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!
2016, 2020, and 2024 all came so close to a 50-50 popular vote split that I would hesitate to craft a grand narrative like that. Certainly the candidate quality of both parties has been poor in all 3 of those election cycles.
I think it is more likely that Republicans were marginally more scared of Kamala than Democrats were of Trump, likely because of recency bias. The inverse happened in 2020. There is also an ongoing global trend of ruling parties being ousted, regardless of whether they are left wing or right wing. So I'd wager the last 3 presidential elections can be explained entirely by global trends combined with small differences in voter turnout.
My point really is that the election and the approval rating are totally different metrics. One is a choice between two people, and the other is an evaluation of one person. A difference between the two should not necessarily be interpreted as a change in sentiment over time.
It's facinating to see data like this that just isn't available in this form from any other source I am aware of. In 2024 Trump won both the electorial college and the popular vote largely due to the christian vote, the first republican to achieve that milestone since George H. W. Bush in 1988. It's fairly typical for a Predident's popularity to decline after an election, especially an activist President who focuses on issues he campaigned on, and actually gets done what he promised. In any event, given his power to govern the country, Trump is not likely to become a Lame Duck or lose control of the predominantly christian Republican Party.
I keep reading that midterm votes almost always go against the party who previously won the presidential election. As you imply, most people vote largely against one candidate; their "choice" is more of a default. The current situation, in other words, is very typical.
My husband, for example, would check one of the "disapproval" boxes for Trump, but he would almost for sure vote for him if he ran in another election, because he would disapprove of the Democrat more.
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?"
I would contend that understanding political trends among religious groups isn't political, it's still sociology of religion content. Ryan does a good job of avoiding advocacy for any particular party or issue, even though he's open about coming from a more liberal faith tradition.
Great study Ryan. Thanks for the Danforth lectures, I will definitely watch those.
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.
Democratic Party has changed - they’ve moved left.
2016, 2020, and 2024 all came so close to a 50-50 popular vote split that I would hesitate to craft a grand narrative like that. Certainly the candidate quality of both parties has been poor in all 3 of those election cycles.
I think it is more likely that Republicans were marginally more scared of Kamala than Democrats were of Trump, likely because of recency bias. The inverse happened in 2020. There is also an ongoing global trend of ruling parties being ousted, regardless of whether they are left wing or right wing. So I'd wager the last 3 presidential elections can be explained entirely by global trends combined with small differences in voter turnout.
My point really is that the election and the approval rating are totally different metrics. One is a choice between two people, and the other is an evaluation of one person. A difference between the two should not necessarily be interpreted as a change in sentiment over time.
It's facinating to see data like this that just isn't available in this form from any other source I am aware of. In 2024 Trump won both the electorial college and the popular vote largely due to the christian vote, the first republican to achieve that milestone since George H. W. Bush in 1988. It's fairly typical for a Predident's popularity to decline after an election, especially an activist President who focuses on issues he campaigned on, and actually gets done what he promised. In any event, given his power to govern the country, Trump is not likely to become a Lame Duck or lose control of the predominantly christian Republican Party.
I keep reading that midterm votes almost always go against the party who previously won the presidential election. As you imply, most people vote largely against one candidate; their "choice" is more of a default. The current situation, in other words, is very typical.
My husband, for example, would check one of the "disapproval" boxes for Trump, but he would almost for sure vote for him if he ran in another election, because he would disapprove of the Democrat more.
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. :)
I would contend that understanding political trends among religious groups isn't political, it's still sociology of religion content. Ryan does a good job of avoiding advocacy for any particular party or issue, even though he's open about coming from a more liberal faith tradition.