Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 9.3

    Religious tradition and race

    In 2024 white born-again Protestants voted 14.5% Democratic and Black Protestants 83.1%, and attendance relates to the vote by +9.5 points among the first and +0.8 points among the second, so the pooled attendance gap combines groups with different gaps.

    DraftFigures and numbers may change as the analysis is rebuilt.what is still being checked

    The CES tradition coding is a proxy for denomination, and the sign of the attendance gap among white Protestants who are not born-again differs by survey; the last two sections describe the coding and its checks.

    Among voters in the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (CES), white born-again Protestants voted 14.5%14.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 13.2% to 15.7%n5,987Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic in the two-party presidential vote and Black Protestants voted 83.1%83.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 80.3% to 86.0%n1,889Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. Both groups attend services often: 57.8%57.8% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 56.0% to 59.5%n5,904Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of white born-again Protestant voters and 47.3%47.3% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 43.6% to 51.1%n1,870Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of Black Protestant voters attend weekly or more, against 26.7%26.7% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 26.0% to 27.4%n41,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of all voters. Attendance relates to the vote differently inside the two groups. Seldom attenders, who go a few times a year or never, voted more Democratic than frequent attenders by +9.5 (95% CI 6.6 to 12.4)+9.5 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 6.6 to 12.4n5,380Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused. among white born-again Protestants and by +0.8 (95% CI −5.1 to 6.7)+0.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −5.1 to 6.7n1,684Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points among Black Protestants, an interval that includes zero. Among all voters the same gap, which Chapter 9.1, The god gap in America measures, was 27.7 (95% CI 26.0 to 29.4)27.7 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpooled gap of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.4n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points. This chapter asks what that single number combines.

    Tradition and race are coded together. The CES has no denomination item, so white Protestants are split by whether they call themselves born-again or evangelical Christians: those who do are white born-again Protestants and those who do not are white Protestants who are not born-again. Black, Hispanic and Asian or other-race Protestants are kept whole, Catholics are split by race, and the remaining groups are Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Orthodox Christian, and Buddhist or Hindu voters, voters who gave another religion, and the unaffiliated, who are atheists, agnostics and people with no religion in particular. White means non-Hispanic white. A gap in this chapter is the Democratic share among seldom attenders minus the share among frequent attenders, who attend weekly or more, so a positive gap means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic.The born-again rule stands in for denomination. A denominational scheme, RELTRAD [1], sorts Protestants into evangelical, mainline and Black Protestant traditions from the denomination they name. It can be coded in the General Social Survey (GSS), and the 2024 American National Election Studies (ANES) have their own major-group summary, so results from those surveys use the terms evangelical and mainline, and the last section checks the CES rule against both. Shares use the survey weightsSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight., and the CES weight is the one defined for all five elections. Every interval is a 95% confidence intervalConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise. from the Kish effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [2], and a cell needs at least 3030 respondentsEstimandminimum respondents (and minimum Kish effective sample size) in a published cellWeightsnone (rule)Populationa cell published in a figure or the textPeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study respondents. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so its intervals cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited. The sample is 188,145188,145 respondentsEstimandcount of respondentsWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or the Republican candidate in the five presidential elections from 2008 to 2024, 42,00842,008 respondentsEstimandcount of respondentsWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of them in 2024.

    Chapter 9.1, The god gap in America measures the overall gap and compares the United States with other countries, Chapter 9.2, The rise of the nones (planned) follows the unaffiliated, and Chapter 3.4, Hispanic, Black and Asian voters (planned) follows the vote of Black, Hispanic and Asian voters across traditions. This chapter takes the traditions one at a time and asks whether attendance relates to the vote in the same way inside each.

