @ the map posted there, you'll note a swath of blue running from Louisiana to the east all the way to North Carolina.
It seems particularly prominent in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.
Apparently -- at least the contention is made -- that in these states, there were a significant # of white Evangelicals who "stayed home."
The Lds poster concedes that it had no electoral college impact...given that "These are folks who knew their state was deep red, for the most part. So staying away from the polls wouldnt change the outcome of the election."
Now, if it's true, then Evangelicals in other parts of the country more than made up for their absence since more voted in 2012 than either in 2008 or 2004.
So, I would say that if any claims want to be made about "stay at home" Evangelical voters, only the Deep South and Atlantic Coast (southeast) appears to show this evidence -- but not Florida.
And frankly, given that a LOT of pro-life conservatives wasted their votes on a pro-abort -- for the FIRST time in their lives -- maybe those Deep South voters were onto something!
There are two Lutheran pastors as my relatives, and they both voted for the Rats!! Obviously, abortion is not that big of deal! What a travesty!
The one thing they all have in common is that they're not evangelicals themselves. We've even got blog pimps claiming that fourteen million Christians stayed home and refused to vote because they hate Mormons more than they love their country.
Do you know any evangelicals who didn't vote? I can't name even one, let alone fourteen million of them.
Well, the two groups that have become the most faithful voters -- turning out even in non-POTUS off-years -- are, of course, the elderly...and white Evangelicals.
In 2010, white Evangelicals were 34% of the entire voting block...meaning that while all the other groups, minus the elderly of course...go back to "biz as usual"...they take the time to turn out...even when the POTUS isn't at stake!
(Well, my guess is they belong to the ELCA, the liberal branch of Lutherans, who allow for homosexual pastors & have ushers @ their church like late-term abortionist George Tiller...now deceased...the ELCA also has abortion insurance coverage for its churchworkers...the lay president of another Kansas church was the Bind Torture serial killer...and the shooter of the theater in the Denver area attended, for a while, a SoCal ELCA church)
Where do all of these statistics come from? You can’t get it from voter registration rolls. Is it just coming from exit polls?
Actually, I think right in the above is where I think all of that got started. The first thing I saw about it had total Evangelicals from 2008 compared to white Evangelicals from 2012 but didn't point that fact out. I don't know if it was deliberate, someone sloppy with the references, someone who didn't even notice the difference in the way the numbers are broken down, or someone who wants to help keep the divisions among Christians on the front burner.
I have neighbors who stayed home rather than vote for Romney which makes no sense at all to me. How many more folks are like that and what sort of group they place themselves in I don't know. I do know they said their pastor told them to not vote for Romney. How often they take the advice of their pastor and how often they're just lazy is something else I don't really know, but it's safe to say they must not have needed much encouragement to stay home.
Evangelicals being a greater percentage of a smaller number says to me turnout was flat rather than down among Evangelicals, not that it increased. I'll see what the difference is some time but it really doesn't matter. All the dividing Conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives against one another serves the democrat fascists and their guiding spirit quite well which is why it keeps on rolling along.
Three million people who call themselves Conservatives sat the election out. How many of them claim to be of which Christian or other group I don't know and don't care.
They put their personal pride ahead of the good of the nation, it's that simple.
It’s exit polls which I take with a grain of salt anyway, but for some reason smacking each other with rolled up printouts of exit polls is a popular passtime.
Well, I thought about that, too...but 24% of one pool vs. 23% of a previous pool still equaled almost a million more white Evangelical votes this time 'round (almost 31 million vs. about 30 million)...
Three million people who call themselves Conservatives sat the election out. How many of them claim to be of which Christian or other group I don't know and don't care. They put their personal pride ahead of the good of the nation, it's that simple.
Well, I disagree with you re: their motivations...tho obvious it's a diverse group so who all knows the various motivations...??
Certainly , tho, if you don't vote for a reincarnated Hitler just because he's better than the anti-Christ he's runnin' against, doesn't mean that "personal pride" motivated people voting third party or sitting out.
People are quick to point to the sin of omission (not voting); there's also the sin of commission -- participating in the sin of others...the apostle Paul said NOT to do that...(1 Timothy 5:22)...
That's hardly "pride" operative there...
