Putting America First

[Jaebius]

What I posted is exit poll data from election night. What you're linking to are "political leanings" from 9 months before the election.

Had these "political leanings" held true, Trump would not be the president. People either switched to Trump, or many "mainline" Protestants did not vote. Probably a combination of the above.

But either way, it does not change the fact that *Christians* were the force that elected Donald Trump. The aggregate category "Protestant/Other Christian" reported voted Trump over Clinton 58:39. How many Mormons would it take to overturn the "mainline Protestant" vote like that? "Protestant/Other Christian" was 52% of the electorate. How much of that 52% would you count as "mainline"? 80%? Let's do some approximations.

A couple of other things I note...

1) Jon claimed that, "The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys." There's no line exclusively for fundamentalists on the data you provided.

2) Pew erred by lumping together Protestants, Mormons and other Christians together to form the group "Protestant/other Christian," since Mormons are not Christians.

 

[chansen]

Jae's trolling aside, it is a large aggregate column. That's why we need to break it down. But we should be able to come up with approximate numbers using demographic information. My hypothesis is that there aren't enough groups outside the "mainline" to send the "Protestant/Other Christian" vote to 58:39 Trump. Unless you whittle down "mainline Christian" to a group that has to stop calling itself "mainline" and maybe go with "fringe Christian".

Also, the data in Steven's post about political leanings was gathered from almost 2 years before the election, when Trump wasn't the nominee, and probably hadn't even declared (not that many gave him a chance when he did). The article was from 9 months before the election.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Raciest? I thought you were going to show a video of Hillary wearing nothing but a thong. I guess you must have meant racist since there was no thong or any thing in that video that could be construed as being racy. Come to think of it I couldn't find anything in that video that was racist either. Possibly sexist maybe?

a thong omg, what an image you just ruined my day

 

[Luce NDs]

It takes an indigo child to look at this fallacy from outside politic ... one mean scot as Celtic medium on superficial brute powers!

Such things are beyond real ... as extrapolation of the abstract mind ... real subjective people find this domain hard to grasp!

You may never appreciate the full rush or the racing to arms ... by those supporting real destruction but unaware of it ... indigo abstract being a trend towards careful creation ... not fundamentally scro'd upe ... like the differentiation of Jake and what IZ rael ing ... an inkling on the misunderstood by those desiring the other to know not ... Exclusion Theory from the other dimension ... complex objectivism? Really denied down here ...

 

[Luce NDs]

a thong omg, what an image you just ruined my day

Diversely ... this is a divers plunge towards the subtle deeps on rye angels that caused Jacob to wrestle with the meaning of the oppression of rest ... then thought re organised ... all this inde course of night when the Deis is at rest ... a metaphor, or arid humour ... outlanders giggle in RIFTS ... kind of schism ... omg-A'!

 

[revsdd]

Jae's trolling aside, it is a large aggregate column. That's why we need to break it down. But we should be able to come up with approximate numbers using demographic information. My hypothesis is that there aren't enough groups outside the "mainline" to send the "Protestant/Other Christian" vote to 58:39 Trump. Unless you whittle down "mainline Christian" to a group that has to stop calling itself "mainline" and maybe go with "fringe Christian".

Also, the data in Steven's post about political leanings was gathered from almost 2 years before the election, when Trump wasn't the nominee, and probably hadn't even declared (not that many gave him a chance when he did). The article was from 9 months before the election.

Jae didn't troll. He posted legitimate comment on the Pew survey. In this case, your comment about him trolling is trolling. You seem to be trying to provoke a response from him.

The Pew survey released in February 2016 was obviously conducted over the several months prior to its release. It nevertheless does show that mainline Protestants tend toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans - calling into question your hypothesis that mainline Protestants supported Trump.