    Two groups that attend often sit at opposite ends of the vote

    Figure 1 orders the groups by their Democratic share in 2024. White born-again Protestants were at 14.5% (95% CI 13.2% to 15.7%)14.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 13.2% to 15.7%n5,987Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, white Catholics at 37.1% (95% CI 35.4% to 38.9%)37.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 35.4% to 38.9%n5,974Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, white Protestants who are not born-again at 43.0% (95% CI 41.0% to 45.0%)43.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 41.0% to 45.0%n4,979Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, Hispanic Catholics at 57.0% (95% CI 52.5% to 61.5%)57.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 52.5% to 61.5%n1,351Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, the unaffiliated at 70.9% (95% CI 69.7% to 72.2%)70.9% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 69.7% to 72.2%n14,311Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and Black Protestants at 83.1% (95% CI 80.3% to 86.0%)83.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 80.3% to 86.0%n1,889Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. Party identification gives the same order, from 13.7%13.7% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 12.5% to 15.0%n6,484Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic among white born-again Protestants to 86.3%86.3% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 83.9% to 88.6%n3,072Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study among Black Protestants (the third view). Pooled over the five elections the vote shares run from 18.1% (95% CI 17.6% to 18.7%)18.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 17.6% to 18.7%n30,356Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among white born-again Protestants to 91.4% (95% CI 90.4% to 92.3%)91.4% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 90.4% to 92.3%n8,852Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among Black Protestants (the second view).

    Figure 1

    In 2024 the Democratic share of the two-party vote ran from 14.5% among white born-again Protestants to 83.1% among Black Protestants

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote by religious tradition and race, reported voters, percent, 2024 (buttons: five elections pooled, and party identification); 95% intervals

    • Protestant
    • Catholic
    • Other religion
    • Unaffiliated
    Show data
    Data for In 2024 the Democratic share of the two-party vote ran from 14.5% among white born-again Protestants to 83.1% among Black Protestants
    ViewGroupDemocratic share (%)LowerUpperInterval width (points)RespondentsGroup share of the sample (%)
    vote2024Black Protestants83.180.386.05.71,8894.7
    vote2024Black Catholics76.067.284.817.72600.6
    vote2024Buddhist or Hindu71.664.878.513.74311.1
    vote2024Unaffiliated70.969.772.22.414,31131.0
    vote2024Jewish68.064.072.18.11,2192.7
    vote2024Muslim65.952.779.026.31390.5
    vote2024Hispanic Catholics57.052.561.59.11,3514.0
    vote2024Asian or other-race Catholics45.437.053.716.73881.2
    vote2024Another religion or something else43.940.846.96.23,0827.7
    vote2024White Protestants who are not born-again43.041.045.04.04,9799.9
    vote2024White Catholics37.135.438.93.55,97412.7
    vote2024Hispanic Protestants33.127.338.911.76462.1
    vote2024Mormon31.124.837.412.54381.1
    vote2024Orthodox Christian30.919.742.022.31970.5
    vote2024Asian or other-race Protestants30.425.035.910.96992.1
    vote2024White born-again Protestants14.513.215.72.55,98718.1
    votepoolBlack Protestants91.490.492.31.88,8525.0
    votepoolBlack Catholics88.485.591.35.81,1050.6
    votepoolMuslim81.476.786.29.56000.4
    votepoolBuddhist or Hindu78.976.281.65.41,8270.9
    votepoolUnaffiliated72.271.672.81.153,64726.8
    votepoolJewish69.868.171.43.35,3252.4
    votepoolHispanic Catholics67.065.168.83.86,4873.8
    votepoolAnother religion or something else55.454.256.72.513,3758.5
    votepoolAsian or other-race Catholics49.646.053.17.11,7060.9
    votepoolWhite Protestants who are not born-again46.445.647.21.625,35912.0
    votepoolHispanic Protestants42.940.045.95.92,9231.6
    votepoolOrthodox Christian42.137.446.99.58790.5
    votepoolWhite Catholics41.440.642.11.529,81014.8
    votepoolAsian or other-race Protestants34.832.437.34.93,1721.7
    votepoolMormon24.522.226.74.52,5271.5
    votepoolWhite born-again Protestants18.117.618.71.130,35618.4
    party2024Black Protestants86.383.988.64.73,0725.3
    party2024Black Catholics80.773.388.114.94270.8
    party2024Buddhist or Hindu72.866.878.812.06041.3
    party2024Unaffiliated71.670.472.72.417,67732.0
    party2024Jewish68.964.873.08.21,3532.5
    party2024Muslim64.754.874.619.83000.6
    party2024Hispanic Catholics63.459.667.37.82,3254.8
    party2024Asian or other-race Catholics48.840.756.916.24821.2
    party2024Another religion or something else46.143.149.16.03,7707.6
    party2024White Protestants who are not born-again42.840.844.94.15,2979.2
    party2024White Catholics37.635.739.43.76,29611.6
    party2024Hispanic Protestants37.532.043.011.01,1092.5
    party2024Orthodox Christian37.325.449.123.72570.6
    party2024Asian or other-race Protestants34.028.239.711.58251.9
    party2024Mormon30.324.336.312.15231.1
    party2024White born-again Protestants13.712.515.02.56,48416.8
    The groups run from 14.5% to 83.1% Democratic, and inside each large Christian family the vote differs by race: Black and white Protestants, Hispanic and white Catholics. Each dot is a weighted share with a 95% interval, and the colour marks the tradition family. White means non-Hispanic white.Note: White born-again Protestants and white Protestants who are not born-again are the white Protestants who do and do not call themselves born-again or evangelical, because the CES file has no denomination; the last figure compares this coding with denominational codings. Black, Hispanic and Asian or other-race Protestants and the Catholic groups are not split further.Note: The interval width is in the data table. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30. Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so they cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited.Source: Cooperative Election Study, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    Race separates voters inside each large Christian family. Among Catholics, Hispanic Catholics voted 19.9 (95% CI 15.0 to 24.7)19.9 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share among the first group minus that among the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 15.0 to 24.7n7,325Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents and white non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than white Catholics, and the 2024 estimate for Black Catholics, 76.0% (95% CI 67.2% to 84.8%)76.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 67.2% to 84.8%n260Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, rests on a small sample. Among Protestants, Hispanic Protestants voted 33.1% (95% CI 27.3% to 38.9%)33.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 27.3% to 38.9%n646Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic, above white born-again Protestants and below Black Protestants. Hispanic voters divide by tradition: Hispanic Catholics voted 23.9 (95% CI 16.5 to 31.3)23.9 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share among the first group minus that among the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 16.5 to 31.3n1,997Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents and Hispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than Hispanic Protestants. Among white Protestants, those who are not born-again voted 28.5 (95% CI 26.1 to 30.8)28.5 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share among the first group minus that among the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 26.1 to 30.8n10,966Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical and white non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than those who are.