And I guarantee you: Had McCain & Palin -- either one -- announced that they had major discernment issues...major personality identity disorders...about who they were...like that they were "gods in embryo"...like the 15-20% of Lds who are temple Mormons...like Mitt...ya better believe they would have lost MORE than 3 million votes in 2008!
It's only because people were giving Mormonism a pass that Romney even got as many votes as he did...
And I frankly didn't think there were enough liberals in this country-- almost 130 million of voting-age -- to vote for one of two liberals...both pro-aborts...both socialist on healthcare...
(I was wrong on that!)
(Yes, exit polls...)
People who see what Barry has done, who know that they have no influence at all over any democrat, who know that if the President is Republican there is at least a high probability that he would nominate better judges, that he would want to work with Republicans, and that he at least said he's changed his stance on abortion, can't say that staying home was a more moral and principled thing to do than voting to rid us of Barry. No way.
I know, but I could say it even a different way -- a hypothetical to make the same point:
Say Mitt got enough votes to win;
say Obama was still interested in a 2nd term, but had a "revelation" -- tweeked a few policies -- & presto, became GoP in 2019...
...& ran again for POTUS...
...GoP conservative candidates (AGAIN) split the conservative vote...
...& due to his minority status, let's say Obama became the GoP primary winner in 2020...
You would have had then -- in this hypothetical -- the very irony of FREEPERs telling us to vote for Obama...Why? (Because the Dem candidate is ALWAYS worse!)
I guarantee you, Rashputin: You can always find a POTUS candidate more "conservative" than the Dem guy running!
But if that's the ONLY standard we have, why bother to be GoP? I mean, as fieldmarshaldj uttered on a previous thread, darn us conservatives for wanting a conservative candidate and conservative policies...
(Imagine such "pickiness")
You may find this thread of interest (if you haven’t seen it already):
I wrote an “opus” of sorts at post #39.
8 out of 10 white Protestants voted for Romney...95% of black Protestants voted for Obama...
6 out of 10 White Catholics voted for Romney...75% of Mexican Catholics voted for Obama...
Protestants need to get to the Black Protestants that voted for Obama and
Catholics need to get to the Hispanics who voted for Obama.
Evangelize, people, evangelize! Give them the truth.
The Catholic percentage needs to be looked at to accomodate the growth in population.
and there are literally dozens more hard, cold, facts that exist in reality rather than a hypothetical cabbage patch somewhere.
Compared to all those realities, there's no hypothetical that makes any difference.
It's just like the people who I ran into after I got back from VN who would tell me how protesting against the war was morally equivalent to serving in VN. I spent years in hospitals and they figured that was no worse than spending years as a Divinity major or Education major to avoid the draft. They'd tell me how bad they felt when they heard Benny Whatever who went to VN was killed there. That was just as bad in their mind as looking for parts of your friend to put in a body bag with half his torso and dog tags. They had no common frame of reference because they could live in their own hypothetical world totally detached from reality. Consequently, they inflated little things in their little world to match the size of things that exist in the real world
This is the same sort of argument as far as I'm concerned. There's no real way to compare those who take a chance and try to help change things with with those who have lots of nice reasons to do nothing.
I often wonder how many of those who stay on the sidelines have kids or ever consider what they owe their children and grand children rather than what they owe themselves. Obviously they don't believe they owe their children and grand children the same freedom they inherited.
Some folks think that way, fine, more power to them. They enjoy talking the talk but walking the walk is too much hassle because it's an imperfect world and they have their own imaginary perfect world to play in. As far I'm concerned people who didn't vote for Romney decided to stand with those who shout, "It's all about me !!" and are comfortable being part of that crowd.
I realize that Jesus Christ is in charge so I can bear the result. I also know that those who refuse to care about their fellow man enough to even to vote aren't on the moral high ground they seem to think they're on. After all, Jesus Christ died for those who were yet unborn and people who sat the election out wouldn't even cast a vote for the unborn who might have been spared had Romney been elected. Imagine that pickiness.
Michael Medved said today that there 21 million MORE "voting age" people than in 2004.
So if even half of those climbed on board since '08, 'tis a lot.
Of course, when we're even bandying about these #s, what's NOT mentioned are all of the unregistered voters who are eligible to vote.
Toss in those #s and we could get a lot of unique "could have been" scenarios...
But I'm telling you, these people tend to be rather "shepherdless" and would probably help the Dems more than the GoP.
I disagree that the young people are shepherdless.
