Secular voters didn't turn out for Clinton the way white evangelicals did for Trump

[rug]

By Mark Brockway, David Campbell and Geoffrey Layman
November 18

One question in the tumultuous 2016 presidential campaign was whether white evangelicals would “come home” to the GOP and vote for Donald Trump, given his history of divorce, crude language and lack of familiarity with the Bible.

We now know from exit polls that they did — in droves. As shown in the graph below, Trump did better among white evangelicals (81 percent) than Mitt Romney in 2012 (78 percent) or even George W. Bush in 2004 (78 percent), and far better than John McCain in 2008 (74 percent). This is a critical constituency, as white evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate in 2016.

But perhaps an equally significant story line is the vote of nonreligious, or secular, Americans. In 2016, 15 percent of all voters did not identify with a religion, the so-called “nones.” In the overall population, an even higher percentage — one in five — are nones, and their numbers are growing. Traditionally, this group leans Democratic.

But Hillary Clinton’s 68 percent among secular Americans was lower than Barack Obama’s in 2012 (70 percent) and 2008 (75 percent). Her performance was similar to John Kerry’s 67 percent in 2004.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/18/secular-voters-didnt-turn-out-for-clinton-the-way-white-evangelicals-did-for-trump/

[LonePirate]

1. Unless they voted for Pence or against a female President, I am mystified by evangelical voters.

There is nothing about the new Racist-in-Chief and his assumed atheism or agnosticism that should have drawn evangelical voters to him.

[rug]

2. It was probably an anti-liberal vote.

[Uponthegears]

27. Please tell me you're joking

Did you miss his constant drone about religious freedom to discriminate against gays and Muslims and how women who choose to terminate their pregnancies should be punished? He was a religious right wet dream.

[WhiteTara]

3. She's a woman and women don't lead

they support. And since evangelicals are hypocrites, I'm not surprised they turned out in droves.

[Lordquinton]

4. Trump reached out to Evangelicals

What was the Clinton secular outreach campaign like?

[rug]

5. Did you need one?

[Lordquinton]

7. If that's what the campaign was

Then I can see why the numbers were down.

[rug]

8. You never supported the campaign.

[Lordquinton]

9. , meanwhile Catholic voters went for trump, 52% to 45%

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

Care to explain that?

[rug]

10. Confirmed.

JPR is looking for you.

[Lordquinton]

11. With zero outreach the secular vote was overwhelming for Clinton

Why didn't Catholics vote for her rug?

[rug]

12. Who did you vote for quinton?

[Lordquinton]

13. Statisticly I voted for Clinton

Statisticly you didn't.

[rug]

14. "Statisticly (sic) I voted for Clinton"

What a mealy-mouthed answer.

Never mind, quinton, you've answered the question more clearly than you think. Don't engage in your Democratic bashing here.

[Lordquinton]

15. Democratic bashing?

You're the one who made a post bashing a group that overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, while being a proud member of a group that didn't. Why didn't you do better rug?

Atheists did their job, Catholics let us down.

[rug]

16. Yes, bashing Democrats.

You insinuate the Clinton campaign had no outreach to the nonreligious - which is complete JPR bullshit.

You cannot bring yourself to type you voted for the Democratic nominee. So who did you vote for, quinton? It clearly wasn't Hillary. Are you a trump enabler?

Instead you ooze in here to stir anti-democratic shit to join your usual anti-Catholic shit.

[Lordquinton]

17. You're really good at making up things I didn't say

You started an anti-secular thread, which is funny because they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, and then refuse to provide any support to the questions in your thread, just more atheist bashing.

So, if there was secular outreach, what was it? should be an easy question.

You have nothing but baseless attacks and distractions, desperately trying to hide the fact that the religious turned out for Trump. Catholics turned out for trump.

I can say proudly that I voted with the secular crowd, did you vote with the majority of Catholics, rug?

[rug]

18. Like who you voted for. You can clear that up right now quinton.

I'll show you how easy it is: "I voted for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President."

Try it. As it is, you could just as easily have voted with the 32% of "the secular crowd" who can't type that either.

