Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.
JOIN FOR $1
Enjoy good journalism?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.
We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.
Value Raw Story?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.
Report typos and corrections to: corrections@rawstory.com.
Trump held steady among believers at the ballot — it was the non-religious vote he lost in 2020
April 10, 2021
For all the predictions and talk of a slump in support among evangelicals, it appears Donald Trump's election loss was not at the hands of religious voters.
As an analyst of religious data, I've been crunching data released in March 2021 that breaks down the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by faith. And by and large there was very little notable change in the vote choice of religious groups between 2016 and 2020 — in fact, for most faiths, support for Trump ticked up slightly. Instead, it was among those who do not identify with any religion that Trump saw a noticeable drop.
Despite exit poll data initially pointing toward a drop in white evangelical support for Trump in 2020, the latest data shows this not to be the case. The data is based on the Cooperative Election Study, which has become the gold standard for assessing vote choice because of its sample size and its ability to accurately represent the voting population of the United States.
<p>In fact, with 80% of white evangelicals backing Trump in 2020, support actually ticked up from the 78% who voted for him four years earlier. Trump also saw two-point increases in the vote of nonwhite evangelicals, white Catholics, Black Protestants and Jews compared with four years ago.</p><p>These differences are not statistically significant, and as such it would be wrong to say it definitively shows Trump gained among religious groups. But it indicates that among the largest religious groups in the U.S., voting patterns in the November 2020 vote seemed to hold largely steady with four years earlier. Trump did not manage to win significantly larger shares, nor was winner Joe Biden able to peel away religious voters from the Trump coalition.</p><p><strong>Losing the nonreligious</strong></p><p>However, there are some interesting and statistically significant trends when you break down the data further. Nonwhite Catholics shifted four points toward Donald Trump. This fits with what we saw in places like the <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamidadecountyflorida/PST045219" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">heavily Hispanic</a> and <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/metro-area/miami-metro-area/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Catholic</a> Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Trump's <a href="https://www.nwfdailynews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/elections-compare-florida-vote-president-2016-2020/6156532002/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">overall vote share improved</a> from 35% to 46% between 2016 and 2020.</p><p>Trump also managed to pick up 15 percentage points among the Mormon vote. On first glance this would appear a large jump. But it makes sense when you factor in that around <a href="https://religioninpublic.blog/2018/07/25/mormon-voting-patterns-in-the-2016-election-a-comprehensive-analysis/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">15% of the Mormon vote</a> in 2016 <a href="https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/utah-mormon-vote-mcmullin" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">went to Utah native and fellow Mormon Evan McMullin</a>, who ran in that year's election as a third-party candidate. Without McMullin in 2020, Trump picked up Mormon voters – as did Joe Biden, who did slightly better than Hillary Clinton had among Mormons.</p><p>There is also some weak evidence that the Republican candidate picked up some support among smaller religious groups in the U.S., like Hindus and Buddhists. Trump increased his share among these two groups by four percentage points each. But it is important to note that these two groups combined <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">constitute only about 1.5% of the American population</a>. As such, a four-point increase translates to only a very small fraction of the overall popular vote.</p><p>What is clear is that Trump <a href="https://religioninpublic.blog/2021/04/06/the-2020-vote-for-president-by-religious-groups-the-nones/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">lost a good amount of ground among the religious unaffiliated</a>. Trump's share of the atheist vote declined from 14% in 2016 to just 11% in 2020; the decline among agnostics was slightly larger, from 23% to 18%.</p><p>Additionally, those who identify as "<a href="https://religionnews.com/2019/07/03/rise-of-the-nothing-in-particulars-may-be-sign-of-a-disjointed-disaffected-and-lonely-future/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">nothing in particular</a>" — a group that represents 21% of the overall U.S. population — were not as supportive of Trump in his re-election bid. His vote share among this group dropped by three percentage points, while Biden's rose by more than seven points, with the Democrat managing to win over many of the "nothing in particulars" who had backed third-party candidates in the 2016 election.</p><p>Looked at broadly, Trump did slightly better among Christians and other smaller religious groups in the U.S. but lost ground among the religiously unaffiliated. What these results cannot account for, however, is record turnout. There were nearly <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">22 million more votes</a> cast in 2020 than in 2016. So while vote shares may not have changed that much, the number of votes cast helped swing the election for the Democratic candidate. A more detailed breakdown of voter turnout is due to be released in July 2021 by the team that administers the Cooperative Election Study; that will bring the picture of religion and the 2020 vote into clearer focus.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ryan-burge-1193069" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Ryan Burge</a>, Assistant Professor of Political Science, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/eastern-illinois-university-4998" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Eastern Illinois University</a></em></p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
According to The Blaze, an anti-racism protest in the Iowa State Capitol turned to chaos after police forcibly arrested a young protester they accused of "assaulting" them.
