Crossroads Podcast: What Changed With Trump’s Religion Numbers This Time?

As I watched the voting totals roll in, I kept noticing that much of the “news” in the 2024 election was actually old news for people who have been following the “Crossroads” podcast for the past decade.

No, I didn’t pull a muscle while slapping myself on the back. That isn’t what this post is about.

You see, I kept having flashbacks to a 2012 interview with scholar and polling maven John C. Green in which he looked ahead and predicted some major changes in the landscape of American politics and religion. “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed that interview once again (#DUH) while recording this week’s podcast, as we dug into some of the exit poll details.

First, here is the context of that talk with Green — which was the release of the groundbreaking Pew Research Center report (“‘Nones’ on the Rise”) that described the stunning growth of the “religiously unaffiliated” population in American life. The term “Nones” ignited waves of headlines.

I wrote an “On Religion” column about that study in 2012, focusing on its implications for the shrinking mainline world (“Fewer Protestants, but better Protestants?”). I returned to some of the political details in that Green interview in 2023, in a column with this (hint, hint) headline: “The pew gap remains: Journalists should start watching Latino and Black churches.”

Here are some quotes from that column that were relevant to the podcast discussion of the 2024 election.

In 2012, Green was part of the Pew Research team behind the landmark “Nones on the Rise” study, which documented the stunning growth of the “religiously unaffiliated.” The so-called “Nones,” he noted then, overwhelmingly reject ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines on marriage and sex. Thus, the unaffiliated have become a stronger presence among Democrats than Black Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

“It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” Green told reporters. “If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties.”

The key, Green told me, was how the rest of the old Democratic coalition would respond to their party’s growing “base” built on the concerns of “nones,” atheists, agnostics and doctrinally liberal faith leaders. (Two sociologists in New York City described the members of this coalition as “anti-fundamentalist voters” because that was the conviction that united them).

Looking down the road, in 2012, he said it was crucial to keep an eye on two sets of voters that were crucial to Democratic Party candidates.

Since 2012, Green has stressed the importance of journalists studying changes in Latino voting, especially trends among evangelicals, Pentecostals and Catholics. Again, it's crucial to probe the differences between those who frequent pews and those who do not.

Now, it's time for pollsters to start asking “religiosity gap” questions about choices made by Black voters, said Green, who in retirement remains active with the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

In other words, Green said journalists should start examining the choice made by Latino voters — especially those in pews — immediately. After the 2016 election, I started asking if Latino evangelicals and Pentecostal believers (especially in Orlando megachurches) had helped Trump carry Florida, thus putting him in the White House.

Also, Green wondered when polling pros might be able to see signs of change in the voting patterns among Black believers. Once again, it would be crucial to study the choices made by those most active in conservative evangelical and Pentecostal flocks. To be blunt: Will someone please ask follow-up questions about what happened, for example, with Black male voters in Georgia this time around? Were there hints of a “pew gap” there?

Now, lots of the same old, same old religion-and-politics news can be seen in the 2024 exit polls, as noted in this report at NBC News. Once again, Catholic voters were absolutely crucial in the Midwest swing states — as noted for a decade or so at GetReligion.org by religion-beat patriarch Richard Ostling.

As you would expect, the omnipresent politics-and-religion seer Ryan Burge noted the obvious in a chart on X.

The decline in generic Protestant voting for Trump is interesting, especially since it appears that the president-elect’s totals among white evangelical voters remained the same. Maybe a weakening in Trump support among mainliners? 

Yes, I would also like to see what happened among Black Protestants, on the doctrinal right and left.

In conclusion, here are a few questions that I raised in the podcast, focusing on other stories that journalists might want to explore. 

— What can CHURCHES do to address the beliefs and needs of unchurched blue-collar voters? After all, these voters could become the heart of a future nonreligious right.

— Could conservative White evangelicals hold a summit with Black and Latino evangelicals-Pentecostals on:

(a) Parental rights issues

(b) Public safety and police reform

(3) Options in the education marketplace 

— What next for pro-life MINISTRIES, which are not the same thing as pro-life POLITICS? Trump clearly has moved away from a consistent stance on life issues — moving toward a more European focus on policies limiting or banning abortions in the third or even the second trimester.

— Now that he no longer needs the evangelical vote in future elections, does Trump veer toward a more libertarian stance on moral and cultural issues? The key there will be appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the likely retirements of some strong cultural conservatives.

— Is it time for another Evangelicals and Catholics Together summit, perhaps marking the 30th anniversary of the original? Look at the exit polls.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others.