A topic I would be interested in is what the composition of backgrounds is of the US Muslim population. I.e., to the degree they have an identifiable primary ancestry of origin, what percent is Arab, South Asian, ADOS [not sure if there's a preferred way to express the ADOS concept in mainstream social science], etc. And how has that trended over time?
My guess would be that the mix of backgrounds of US Muslims is in flux, having started from such a low base, and that certain sub-groups have significant differences in culture and voting patterns relative to others, which might be a large enough effect to move these numbers around.. By comparison, my understanding is that the US Asian population has become significantly more South Asian and less East Asian over the past 20 years or so, and these groups have different voting patterns.
Well, that was the narrative, but if you drill down even a little it wasn't really true, Trump rather loudly proclaimed that abortion policy was settled as far as he was concerned. There would be no national legislation or EOs on the subject. The states should deal with it. Of course both parties ignored him and flogged their counter narratives to drum up their bases.
“religion in the United States is seen as increasingly conservative”
Isn’t conservatism a core component of most religions? There’s a commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation by the very notion of having dogmatic beliefs. One must accept as incontrovertibly true whatever principles are espoused.
Unless those principles are liberal, such as helping rather than regulating one’s neighbors, there’s probably an affinity for what we consider conservative political policies.
Similarly, higher education with its continual questioning seems anathema to conservative politics & fundamentalist religions.
Muslims have backwards views about women (e.g., child "marriage," the rape of non-Muslims, a woman's testimony being worth half a man's in a court of law, men being able to instigate divorce with a word anytime (talaq) while women have to pay the man off (khul) or go through a court proceeding where her word is worth half his and she loses the kids (faskh), etc.). The idea that any woman could carry similar majorities to a man is laughable, even more so when running against a strongman figure like Donald Trump. This is especially true when they are trying to train a political party to be subservient to their wishes. They are highly tribal and vote with extreme loyalty when you get their leadership on board. This makes them a very effective swing vote in close elections and gives them power which far outstrips their actual size.
Thank you so much for your great posts as always Dr. Burge. As a close observer of the American Muslim community, I wanted to share a counter-argument and an observation for your feedback:
1) I would disagree with your main take-away: "It’s highly unlikely that there will ever be a national election where Muslims make the difference."
According to the ARDA Religion Census, Muslims make up more than 2% of the population of Michigan and Minnesota - two swing states. I've seen estimates of 2.4% and 2% respectively. Given American Muslims' high birth rates by American standards (2.4 vs. 1.6) and immigration (about a fourth of the world population is Muslim), it's not unlikely that these states could become 3-4% in a generation. Arizona will likely hit more than 2%.
Given the often razor thin margins in swing states, the fact that Democrats have hemorrhaged more than 30% of their Muslim vote to other parties equates to 1% in these swing-state elections. This switch could easily make the difference.
2) Muslims are trying to signal that their votes are up for grabs and that the human rights of Palestinians and stopping endless foreign wars are two issues about which they care deeply. There was a strong push by Muslim leaders (even conservative ones) to vote Green during the last election to send a message to the Democrats over what it perceived as blind support for genocide. The Green Party simply became the vessel for making a protest vote. According to your data, the third-party American Muslim vote increased 600%, from 1% to 6%. That is a huge development in Muslim electoral politics and should not be missed.
Thanks for your response and reminding me about that great post.
Here is my question however: In your 2024 post, you projected that "the Muslim vote will make up about 1.8% of all ballots cast in the state of Michigan in the upcoming presidential election."
Over the next 30 years, PEW projects that the American Muslim population will nearly double as a percentage of the US population. This means that perhaps 3.6% of Michigan's voters in 2055 could be Muslim voters. And a 30% swing amongst Muslims like we saw last election would be well over the 1% margin in many swing state elections.
So do you think we could say that maybe not now, but perhaps in a generation, Muslim voters might well play an influential role in national elections? 3-4% of Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona is not insignificant.
A quibble, but Minnesota is not a swing state. It has consistently given its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every election in my lifetime (I'm 58) except in Richard Nixon's landslide of 1972.
A topic I would be interested in is what the composition of backgrounds is of the US Muslim population. I.e., to the degree they have an identifiable primary ancestry of origin, what percent is Arab, South Asian, ADOS [not sure if there's a preferred way to express the ADOS concept in mainstream social science], etc. And how has that trended over time?
