1
   

Young White Evangelicals:Less Republican, Still Conservative

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 09:14 am
Young White Evangelicals: Less Republican, Still Conservative
by Dan Cox, PEW Research Associate
September 28, 2007

White evangelical Protestants have been one of the most faithful Republican constituencies in presidential elections in recent years, voting overwhelmingly for GOP candidates. In 2004, for example, 79% of white evangelicals supported President Bush, while just 21% supported his Democratic opponent, John Kerry. White evangelicals also accounted for a third of Bush's total votes that year.

White evangelicals are typically analyzed as a group, but an examination of the younger generation (those ages 18-29) provides evidence that white evangelicals may be undergoing some significant political changes. An analysis of Pew Research Center surveys conducted between 2001 and 2007 suggests that younger white evangelicals have become increasingly dissatisfied with Bush and are moving away from the GOP. The question is whether these changes will result in a shift in white evangelical votes in 2008 and beyond.

Presidential Approval Rating

Bush's approval rating has fallen fairly steadily among almost every segment of the American public, but the drop in support has been particularly significant among white evangelicals ages 18-29. This group was among Bush's strongest supporters in the beginning of his presidency; in 2002, for example, an overwhelming majority (87%) approved of Bush's job performance. By August 2007, however, Bush's approval rating among this group had plummeted by 42 percentage points, with most of the drop (25 points) coming since 2005.

By contrast, Bush's job approval among older generations of white evangelicals (those ages 30 and older) has undergone a much more gradual decline, falling 28 points since 2002 and just 11 points since 2005.

Despite the steep decline in their support for the president since 2005, however, younger white evangelicals still remain significantly more likely than the overall population in this age group to approve of the president (45% vs. 28%, a 17-percentage-point gap).

Party Identification

In 2001, 55% of younger white evangelicals identified as Republicans - nearly three-and-a-half times the number who identified as Democrats, and more than double the number of Americans overall in this age group who identified as Republicans. Throughout Bush's first term, party identification among younger white evangelicals remained relatively stable, but since 2005 the group's Republican affiliation has dropped significantly - by 15 percentage points. However, the shift away from the GOP has not resulted in substantial Democratic gains; instead it has produced a small increase in the number of Democrats (five-point increase) and a ten-point increase in the number of independents and politically unaffiliated Americans. Republicans now have only a two-to-one advantage over Democrats among younger white evangelicals, compared with a nearly four-to-one edge in 2005.

By comparison, the shift in party affiliation among older white evangelicals, and Americans overall in the 18-29 age group, has been less dramatic. Older white evangelicals' Republican Party identification has declined by just five percentage points since 2005, and among young people overall it has also declined by only five points. Yet, despite significant movement away from the GOP since 2005, younger white evangelicals still are twice as likely (40%) as young people as a whole (20%) to say they are Republican.

What Might These Trends Mean?

The trends toward dissatisfaction with Bush and away from the Republican Party by younger white evangelicals suggest that the Democratic Party may have a new opportunity to appeal to this group. Yet, while this group seems to be less loyal to the Republican Party than older white evangelicals, they remain much more conservative than the overall population in the same age group.

Young white evangelicals remain largely committed to politically conservative values and to conservative positions on a variety of issues, including the war in Iraq, capital punishment and abortion. Indeed, in 2007, more white evangelicals ages 18-29 describe their political views as conservative (44%) than moderate (34%) or liberal (15%), almost identical to their ideological leanings in 2001. So although younger white evangelicals are 14 percentage points less conservative on this measure than white evangelicals ages 30 and older, they are 17 points more conservative than young people as a whole.

Young white evangelicals exhibit this conservative tendency in their opinion on the war in Iraq. While support for the war has fallen precipitously among all Americans since 2003, the majority (60%) of younger white evangelicals still believe that using military force in Iraq was the right decision, an identical percentage to the number of older white evangelicals who express the same view. Among younger Americans overall, only 41% say that it was the right decision.