The fact is that you used the Pew data incorrectly to support your preconceived notion about how mainline Protestants voted. There are huge numbers of evangelical Christians in the US - more than enough to heavily skew the "Protestant/other Christian" column. A 2014 study by - guess who - Pew Research - estimated that 25.4% of Americans were evangelical Protestants, and only 14.7% were mainline Protestants. Given trends, it's likely that those numbers were weighted even more heavily toward evangelical Protestants by November of 2016. That's more than enough to skew the numbers, especially when you add in Mormons, who although small in number also heavily voted for Trump. In some circles I've heard that what you posted is called "alternative facts." Just admit it. Please don't jump on your high horse when others cite unsubstantiated facts and then do so yourself and expect to be taken seriously. Your speculation about mainline Protestant voting is simple conjecture with little evidence to back it up. Instead, it's based on your personal bias and your carefully sculpted caricature of Christians. As someone who has some education and background in both statistics and in public opinion research I can say with no hesitation that you have absolutely zero credibility on this one. Your unwillingness to admit your mistake but to instead cling to your biased and unsupportable conclusion renders your credibility even lower than zero - if that's possible.

 

[Luce NDs]

Jae didn't troll. He posted legitimate comment on the Pew survey. In this case, your comment about him trolling is trolling. You seem to be trying to provoke a response from him.

The Pew survey released in February 2016 was obviously conducted over the several months prior to its release. It nevertheless does show that mainline Protestants tend toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans - calling into question your hypothesis that mainline Protestants supported Trump.

The fact is that you used the Pew data incorrectly to support your preconceived notion about how mainline Protestants voted. There are huge numbers of evangelical Christians in the US - more than enough to heavily skew the "Protestant/other Christian" column. A 2014 study by - guess who - Pew Research - estimated that 25.4% of Americans were evangelical Protestants, and only 14.7% were mainline Protestants. Given trends, it's likely that those numbers were weighted even more heavily toward evangelical Protestants by November of 2016. That's more than enough to skew the numbers, especially when you add in Mormons, who although small in number also heavily voted for Trump. In some circles I've heard that what you posted is called "alternative facts." Just admit it. Please don't jump on your high horse when others cite unsubstantiated facts and then do so yourself and expect to be taken seriously. Your speculation about mainline Protestant voting is simple conjecture with little evidence to back it up. Instead, it's based on your personal bias and your carefully sculpted caricature of Christians. As someone who has some education and background in both statistics and in public opinion research I can say with no hesitation that you have absolutely zero credibility on this one. Your unwillingness to admit your mistake but to instead cling to your biased and unsupportable conclusion renders your credibility even lower than zero - if that's possible.

Og odd ... sounds opinionated ...

 

[chansen]

Jae didn't troll. He posted legitimate comment on the Pew survey. In this case, your comment about him trolling is trolling. You seem to be trying to provoke a response from him.

Jae went straight for "Mormons are not Christians." I stand by my comment.

The Pew survey released in February 2016 was obviously conducted over the several months prior to its release. It nevertheless does show that mainline Protestants tend toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans - calling into question your hypothesis that mainline Protestants supported Trump.

The fact is that you used the Pew data incorrectly to support your preconceived notion about how mainline Protestants voted. There are huge numbers of evangelical Christians in the US - more than enough to heavily skew the "Protestant/other Christian" column. A 2014 study by - guess who - Pew Research - estimated that 25.4% of Americans were evangelical Protestants, and only 14.7% were mainline Protestants. Given trends, it's likely that those numbers were weighted even more heavily toward evangelical Protestants by November of 2016. That's more than enough to skew the numbers, especially when you add in Mormons, who although small in number also heavily voted for Trump. In some circles I've heard that what you posted is called "alternative facts." Just admit it. Please don't jump on your high horse when others cite unsubstantiated facts and then do so yourself and expect to be taken seriously. Your speculation about mainline Protestant voting is simple conjecture with little evidence to back it up. Instead, it's based on your personal bias and your carefully sculpted caricature of Christians. As someone who has some education and background in both statistics and in public opinion research I can say with no hesitation that you have absolutely zero credibility on this one. Your unwillingness to admit your mistake but to instead cling to your biased and unsupportable conclusion renders your credibility even lower than zero - if that's possible.