Young Catholics are “on fire” for the Church. Seminarian numbers are up. Ordination numbers are up. The religious life for sisters will take about five more years to go up since they are just now cleaning out the old LCWR ones.
Anyway — I’m curious about youth in other denominations. What’s happening??
This wasn't a generic statement about ALL young people...
Context was about unregistered voters...who are younger...and 'twas broader of a statement than only Catholic unregistered voters...
I asked her how she reconciles her faith and political beliefs and it seemed to be she looks to govt to protect her from the truths of her faith (they are just suggestions, she would say). I left her over her selfishness and hypocrisy. There is no changing some people.
After Obama has declared war on Catholics, his voting percentages have remained the same from 2008. I ask you -- what's up with that?
More Catholics voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Consider the increase in population.
Whitie Catholics definitely need to get to the Hispanics, though, just like the white Protestants need to get to the Black Protestants who voted 95% for Obama. Figure that one out? LOL!
For my church, half the members are black -- in Africa.
I know your issues with Mormonism, but I wonder if it was wise to let the bigger evil (Moslem Obama) win. What do you think now?
Well, a LOT of people have said that whoever gains power, God's sovereignty is still in play...
IoW, that God has certain purposes for that...even if it's judgment vs. a people...and let's face it, if our land worships the $ -- what better way to "judge" us than by removing the average $1 from this land?
Many FReepers told me that God could work thru a pagan leader -- or one who calls upon a distinct god. Of course, the "leader" they were referencing was Mitt Romney. My Q earlier this week back to one of them is why didn't they apply this same theological application to Obama?
So, if God had anything to do with either allowing Obama to be POTUS -- and remain there -- then who would I be to question His sovereign wisdom?
And frankly, 'tis better to go the route of acknowledging active sovereignty vs. becoming a deist.
Another factor people tend not to consider is I believe we were "had" as a nation either (a) as soon as we were hit up as a nation financially in 2008 -- when even a POTUS we liked was in power; and/or (b) when Obama was put in power; or (c) the moment Romney became our unofficial nominee.
God's temporal judgment already seemed to be kicking in a LOT earlier than the average FReeper will acknowledge. I believe that FReepers were simply in denial about this -- and wanted to believe we still had an "out" somewhere...Hence, they treated Romney as some political messiah...the last "hope."
And the problem with that, as I see it, were I God, is why give a guy who already claims to be a competing god the glory of national deliverance? I mean Lds literally use the word "saviors" to apply to themselves due to baptism of the dead.
Why would God want to reinforce...
...glory for a false "god" (Romney)?
...the false notion that Lds are literal "saviors"?
...and the false Mormon prophesy of the White Horse riding in to rescue the constitution?
Lastly, think of it this way:
What has made the GoP great was its initial stances on social issues...going back to 1856 when it started when it said it would take on the "twin relics" of slavery and polygamy.
It took them on for the next 40+ years!
The GoP has spoken out on behalf of the pre-born.
Had the RINOs completed this takeover of the GoP, they would have (a) held power thru 2020 and beyond... (b) "Proved" to all that RINOism is the way to go; (c) They would have held a "funeral" of sorts for both the Tea Party & social conservatives.
We would have been "dead in the water"...the Third Wheel on a "date"...viewed as the "crazy aunt" that needs to be hid in the White House basement...
They tried to tell us that the "base" of the party -- the two groups above -- were irrelevant. That we only needed to be good "minions" and show up on election day...and that they would rule the party, the White House, and the world via RINOism.
Well, for the umpteenth time, they proved how wrong they were!
They keep giving us either boring white guys or country club millionaires whose country club embraced open racism; and they somehow think that our changing multi-cultural nation won't notice...
Can you say stupid???
I know your issues with Mormonism, but I wonder if it was wise to let the bigger evil (Moslem Obama) win. What do you think now?
- - - - - -
Bigger evil based upon WHAT?!?!?
Matthew 10:28 - Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Islam isn’t knocking on doors telling people that they are Christians and the ‘only true church’ while lying to their faces about their beliefs.
I have been seeing a lot of what Lewis said in the Screwtape letters here....
Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”... Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here
Christians (real Christians) never put politics over their faith.
Comparing mormons to Hitler is idiocy.
Deliberately exaggerating that if you buy into the “lesser of two evils” political relativism, where does that rhetoric as an ethic stop?