Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
“Nones” Are on Track to Be the Swing Vote… Again
to save the world from the Republicans, that is.
The growth in the Nones population has been astronomical when viewed in historical and political context. After all, the Nones are a population growing faster than the Hispanic population, which, rightfully, gets a great deal of attention in modern politics. But unlike the Hispanic vote, the Nones have already shown themselves to be a significant voting bloc in crucial swing states. Call it whatever you like but dismiss it at your peril, because this bloc is one that roars at the ballot box.
...
(details of religious and 'none' votes in 2012 swing states)
...
So on the surface, Trump’s appeal among independents — often considered the bulk of the Nones — is nil. But when you dive further into the Nones from across the spectrum, the odds of Trump being able to reverse what happened to Romney in 2012 look even more remote. In a January Pew Research Center study, they asked the religiously unaffiliated to weigh in on what kind of president each of the candidates would be.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/25/nones-are-on-track-to-be-the-swing-vote-again/
...
(details of religious and 'none' votes in 2012 swing states)
...
So on the surface, Trump’s appeal among independents — often considered the bulk of the Nones — is nil. But when you dive further into the Nones from across the spectrum, the odds of Trump being able to reverse what happened to Romney in 2012 look even more remote. In a January Pew Research Center study, they asked the religiously unaffiliated to weigh in on what kind of president each of the candidates would be.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/25/nones-are-on-track-to-be-the-swing-vote-again/
When you look at the detailed figures behind that chart, you can think "Trump is unpopular even with religious people - we'd be OK anyway" (he gets more great/good votes than poor/terrible among white evangelicals, but no other group, and overall he's at 31% g/g, 52% p/t). But it should be noted that Bernie and Hillary both do badly among religious people - because too many of them are the Religious Right. So, using some maths to extract the 'religiously affiliated' numbers from the total and unaffiliated numbers, we find:
Bernie Sanders
total (1525) g/g 30%=458 p/t 35%=534
unaff (293) g/g 51%=149 p/t 19%= 56
affil (1232) g/g 309=25% p/t 478=39% Net -14%
Donald Trump
total (1525) g/g 31%=473 p/t 52%=793
unaff (293) g/g 14%= 41 p/t 73%=214
affil (1232) g/g 432=35% p/t 579=47% Net -12%
Hillary Clinton
total (1525) g/g 35%=534 p/t 44%=671
unaff (293) g/g 42%=123 p/t 27%= 79
affil (1232) g/g 411=33% p/t 592=48% Net -15%
Macro Rubio
total (1525) g/g 25%=381 p/t 28%=427
unaff (293) g/g 15%= 44 p/t 40%=117
affil (1232) g/g 337=27% p/t 310=25% Net +2%
Ted Cruz
total (1525) g/g 28%=427 p/t 31%=473
unaff (293) g/g 15%= 44 p/t 52%=152
affil (1232) g/g 383=31% p/t 321=26% Net +5%
If only the religiously affiliated voted, Trump does very slightly better than Sanders or Clinton; and Rubio and Cruz, well, cruise it.
If Rubio, or even Cruz, were to get the Republican nomination after all, it could be a close thing, even with the unaffiliated vote. But that 'none' Democratic vote is needed.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