Okay, so mainline protestants account for only 14.7% of the electorate? So in that "Protestant/Other Christian" category, approx. 74% of them are non-mainline?

In that case, it quite possible, if not probable, that "mainline Christians" voted more for Clinton. It also brings into question the use of the word "mainline".

That does not change the fact that Christians, as a whole, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Unless you want to pull the same thing others are doing and say that anyone who is not a mainline Christian, is not a Christian. Which is what the non-mainlines are saying about mainlines.

 

[Jaebius]

Jae went straight for "Mormons are not Christians." I stand by my comment.

Actually, I did not. I spoke first about fundamentalists. Also, I did not merely offer that Mormons are not Christians. Rather, I suggested that shows that Pew erred in their research. That difference is significant in that it means that I was commenting on the presented data.

 

[chansen]

So, because Pew counted Mormons among Christians, you suggest that indicates a deeper methodological flaw. Wonderful. Not only are you the arbiter of what is and is not a Christian, nothing that disagrees with your assessment can hold water.

And Steven says you're not a troll.

Right.

 

[Jaebius]

So, because Pew counted Mormons among Christians, you suggest that indicates a deeper methodological flaw. Wonderful. Not only are you the arbiter of what is and is not a Christian, nothing that disagrees with your assessment can hold water.

And Steven says you're not a troll.

Right.

It's a flaw in the research for them to consider Mormons as Christians.

https://www.namb.net/apologetics/faq-are-mormons-christians

 

[Mendalla]

It's a flaw in the research for them to consider Mormons as Christians.

https://www.namb.net/apologetics/faq-are-mormons-christians

It's open for debate, and I do not think NAMB gets the final word. With my broad understanding of what Christian means, they do fit (they follow Jesus Christ). But I can see the argument on the other side. They are certainly more of an offshoot than other branches of the faith. At the very least, were I doing research that required stratifying on religious affiliation, I would count them as a separate main branch, e.g. parallel with Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, rather than lumping in with "Protestant" as they sometimes are. If I wasn't stratifying that far down (i.e. I was just doing "Christian", "Jewish", etc.), I might also break them out but it would depend on what I was trying to find out.

 

[revsdd]

Jae went straight for "Mormons are not Christians." I stand by my comment.


Okay, so mainline protestants account for only 14.7% of the electorate? So in that "Protestant/Other Christian" category, approx. 74% of them are non-mainline?

In that case, it quite possible, if not probable, that "mainline Christians" voted more for Clinton. It also brings into question the use of the word "mainline".

That does not change the fact that Christians, as a whole, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Unless you want to pull the same thing others are doing and say that anyone who is not a mainline Christian, is not a Christian. Which is what the non-mainlines are saying about mainlines.

I'm not pulling anything. Nor have I ever disagreed that on the whole the majority of Christians voted for Trump. However, you made a statement of fact about mainline Protestants by saying that Jon's claim that mainline Protestants voted for Clinton was "false." In fact, some quick work with the numbers suggests that as few as 15% of mainline Protestants could have supported Trump and still given the results cited for "Protestants/other Christians." If someone else (especially a person of faith) made a statement of fact that was unsustainable you'd call them on it. Expect the same in return.

It is hardly trolling for someone to suggest that Mormons are not Christian. It is actually a lively and open debate as to whether Mormons are Christians or not. Mormons would acknowledge their differences with orthodox Christianity and yet still say that they are. A lot depends on whether you hold to the similarities between Mormons and orthodox Christians or the differences. I'm willing to accept that Mormons are Christians - albeit they are certainly well outside the norms of Christianity (either the liberal or conservative stripe) in several ways (significant alteration in the Scriptures, baptism of the dead.) There would also be the distinction betweem modern Mormons and what are sometimes called Pioneer Mormons. There are several practices in Pioneer Mormonism (such as polygamy, and child marriage) that I would consider incompatible with Christianity, and I would not acknowledge Pioneer Mormons as Christian.

