Your opening comments were more accurate than your conclusion. It’s not regret or a gap or a slide. It’s just that the democratic candidate was so bad in 2024 that more people who really don’t like or approve of Trump still voted for him because they dislike him less than they dislike the alternative.
I am reminded of the voting patterns in the 2016 Republican primary:
Here's Trump's vote share by religious attendance:
Never - 66%
Seldom - 57%
Yearly - 47%
Monthly - 58%
Weekly - 49%
Weekly+ - 31%
Trump beat Cruz by NINETEEN points among Republican who attend church every week. Cruz only beat him among Republicans who go to church multiple times per week (11% of all Republicans).
"It’s just that the democratic candidate was so bad in 2024 that more people who really don’t like or approve of Trump still voted for him because they dislike him less than they dislike the alternative."
Your observation probably explains most voting decisions since Washington was elected!
The statistical analysis might have been more meaningful with a control group, or comparison group. The current President makes a point of being audacious, selling ideology or sizzle. The once there, people have to eat the steak which may disappoint. America has had other Presidents who approach voter desire differently, but also have to deal with results of policy six months or a year later. I don't know if the CES or GSS gives a similar question opportunity for all Presidential elections. From the data presented, we don't really know if this anticipation of campaign swoons with the reality a year later for every President or just this one. I think the Reagan debate question of 1980, repeated in 1984, still has validity. "Are you bettter off now than you were four years ago?"
Your opening comments were more accurate than your conclusion. It’s not regret or a gap or a slide. It’s just that the democratic candidate was so bad in 2024 that more people who really don’t like or approve of Trump still voted for him because they dislike him less than they dislike the alternative.
I am reminded of the voting patterns in the 2016 Republican primary:
Here's Trump's vote share by religious attendance:
Never - 66%
Seldom - 57%
Yearly - 47%
Monthly - 58%
Weekly - 49%
Weekly+ - 31%
Trump beat Cruz by NINETEEN points among Republican who attend church every week. Cruz only beat him among Republicans who go to church multiple times per week (11% of all Republicans).
"It’s just that the democratic candidate was so bad in 2024 that more people who really don’t like or approve of Trump still voted for him because they dislike him less than they dislike the alternative."
Your observation probably explains most voting decisions since Washington was elected!
And has anything changed? Mid-term elections should be interesting.
The statistical analysis might have been more meaningful with a control group, or comparison group. The current President makes a point of being audacious, selling ideology or sizzle. The once there, people have to eat the steak which may disappoint. America has had other Presidents who approach voter desire differently, but also have to deal with results of policy six months or a year later. I don't know if the CES or GSS gives a similar question opportunity for all Presidential elections. From the data presented, we don't really know if this anticipation of campaign swoons with the reality a year later for every President or just this one. I think the Reagan debate question of 1980, repeated in 1984, still has validity. "Are you bettter off now than you were four years ago?"
This is too political. Not what I subscribed for.
I'm a political scientist, Mike. I hold a PhD in the field.
Of my last 22 posts -- 5 of them are focused strongly on politics. I'm not going to ignore it. And I'm actually really pleased with that mix.
Point taken. :)