    Among the smaller traditions, Jewish voters were 68.0% (95% CI 64.0% to 72.1%)68.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 64.0% to 72.1%n1,219Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationJewish respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic and Mormon voters 31.1% (95% CI 24.8% to 37.4%)31.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 24.8% to 37.4%n438Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMormon respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, both inside the range that white born-again Protestants and Black Protestants set. Muslim voters were 65.9% (95% CI 52.7% to 79.0%)65.9% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 52.7% to 79.0%n139Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMuslim respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, and that interval is the widest in the figure.

    Attendance does not order the groups. Figure 2 plots the share of voters in each group who attend weekly or more against the Democratic share. Black Protestant voters attend weekly or more at 47.3% (95% CI 43.6% to 51.1%)47.3% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 43.6% to 51.1%n1,870Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and say religion is very important in their life at 72.3%72.3% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who say religion is very important in their lifeInterval95% CI 68.9% to 75.7%n1,889Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, and 70.6%70.6% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who call themselves born-again or evangelicalInterval95% CI 67.1% to 74.0%n1,887Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study call themselves born-again or evangelical, the answer that defines white born-again Protestants here. For white born-again Protestants the first two shares are 57.8% (95% CI 56.0% to 59.5%)57.8% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 56.0% to 59.5%n5,904Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 79.8%79.8% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who say religion is very important in their lifeInterval95% CI 78.4% to 81.2%n5,987Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. Among all voters they are 26.7%26.7% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 26.0% to 27.4%n41,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 39.0%39.0% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who say religion is very important in their lifeInterval95% CI 38.3% to 39.7%n42,007Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. Hispanic Protestant voters (55.6%55.6% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 49.4% to 61.8%n638Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study weekly) and Mormon voters (67.7%67.7% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 61.4% to 74.0%n438Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMormon respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study) also attend often and voted 33.1%33.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 27.3% to 38.9%n646Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 31.1%31.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 24.8% to 37.4%n438Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMormon respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic, while the unaffiliated, of whom 2.5%2.5% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 2.1% to 3.0%n14,224Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study attend weekly, voted 70.9%70.9% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 69.7% to 72.2%n14,311Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. The groups with the highest Democratic shares include one with a high attendance rate and one with a low one.