"Members of the Des Moines Black Liberation Movement Collective were inside the Capitol building demonstrating against 'racist and dangerous' bills, We Are Iowa reported," wrote Dave Urbanski. "The proposed legislation would increase immunity for police and increase penalties for some protest-related offenses, the Des Moines Register reported."
<p>Mulvihill has been charged with assaulting a police officer, although a fellow protester told the Register she didn't see her assaulting the officer "whatsoever."</p><p>"According to a criminal complaint the Register said it reviewed, Iowa State Patrol Trooper Dylan Hernandez stated that Josie Mulvihill asked him and Trooper Dalton Grell for their names and badge numbers," said the report. "The paper added that Hernandez also stated in the complaint that while he and Grell were about to leave for another assignment, Mulvihill 'pushed my arm in an attempt to gain my attention.'"</p><p>According to the report, after Mulvihill was arrested and pushed to the ground, protesters pushed back, resulting in a chaotic scene. One of them can be heard on video shouting "She's a f**king kid, bro!"</p><p>Watch the incident below:</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22178d6eea6d4be3c7fad9599a47c7c2" style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="auto" type="lazy-iframe" scrolling="no" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KoO83uEN9U4?start=26&rel=0" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;" width="100%"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">BLM Protesters Stormed Iowa State Capitol to Try to “kill" Legislative Bills They Opposed</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoO83uEN9U4&t=26s" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Lauren Boebert inadvertently admits to ‘destroying our freedoms’ in latest Twitter rant
April 10, 2021
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is facing heightened backlash on Twitter for her latest controversial tweet about America's "freedoms." On Friday, April 9, the Colorado lawmaker highlighted the vast nature of American citizens' freedoms as she claimed one political party was "laser-focused on destroying our freedoms," reports The HuffPost.
"We live in the freest country on planet earth," Boebert tweeted. "The rest of the world envies our freedoms. Meanwhile, we have a political party that is laser-focused on destroying our freedoms. It is not only shocking but very dangerous.
<p><br/></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="421ed06368d3c8ef7e6f1e22ef1090b6" id="1e570"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1380612249627283459"><div style="margin:1em 0">We live in the freest country on planet earth. The rest of the world envies our freedoms. Meanwhile, we have a poli… https://t.co/aTluL7KMpb</div> — Lauren Boebert (@Lauren Boebert)<a href="https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/statuses/1380612249627283459">1617998585.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br/></p><p>Although Boebert did not name the Democratic Party, specifically, it is presumed that she was referring to President Joe Biden's latest executive orders focused on combatting the widespread issue of gun violence in the United States; an order the Republican lawmaker has outwardly condemned repeatedly over the last several days.</p><p>But since Boebert did not specifically name the Democratic Party, she opened the door for Twitter users to flip the script. Critics quickly seized the moment by trolling Boebert's tweet as they interpreted it as a critical reaction to her own political party. Many Twitter users noted Republican lawmakers' attempt to restrict voting rights as a direct attack on freedoms. </p><p class="media-headline">
<strong><br/></strong></p><p><br/></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="902828b4371138d43aa657e172ea0b10" id="6cd46"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1380710405933240321"><div style="margin:1em 0">@laurenboebert Yeah like making it impossible for people to vote. https://t.co/JdBYA6GjFo</div> — Bronson (@Bronson)<a href="https://twitter.com/12stepSavage/statuses/1380710405933240321">1618021987.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br/></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b90938e5c3d7e7fa6cb68f57f3e24b6b" id="df386"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1380640103626809345"><div style="margin:1em 0">@laurenboebert Last I checked the GOP was keeping ppl from voting.</div> — CrazyBill (@CrazyBill)<a href="https://twitter.com/historyscienceT/statuses/1380640103626809345">1618005226.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br/></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="66aa29ff12af071ce613d73076a354e1" id="e1aaa"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1380655114025758721"><div style="margin:1em 0">@laurenboebert Sometimes your freedom infringes on my freedoms</div> — Stephanie Klopper (@Stephanie Klopper)<a href="https://twitter.com/rednoz/statuses/1380655114025758721">1618008805.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br/></p><br/><p>After losing the 2020 election, Republican lawmakers drastically increased their efforts to suppress votes. Since last year, Republicans have proposed more than 200 restrictive bills hoping to suppress votes; an action that would certainly infringe upon Americans' freedoms. Boebert has not yet responded to the critical remarks she received on Twitter.</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Trending Topics
Trending
Latest
Videos
Copyright © 2021 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email corrections@rawstory.com.
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
Subscribe Annually
$95 / year — Just $7.91/month
Subscribe Monthly
$1 trial
I want to Support More
$14.99 per month