Was there an enthusiasm gap? Examining support for Donald Trump among evangelicals and nonevangelicals

IF 1.3 1区 哲学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics and Religion Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1017/s1755048324000142
Alondra S. Pagán Márquez, Paul A. Djupe, Matthew Mettler, Jeffery J. Mondak
{"title":"Was there an enthusiasm gap? Examining support for Donald Trump among evangelicals and nonevangelicals","authors":"Alondra S. Pagán Márquez, Paul A. Djupe, Matthew Mettler, Jeffery J. Mondak","doi":"10.1017/s1755048324000142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Evangelicals arguably constitute an unexpected base of support for Donald Trump. One plausible account holds that evangelicals supported Trump reluctantly, backing him not because they strongly favored him, but rather because they viewed him as the least objectionable candidate. This perspective suggests a possible enthusiasm gap: among Donald Trump's supporters, nonevangelicals were more zealous while evangelicals were more tepid. We examine this account using data from March 2019, just past the midpoint of Trump's presidency, a period when any lack of enthusiasm with Trump among portions of his base should have been discernible. Our expansive analytical strategy, using OLS and matching, explores whether evangelicals offered Donald Trump more lukewarm support than did nonevangelicals, with support operationalized in six ways. Across 36 tests, no evidence of an enthusiasm gap between evangelicals and nonevangelicals is detected. Seen both in absolute terms and relative to nonevangelicals, evangelicals offered Donald Trump fervent support.","PeriodicalId":45674,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048324000142","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evangelicals arguably constitute an unexpected base of support for Donald Trump. One plausible account holds that evangelicals supported Trump reluctantly, backing him not because they strongly favored him, but rather because they viewed him as the least objectionable candidate. This perspective suggests a possible enthusiasm gap: among Donald Trump's supporters, nonevangelicals were more zealous while evangelicals were more tepid. We examine this account using data from March 2019, just past the midpoint of Trump's presidency, a period when any lack of enthusiasm with Trump among portions of his base should have been discernible. Our expansive analytical strategy, using OLS and matching, explores whether evangelicals offered Donald Trump more lukewarm support than did nonevangelicals, with support operationalized in six ways. Across 36 tests, no evidence of an enthusiasm gap between evangelicals and nonevangelicals is detected. Seen both in absolute terms and relative to nonevangelicals, evangelicals offered Donald Trump fervent support.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是否存在热情差距?考察福音派和非福音派人士对唐纳德-特朗普的支持情况
福音派可以说是唐纳德-特朗普意想不到的支持基础。一种似是而非的说法认为,福音派人士勉强支持特朗普,不是因为他们强烈支持他,而是因为他们认为他是最不讨人嫌的候选人。这种观点提出了可能存在的热情差距:在唐纳德-特朗普的支持者中,非福音派人士更加狂热,而福音派人士则更加冷淡。我们使用 2019 年 3 月的数据对这一说法进行了研究,当时刚刚过了特朗普总统任期的中点,而在这一时期,特朗普的部分支持者对特朗普缺乏热情的情况应该是显而易见的。我们采用 OLS 和匹配的扩展性分析策略,探讨了福音派是否比非福音派更冷淡地支持唐纳德-特朗普,支持的方式有六种。在 36 次测试中,没有发现任何证据表明福音派和非福音派之间存在热情差距。无论是从绝对值来看,还是相对于非福音派人士而言,福音派人士都对唐纳德-特朗普给予了狂热的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Religion is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed research on the multifaceted relationship between religion and politics around the world. The scope of published work is intentionally broad and we invite innovative work from all methodological approaches in the major subfields of political science, including international relations, American politics, comparative politics, and political theory, that seeks to improve our understanding of religion’s role in some aspect of world politics. The Editors invite normative and empirical investigations of the public representation of religion, the religious and political institutions that shape religious presence in the public square, and the role of religion in shaping citizenship, broadly considered, as well as pieces that attempt to advance our methodological tools for examining religious influence in political life.
期刊最新文献
Religion, spirituality, and susceptibility to conspiracy theories: examining the role of analytic thinking and post-critical beliefs A colorblind Christian country? How racial attitudes affect support for Christian nationalism and civil religion Was there an enthusiasm gap? Examining support for Donald Trump among evangelicals and nonevangelicals Neutralizing the sacred space: pre-election messages in a typical Indonesian city Fighting against assisted dying in Spain: catholic-inspired civic mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1