[Lordquinton]

19. Settle down McCarthy

You're on thin ice here, you haven't said that you broke ranks with Catholics, but rabidly attack members of a group who stayed loyal to the party and Clinton, despite having no outreach given to them. In fact we were slapped in the face several times, but we still voted for her.

Catholics had bone after bone thrown at them and they (you) voted against her. Explain yourself, and why you haven't said who you voted for either, keeping in mind that you are far more likely to be the one in this discussion who didn't, rug.

[rug]

20. This is not about a group's vote quinton, it's about yours.

Your evasion of an answer and attempt to hide inside a group do nothing to disguise your opinion about the Democratic nominee, whom you - as in you - clearly did not vote for.

So take your whining "In fact we were slapped in the face several times, but we still voted for her." bullshit and your anti-Catholic billshit back to JPR where it's celebrated.

Don't out yourself here.

[Lordquinton]

21. Looking at the details, White Catholics voted %60 for the orange man

37% for Clinton.

Your insults are an obvious, desperate attack to bury the facts here. You have never answered a question here, just deflected and attacked, hoping no one would see through your sweaty facade.

In this case, I'll answer, once again, a question I asked you first. I, like most Secular voters, and unlike most white Catholics, voted for Clinton.

Now rug, if you can talk through the egg on your face, did you break ranks with your brethren? Or are you still with them, like you are on the issues of Abortion, Homosexuality and women's rights (Now I get why Catholics broke for him...)

Also, where is your backup to the claim that outreach to secular voters was made? I was looking for it, waiting for it, and saw lots of bones for Catholics (who didn't go for them, why is that rug?) but still we were among the party's higher demographics, unlike Catholics.

[rug]

22. Now you separate Hispanic Catholic voters from white Catholic voters. Why?

Are you complaining about Catholics or about white people?

You did not answer the question until you had no other choice and the answer you gave is not one I believe.

Now you can explain this bigoted pile of shit you dropped:

&quot Now I get why Catholics broke for him...)"

You get exactly what, quinton? Are you saying Catholics, generically, are bigots? Try not to give another mealy-mouthed answer.

And while you're at it, explain this regurgitated piece of ant-Clinton talking points. God knows it was bandied about by your JPR compadres for months before election day:

"In fact we were slapped in the face several times, but we still voted for her."

[Lordquinton]

23. I answered the question rug, your turn

Now you're refusing to.

You are a white Catholic in Pennsylvania, two groups that broke for trump. Who did you vote for Rug?
(your profile states all that, btw, so it's not like I did an internet search and am bringing in outside hearsay)

[rug]

24. Of course I voted for Clinton. Are you obtuse?

And my profile does not state that. Are you adding post-mining to you internet activities?

Meanwhile, there are two unanswered questions you left dangling.

[Lordquinton]

25. You have your location there

It's well known you're Catholic and white.

Although you seem to have up to the minute knowledge of JPR, why is that?

I'm amazed you actually answered the question, even if you threw in some insults, I sadly expect that from you, but you're still years behind on many others, so why don't you start with those before you continue with your manufactured outrage and attacks against one of the Democratic party's most loyal voting blocks.

[rug]

26. You're still ducking quinton.

You must have forgotten already. No sweat, here they are:

Now you can explain this bigoted pile of shit you dropped:

&quot Now I get why Catholics broke for him...)"

You get exactly what, quinton? Are you saying Catholics, generically, are bigots? Try not to give another mealy-mouthed answer.

And while you're at it, explain this regurgitated piece of ant-Clinton talking points. God knows it was bandied about by your JPR compadres for months before election day:

"In fact we were slapped in the face several times, but we still voted for her."

[Lordquinton]

30. I see you copy/pasted your text block of abuse

If there was a question you might want to phrase it in a way that isn't obscured by uncalled for insults.

You still haven't explained why white Catholics broke for Trump, that's something you should have an insight to.

And also provide the "obvious" outreach the campaign gave to secular voters. Granted, we're one of the more reliable dem blocks, and the 2% drop is in keeping across the board, but you claimed something different, so time to back it up rug.

[rug]

32. I see you consider being called on your bullshit is abuse.

That's not surprising given you think the Clinton campaign was a "slap in the face".

I've wasted enough time with your whining.