    Figure 2

    White born-again and Black Protestant voters attend weekly or more at 57.8% and 47.3%, against 26.7% of all voters, and voted 14.5% and 83.1% Democratic

    Share of reported voters who attend services weekly or more (horizontal) against the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote (vertical), by tradition and race, 2024; dot area is the group's share of voters

    • Protestant
    • Catholic
    • Other religion
    • Unaffiliated
    • Dot area: Share of voters (%)3.111.031.0
    Show data
    Data for White born-again and Black Protestant voters attend weekly or more at 57.8% and 47.3%, against 26.7% of all voters, and voted 14.5% and 83.1% Democratic
    GroupWeekly or more (%)LowerUpperDemocratic share (%)LowerUpperShare of voters (%)Respondents
    White born-again Protestants57.856.059.514.513.215.718.15,987
    White Protestants who are not born-again18.416.920.043.041.045.09.94,979
    Black Protestants47.343.651.183.180.386.04.71,889
    Hispanic Protestants55.649.461.833.127.338.92.1646
    Asian or other-race Protestants45.839.851.730.425.035.92.1699
    White Catholics28.126.429.737.135.438.912.75,974
    Hispanic Catholics29.425.233.657.052.561.54.01,351
    Black Catholics42.232.052.576.067.284.80.6260
    Asian or other-race Catholics36.428.344.545.437.053.71.2388
    Jewish13.410.416.368.064.072.12.71,219
    Mormon67.761.474.031.124.837.41.1438
    Muslim35.422.248.765.952.779.00.5139
    Orthodox Christian41.929.854.030.919.742.00.5197
    Buddhist or Hindu8.84.513.071.664.878.51.1431
    Another religion or something else29.626.732.443.940.846.97.73,082
    Unaffiliated2.52.13.070.969.772.231.014,311
    Groups with high attendance sit far apart on the vote: Mormon voters, white born-again Protestants, Hispanic Protestants and Black Protestants have the four highest weekly attendance point estimates and range from 14.5% to 83.1% Democratic. Each dot is one group in the 2024 CES, and the data table gives the intervals for both axes.Note: Voters who gave no attendance answer are left out of the attendance shares. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30.Note: Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so they cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited.Source: Cooperative Election Study, 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    Two groups with weekly attendance of 57.8%57.8% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 56.0% to 59.5%n5,904Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 47.3%47.3% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 43.6% to 51.1%n1,870Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, against 26.7%26.7% percent of votersEstimandweighted share who attend religious services weekly or moreInterval95% CI 26.0% to 27.4%n41,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study among all voters, voted 68.6 (95% CI 65.6 to 71.7)68.6 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share among the first group minus that among the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 65.6 to 71.7n7,876Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents and white non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points apart. The data cannot say why. Accounts of the Black church describe an institution of community and political life as well as of worship [3], but the survey items here measure attendance, importance and identification and not what congregations do.

    The five largest Christian groups moved toward the Republican candidate by different amounts

    Figure 3 compares each later election with 2008. Over the full period the Democratic share changed by −13.2 (95% CI −19.5 to −6.9)−13.2 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −19.5 to −6.9n1,950Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points among Hispanic Catholics, −10.3 (95% CI −14.1 to −6.5)−10.3 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −14.1 to −6.5n2,345Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study among Black Protestants, −7.9 (95% CI −10.7 to −5.1)−7.9 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −10.7 to −5.1n8,332Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study among white Protestants who are not born-again, −6.5 (95% CI −8.9 to −4.0)−6.5 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −8.9 to −4.0n10,238Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study among white Catholics and −6.2 (95% CI −8.1 to −4.4)−6.2 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −8.1 to −4.4n10,386Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study among white born-again Protestants, and each of those intervals lies below zero. The five groups and the unaffiliated, who changed by −5.6 (95% CI −7.6 to −3.7)−5.6 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −7.6 to −3.7n18,855Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, kept the same order in 2008 and 2024, from Black Protestants at 93.4%93.4% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%n456Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study and 83.1%83.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 80.3% to 86.0%n1,889Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study to white born-again Protestants at 20.7%20.7% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 19.3% to 22.1%n4,399Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study and 14.5%14.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 13.2% to 15.7%n5,987Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study.