Younger white evangelicals express a similarly conservative opinion when it comes to capital punishment, with the vast majority (72%) favoring the death penalty for convicted murderers, compared with 75% of older white evangelicals but only 56% of all Americans ages 18-29.

And when it comes to abortion, younger white evangelicals are even more conservative than their older counterparts. For example, 70% of younger white evangelicals favor "making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion," compared with 55% of older white evangelicals and 39% of young Americans overall who share this view.

This strong allegiance to conservatism and conservative positions suggests that young white evangelicals' turn away from the president and his party may be the product of dissatisfaction with this particular administration rather than the result of an underlying shift in this group's political values and policy views.

Graphs:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/605/young-white-evangelicalsless-republican-still-conservative
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 854 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:00 am
You know, I can name you a couple dozen things I don't like about GWB or where I disagree with his policies (and some of these would surprise you I am sure).

But he's still head and shoulders above what we would've gotten had the election gone the other way .

America was attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the Clinton/Gore administration, and we did virtually NOTHING about it.

first World Trade Center attack
two embassies in Africa bombed
Khobar Towers bombed
USS Cole attacked

How many times should we simply do nothing when attacked?

Gore is the most likely nominee of the Dems in 2008.

Are you ready for some inaction?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:02 am
real life wrote:
You know, I can name you a couple dozen things I don't like about GWB or where I disagree with his policies (and some of these would surprise you I am sure).
But he's still head and shoulders above what we would've gotten had the election gone the other way .
America was attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the Clinton/Gore administration, and we did virtually NOTHING about it.
first World Trade Center attack - two embassies in Africa bombed - Khobar Towers bombed - USS Cole attacked
How many times should we simply do nothing when attacked?
Gore is the most likely nominee of the Dems in 2008.
Are you ready for some inaction?


Real life:

Have you noticed that Gore is not a 2008 candidate?

Did you notice that Kerry was not the president during the attacks you listed, so how could he have taken presidential action?

If you read or listened to talking heads other than just Republican conservative Clinton haters, did you attempt to refresh your limited memory about any actions the Clinton-Gore administration took following the attacks you cited?

Which countries do you suggest that President Clinton should have "done somethig about"? Did you notice that individual terrorists are not countries? Which country should Clinton have bombed, invaded, arrested?

You may find the following fascinating time line will broaden your knowledge of events long before, during, and following the Clinton-Gore administration. I obviously can't confirm the accuracy of the timeline but it appears to be reasonable.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&other_al-qaeda_operatives=zawahiri

BBB
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:34 am
WOW! It takes a special kind of @ss to p*iss off BBB.

By the way BBB who are the dogs in the photo?

In a true and just world dogs world be King!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:55 am
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
WOW! It takes a special kind of @ss to p*iss off BBB.
By the way BBB who are the dogs in the photo?
In a true and just world dogs world be King!


Dolly and Madison. The connection is intentional to honor Founder James Madison. Dolly is a 7-pound Japanese Chin and Maddy is a 14-pound Bichon Frieze. They rule my world. I don't know about yours. Dog spelled backwards is god.

BBB
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:00 am
TOOOOO funny. My Beagle (16 months) is Madison! She lets me think I'm the alpha dog caue it makes me happy.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:11 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
real life wrote:
You know, I can name you a couple dozen things I don't like about GWB or where I disagree with his policies (and some of these would surprise you I am sure).
But he's still head and shoulders above what we would've gotten had the election gone the other way .
America was attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the Clinton/Gore administration, and we did virtually NOTHING about it.
first World Trade Center attack - two embassies in Africa bombed - Khobar Towers bombed - USS Cole attacked
How many times should we simply do nothing when attacked?
Gore is the most likely nominee of the Dems in 2008.
Are you ready for some inaction?


Real life:

Have you noticed that Gore is not a 2008 candidate?


Didn't say he was.

I merely stated my opinion.

Hope you weren't offended that I have one.

What do you think are the chances for a deadlocked Dem convention turning into a brokered affair?