[Lordquinton]

33. So, I can assume all the claims you made were made up?

White Catholics were second on the list to vote for trump, while Secular voters were second to jewish voters for Clinton. This whole thread is a strawman attack on loyal democratic voters, and you are trying to lampshade it by heaping abuse on people who call you out on it.

And you have nothing but that abuse.

[rug]

34. "loyal democratic voters"!

With a straight face!

[Lordquinton]

35. Explain yourself

and please stop with the Democratic bashing.

[rug]

36. Right after you explain this:

"In fact we were slapped in the face several times, but we still voted for her."

A stereotypical example of the months-long bashing of the Democratic nominee.

You fool no one quinton.

[Lordquinton]

37. You claimed there was outreach

Where was that? We still turned out for her, while You didn't. Explain why White Catholics were second to evangelicals in voting for trump. You shouldn't be throwing stones in your house of glass.

[rug]

38. You claimed she slapped you in the face.

[Lordquinton]

39. Metaphorically there were several slaps to secular voters

but we still turned out and voted, unlike white catholics, you were given outreach after outreach and it wasn't good enough, why didn't you turn out for the Dem vote?

Quit distracting and attacking Dems, rug, it's transparent and pathetic.

And yes, it's ok to point out where the campaign made mistakes, in fact if you had read your article it actually backs up my point:

For Democrats, the lesson may be that they can’t take the nonreligious vote for granted. Seculars might become the bulwark of the Democratic electoral coalition someday, but they will have to find the right issues to mobilize them.

Now, about that Catholic vote you didn't bring to the table?

[rug]

40. Get over yourself.

"it's transparent and pathetic."

[Lordquinton]

41. So, now that your claim has been disproven

Stop deflecting and explain why the white catholic vote went to trump.

This is a serious issue you're ducking rug. You can't keep claiming that the RCC is any kind of progressive institution when they helped bring Trump to power.

[rug]

42. "now that your claim has been disproven"

[Lordquinton]

43. No answer?

Speaks for itself.

[rug]

44. That is the answer it deserves.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[Lordquinton]

45. SO mature of you

Heap abuse on any who disagree with you, then deflect and clam up when you get called on it.

Your church voted with it's views, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQIA+, do you break with those views? A non-answer here will be interpreted as support for those views.

[rug]

46. So astute of me.

You're exposed quinton.

Interpret that.

[Lordquinton]

47. Support it is, wish I could say I was shocked.

Thanks for finally answer that you've been asked for years.

That's probably the reason so many of you guys voted for Trump as well, don't you think?

Are those White Catholics not christian now? You pretty much agreed that evangelicals aren't christian, so white Catholics t aren't either? or is this another "mysterious ways" moment that you like to use to get out of explaining anything that exposes the fact you are wearing no clothes.

[rug]

48. You're so anxious for me to say what's in your head, you've begun hallucinating.

Thanks for finally answer (sic) that you've been asked for years.

Get help.

[Lordquinton]

49. And more insults

We like to call this the rug concession speech, you get cornered and then start responding with only insults and misused latin.

[rug]

50. "We".

When you get cornered you begin to speak in plural. Not that it helps you one iota.

[Lordquinton]

59. QED

I'm not the on sitting in the corner hoping the paint will go away if you're nasty enough to it.

Now, explain the Catholic split to trump.

[rug]

60. You're comparing yourself to paint?

Don't let me stop you.

[guillaumeb]

51. Clinton demonstrated it by opposing the raw racism and misogyny of Trump.

That should have been enough of an outreach right there.

Agreed?

[hrmjustin]

6. Trump Evangelical voters showed their hypocrisy and desire for power instead of principles.

[onecaliberal]

28. I'm sorry but those supposed "evangelicals" are NOT Christians and do NOT follow

Christ. Sexual assault is a crime, it is disturbing how many of these people think that men abusing women is either okay or the fault of the woman or just a woman telling lies. Truly evil and dangerous people.

[rug]

29. Falwell, Jr. is auditioning for a role in the trump administration.

Power is the goal and the game.

[Lordquinton]

31. The white Catholic vote went to trump

Are they no longer Christian now as well?

[guillaumeb]

52. And Hispanic Catholics supported Clinton.

Which proves what exactly about Catholics?