For Jae to have a position on a debatable issue is not trolling by my definition. In the context of the Pew survey, it's not unreasonable for him to note his position, since even I agree that to an extent I think the numbers are a bit skewed by lumping Mormons in with Protestants. It's reasonable commentary on the study. It would be helpful if you would stop responding to so much of what Jae posts by calling it "trolling" because (even when it is) generally speaking you're the one who ends up disrupting the board by getting into fights about it.

 

[chansen]

And I've also stopped derailments in their lack-of-tracks with it as well.

And what if the claim that this miscategorization brings the study into question?

My mistake was thinking that mainline Christians accounted for a large percentage of non-evangelical Christians. They aparently do not. If "mainline" is only slightly more than one-third of non-evangelicals, they could have voted in majority for Clinton.

 

[revsdd]

And I've also stopped derailments in their lack-of-tracks with it as well.

And what if the claim that this miscategorization brings the study into question?

My mistake was thinking that mainline Christians accounted for a large percentage of non-evangelical Christians. They aparently do not. If "mainline" is only slightly more than one-third of non-evangelicals, they could have voted in majority for Clinton.

I'm not really interested at this point in discussing further whether your approach to trolling and trolls is helpful to the site as a whole. With respect to the survey/numbers, etc.

There are no numbers given in the survey for "non-evangelicals." There's a line for Protestant/Other Christian." Protestant is defined in the end note as anyone who declares themself as "Protestant, Mormon or other Christian." This line includes evangelical Christians. So the whole mass of people who define as Protestant, Mormon or other Christian voted 58-39 for Trump.

Both evangelicals and Mormons then seem to be taken out of that large, ill-defined group and given separate polling numbers underneath - except that "White, born again/evangelical Christians" on this line includes both Protestants and non-Protestants (non Protestants being identified in the end notes as including Mormons and Catholics who identify as born again or evangelical.) There are certainly those within mainline churches who would identify as either born again or evangelical, although the terms are generally not used in the same way as in the churches Pew considers "evangelical" - and I doubt that a huge percentage of mainline Christians would opt to describe themselves as born again or evangelical.

It isn't easy from this survey to state categorically how many mainline Christians voted for Trump. That's a weakness in either Pew's methodology or reporting - surprising, since they're pretty good at what they do usually. However, it does seem clear that one can extrapolate from the data that a large majority of mainline Protestant Christians did not vote for Trump.

 

[chansen]

How can you take a category that voted Trump 58:39, where "mainline Protestants" make up 34% of those numbers, and say a large majority of mainline Protestant Christians did not vote for Trump?

In October, PRRI published this study based on 4 surveys:

http://www.prri.org/spotlight/religion-vote-2016/

"White mainline protestant" were backing Trump 49:39. Not as large as the 58:39 spread from the aggregate category in the exit polls, but still a majority for Trump. That was in the run-up to the election.

The nones in this one backed Clinton by a ratio of about 3:1, like the exit polls showed.

You're taking an aggregate category and saying that the third of that category you most closely identify with did not vote in majority for Trump. Now there are numbers that make sense, that mainline Christians (at least pasty white ones) did indeed vote mostly for Trump. Not by a ratio of 6:4, but still 5:4.


And Mormons were broken out and not included with "Protestant/other Christian" in the Pew study. So now I have no idea what the problem there is.

 

[Luce NDs]

So, because Pew counted Mormons among Christians, you suggest that indicates a deeper methodological flaw. Wonderful. Not only are you the arbiter of what is and is not a Christian, nothing that disagrees with your assessment can hold water.

And Steven says you're not a troll.

Right.

Chansen as a believer in abstracts and Uncertainty Principle ... you should know you cannot discuss or have intercourse with absolutes ... tis a stone wall effect!

 

[BetteTheRed]

To me, it's absolutely clear that Trump won. It's also absolutely clear that white christians put him there. If you don't like it, either suck it up, or stop being a white Christian.

 

[Jaebius]

...stop being a white Christian.

That's quite impossible for some of us on both accounts.

 

[BetteTheRed]

So suck it up; there's no defending it.