My guess would be that the mix of backgrounds of US Muslims is in flux, having started from such a low base, and that certain sub-groups have significant differences in culture and voting patterns relative to others, which might be a large enough effect to move these numbers around.. By comparison, my understanding is that the US Asian population has become significantly more South Asian and less East Asian over the past 20 years or so, and these groups have different voting patterns.
Re: Trump wanted to restrict abortion
Well, that was the narrative, but if you drill down even a little it wasn't really true, Trump rather loudly proclaimed that abortion policy was settled as far as he was concerned. There would be no national legislation or EOs on the subject. The states should deal with it. Of course both parties ignored him and flogged their counter narratives to drum up their bases.
And this then…?
https://open.substack.com/pub/thecrudecritic/p/breaking-news-brown-skinned-man-claiming?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5zqu2j
“religion in the United States is seen as increasingly conservative”
Isn’t conservatism a core component of most religions? There’s a commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation by the very notion of having dogmatic beliefs. One must accept as incontrovertibly true whatever principles are espoused.
Unless those principles are liberal, such as helping rather than regulating one’s neighbors, there’s probably an affinity for what we consider conservative political policies.
Similarly, higher education with its continual questioning seems anathema to conservative politics & fundamentalist religions.
Muslims have backwards views about women (e.g., child "marriage," the rape of non-Muslims, a woman's testimony being worth half a man's in a court of law, men being able to instigate divorce with a word anytime (talaq) while women have to pay the man off (khul) or go through a court proceeding where her word is worth half his and she loses the kids (faskh), etc.). The idea that any woman could carry similar majorities to a man is laughable, even more so when running against a strongman figure like Donald Trump. This is especially true when they are trying to train a political party to be subservient to their wishes. They are highly tribal and vote with extreme loyalty when you get their leadership on board. This makes them a very effective swing vote in close elections and gives them power which far outstrips their actual size.
Thank you so much for your great posts as always Dr. Burge. As a close observer of the American Muslim community, I wanted to share a counter-argument and an observation for your feedback:
1) I would disagree with your main take-away: "It’s highly unlikely that there will ever be a national election where Muslims make the difference."
According to the ARDA Religion Census, Muslims make up more than 2% of the population of Michigan and Minnesota - two swing states. I've seen estimates of 2.4% and 2% respectively. Given American Muslims' high birth rates by American standards (2.4 vs. 1.6) and immigration (about a fourth of the world population is Muslim), it's not unlikely that these states could become 3-4% in a generation. Arizona will likely hit more than 2%.
Given the often razor thin margins in swing states, the fact that Democrats have hemorrhaged more than 30% of their Muslim vote to other parties equates to 1% in these swing-state elections. This switch could easily make the difference.
2) Muslims are trying to signal that their votes are up for grabs and that the human rights of Palestinians and stopping endless foreign wars are two issues about which they care deeply. There was a strong push by Muslim leaders (even conservative ones) to vote Green during the last election to send a message to the Democrats over what it perceived as blind support for genocide. The Green Party simply became the vessel for making a protest vote. According to your data, the third-party American Muslim vote increased 600%, from 1% to 6%. That is a huge development in Muslim electoral politics and should not be missed.
What do you think?
Thank you!
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/lets-talk-about-the-muslim-vote-in
Thanks for your response and reminding me about that great post.
Here is my question however: In your 2024 post, you projected that "the Muslim vote will make up about 1.8% of all ballots cast in the state of Michigan in the upcoming presidential election."
Over the next 30 years, PEW projects that the American Muslim population will nearly double as a percentage of the US population. This means that perhaps 3.6% of Michigan's voters in 2055 could be Muslim voters. And a 30% swing amongst Muslims like we saw last election would be well over the 1% margin in many swing state elections.
So do you think we could say that maybe not now, but perhaps in a generation, Muslim voters might well play an influential role in national elections? 3-4% of Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona is not insignificant.
A quibble, but Minnesota is not a swing state. It has consistently given its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every election in my lifetime (I'm 58) except in Richard Nixon's landslide of 1972.
Good point! 2016 in Minnesota was about as close as it's gotten I think: 44.9% (Trump) vs. 46.4% (Hillary) - a difference of 1.5%