[PassingFair]

65. That Hispanic Catholics might have been ...

more concerned about immigration laws than white Catholics?

[guillaumeb]

66. It might also prove that making generalizations about large groups of voters is unwise. eom

[Goblinmonger]

53. Nice try. Want to explain the Catholic vote?

Because that could have affected the outcome. Nones not so much.

[rug]

54. Right after you explain the secular vote.

A third is a significant number.

The thread you're looking for is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218239791

You wouldn't resort to deflection, would you.

[Goblinmonger]

55. She was 2% lower than Obama.

I see no indication that is even a significant statistical change. As a vast majority of nones still voted for her.

How did the Catholic vote go?

[rug]

56. 10% of Obama's 2008 vote evaporated. That's significant.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic Catholic vote (67%) is virtually identical to the secular vote (68%).

It is the white Catholic vote (37%) that stands out, not the "Catholic" vote.

The variable factor here is race, not religion.

[Goblinmonger]

57. "The variable factor here is race, not religion."

So you are admitting your OP is pointless?

Voter turnout was low all around. Obama had 70% of nones and Clinton had 68%. That is not a huge decline.

[rug]

58. Not unless you think no religion is religion.

Do you?

You repeated the four year old stat. A 10% decline is the eight year old stat.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. From 2008 to 2016, the Catholic Democratic vote declined from 54% to 45%

That's 17% down. That's far more serious. Catholics became less likely to vote Democratic than the average American. That's a real problem. But maybe no one is surprised by it any more - we expect the typical American Catholic to be right wing.

[rug]

62. From 2008 to 2016, the Hispanic Catholic Democratic vote declined from 72% to 67%

That's 7% down.

From 2008 to 2016, the white Catholic Democratic vote declined from 47% to 37%.

That's 21% down.

Which one of these two groups do you consider to be the "typical American Catholic"?

That's an an extremely broad brush you're wielding, particularly when you presume the "typical American Catholic" is right wing. I won't even ask you who the "we" is that you say expects that to be true.

Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated vote declined from 75% to 68%.

That's almost 10% down. That's far more serious. The secular demographic became less likely to vote Democratic than the average American. That's a real problem. Maybe they're becoming more libertarian.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. 17% is bigger than 10%. That's your lesson for today, rug

Unless, that is, you regard a smaller drop in a Democratic vote as 'more serious'? Are you saying you prefer the trend of the Catholic vote to the secular one?

When I look at the typical American Catholic, I use the figure for American Catholics. To do otherwise would be to introduce a red herring.

I don't 'presume' the typical American Catholic is right wing; I look at the exit polls, and conclude that.

"The secular demographic became less likely to vote Democratic than the average American. "

That's a lie, rug, and you know it. The secular vote was 68% Clinton, 26% Trump. Clinton only won the popular vote by 2 or 3%. When you are resorting to direct lies in your posts, it's time you stepped away and re-examined your morals. Why are you trying so hard to defend the Catholic vote for Trump?

[rug]

64. The variable factor is ethnicity not religion. That's your lesson for today, muriel.

You never said what you presume, muriel. Instead you proclaimed "'we' expect the typical American Catholic to be right wing." The unidentified "we".

Why don't you define "the Catholic vote" before clumsily calling "typical" Catholics right-wingers? Why are you so eager to do that, muriel?

Tell you what, muriel. In the future you don't call me a liar and in the future I won't conclude you're a religious bigot.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Majority vote for trump was up 3% and majority vote for democratic atheists was down 2%. Stop the

fucking presses folks.


Here's a clue; Don't float the 'worry' that Bernie Sanders was an atheist in the primaries, because that's going to unforgivably piss off some atheists who might just stay the fuck home, write in 'toothbrush', or under-vote the presidency.

(Also, the movement in percentages here is within the error bars of the exit polls. So la de frickin' dah.)

[rug]

68. Regarding your "clue", do you think that's what happened?

Do you think some atheists stayed home and pouted because they were "unforgivably" pissed off?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. I know some that did. Yes.

Despite my best exhortations, because trump has all these fucking fundy hangers-on.

Didn't matter.

Good people don't appreciate being used as a scare tactic foil by a politician.