If such a scenario did come to pass, who would you consider the Dems most proven national vote-getter (and therefore the most likely candidate to be put forward to unify the party)?

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Did you notice that Kerry was not the president during the attacks you listed, so how could he have taken presidential action?



I was referring to the 2000 election which made GWB the President. It was during his first term, not the second, that Bush initiated actions in response to terrorism to which I was referring.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
If you read or listened to talking heads other than just Republican conservative Clinton haters, did you attempt to refresh your limited memory about any actions the Clinton-Gore administration took following the attacks you cited?


Limited ineffective actions and posturing , including well timed actions to divert attention from investigations of Mr Clinton's perjury.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:15 am
real life
TA DA! The genius has spoken!

BBB
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:52 am
Laughing

I appreciate your sense of humor , BBB.

As I said, there are MANY things that I don't like about GWB.

As an Independent , I don't fit in well to any category.

But looking at the upcoming Dems, I don't see any of them being able to capture the nomination easily, if at all, and a brokered convention is a very realistic scenario.

The GOP on the other hand will probably have another coronation.

If Gore is the Dem candidate, I give him an 85-90% chance of winning the general election.

That's not something I'm excited about, it's just what I see as likely.

We'll only know if I'm a 'genius' in about another 10 months.

Take good care, BBB.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 11:27 am
real life
real life, I consider Senator Joe Biden to be the best prepared to offer the American people experience in foreign and domestic affairs, knowledge of the Middle East and Iraq in particular and the best plan to allow us to withdraw with the least amount of damage in the region. Biden has a proven record of leadership, bringing people together to accomplish what is best for the common good. He is a demonstrated truth teller even if it is unpopular. He is the candidate and leader needed at this time.

I like all of the Democrat candidates but Biden is my choice even though he may not have a chance of becoming his party's candidate. Fortunately, if he does not become the candidate, at least we will still have his wisdom and leadership in the Senate.

BBB
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 12:59 pm
Interesting Biden quote:

Quote:
Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., the loquacious chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who launched his presidential campaign today, may be experiencing an ailment not entirely unknown to him: foot in mouth disease.

Biden is taking some heat for comments he made to the New York Observer, in which he said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a rival for the nomination: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2838420&page=1

Not sure how much he'll 'bring people together' with that kind of remark, but we'll see.

If a centrist like Lieberman were running, would you support him?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:23 am
real life
real life wrote:
If a centrist like Lieberman were running, would you support him?


No way would I ever support Lieberman. He has a long history of carrying Israel's water instead of putting the best interests of the U.S. ahead of his fanatic support of Israel. As I've said before, if Lieberman insists on promoting Israel's interests in the U.S. Senate, he should resign from the Senate, move to Israel and run for a seat in the Knesset.

I'm not a member of the "Israel can do no wrong club" but I've always supported Israel's existence and it's liberal government when in power. I object to Israel's too strong influence on U.S. foreign policy as it has for many years, which is Liberman's agenda.

I was very uneasy about Liberman when he was Gore's vice presidential candidate because of his super strong bias in favor of Israel.

BBB
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 10:23 am
Do you consider it important that the US support it's most reliable ally in the Middle East?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 10:38 am
real life
real life wrote:
Do you consider it important that the US support it's most reliable ally in the Middle East?


I repeat, I support the existence of Israel but don't support it's excessive military bullying during the last decade, which has been supported by the U.S.

Israel has caused and contributed to a lot of its own problems with the Palestinians and other neighbors. The anti-Israel positions of the Arab and Persian world and the violence toward Israel is inexcusable. They all behave in ways representing their joint historic patterns of tribal societies, revenge societies, states dominated by religion, perpetual fighting to eliminate their religious competitors, etc.

The U.S. should work harder to change the ways of these perpetual combatants rather than turn a blind eye to the Isreal "can do no wrong" or the Arabs "can do no right" of the warring parties. Checkbook diplomacy has seemed to work in the past when rational thinking failed.

BBB
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Young White Evangelicals:Less Republican, Still Conservative
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:16:04