    Figure 3

    From 2008 to 2024 the Democratic share changed by −13.2 points among Hispanic Catholics and −10.3 among Black Protestants, against −6.2 among white born-again Protestants and −6.5 among white Catholics

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote by tradition and race, reported voters, percent, 2008 and a later election (the buttons switch the later election); 95% intervals

    • 2008
    • 2024
    Show data
    Data for From 2008 to 2024 the Democratic share changed by −13.2 points among Hispanic Catholics and −10.3 among Black Protestants, against −6.2 among white born-again Protestants and −6.5 among white Catholics
    Later electionGroupShare 2008 (%)Lower 2008Upper 2008Respondents 2008Share later (%)Lower laterUpper laterRespondents laterChange (points)Lower changeUpper change
    2024White born-again Protestants20.719.322.14,39914.513.215.75,987−6.2−8.1−4.4
    2024White Protestants who are not born-again50.948.952.83,35343.041.045.04,979−7.9−10.7−5.1
    2024Black Protestants93.490.995.945683.180.386.01,889−10.3−14.1−6.5
    2024Hispanic Protestants36.428.744.117633.127.338.9646−3.3−13.06.4
    2024Asian or other-race Protestants29.323.734.934030.425.035.96991.2−6.79.0
    2024White Catholics43.641.945.34,26437.135.438.95,974−6.5−8.9−4.0
    2024Hispanic Catholics70.265.874.659957.052.561.51,351−13.2−19.5−6.9
    2024Black Catholics94.589.399.69476.067.284.8260−18.5−28.7−8.2
    2024Asian or other-race Catholics48.840.357.321945.437.053.7388−3.4−15.48.5
    2024Jewish71.367.175.655268.064.072.11,219−3.3−9.22.5
    2024Mormon24.620.129.146531.124.837.44386.5−1.214.2
    2024Muslim96.089.4100.05065.952.779.0139−30.1−44.8−15.4
    2024Orthodox Christian51.840.463.29130.919.742.0197−20.9−36.9−4.9
    2024Buddhist or Hindu91.185.996.315071.664.878.5431−19.5−28.1−10.9
    2024Another religion or something else58.456.460.43,77843.940.846.93,082−14.5−18.2−10.9
    2024Unaffiliated76.575.078.14,54470.969.772.214,311−5.6−7.6−3.7
    2020White born-again Protestants20.719.322.14,39915.714.716.76,263−5.0−6.7−3.3
    2020White Protestants who are not born-again50.948.952.83,35346.745.148.25,132−4.2−6.7−1.7
    2020Black Protestants93.490.995.945691.389.593.02,191−2.1−5.20.9
    2020Hispanic Protestants36.428.744.117651.545.657.577815.15.424.9
    2020Asian or other-race Protestants29.323.734.934035.430.440.47136.1−1.413.6
    2020White Catholics43.641.945.34,26440.439.041.86,265−3.2−5.4−1.0
    2020Hispanic Catholics70.265.874.659966.262.270.21,621−4.0−9.91.9
    2020Black Catholics94.589.399.69488.683.194.0262−5.9−13.41.7
    2020Asian or other-race Catholics48.840.357.321954.547.661.44045.7−5.216.7
    2020Jewish71.367.175.655271.568.974.21,3230.2−4.85.2
    2020Mormon24.620.129.146528.523.633.44963.9−2.810.5
    2020Muslim96.089.4100.05084.876.093.6179−11.1−22.1−0.2
    2020Orthodox Christian51.840.463.29140.930.051.7202−10.9−26.74.8
    2020Buddhist or Hindu91.185.996.315074.369.279.4495−16.8−24.1−9.5
    2020Another religion or something else58.456.460.43,77851.749.154.22,716−6.7−9.9−3.5
    2020Unaffiliated76.575.078.14,54473.172.174.014,815−3.4−5.2−1.7
    2016White born-again Protestants20.719.322.14,39917.516.318.76,313−3.2−5.1−1.4
    2016White Protestants who are not born-again50.948.952.83,35343.441.845.15,568−7.5−10.0−4.9
    2016Black Protestants93.490.995.945692.991.294.62,337−0.5−3.52.6
    2016Hispanic Protestants36.428.744.117646.139.952.27749.7−0.219.6
    2016Asian or other-race Protestants29.323.734.934039.935.144.671410.63.318.0
    2016White Catholics43.641.945.34,26441.440.042.96,737−2.2−4.40.1
    2016Hispanic Catholics70.265.874.659973.269.377.11,7253.0−2.88.8
    2016Black Catholics94.589.399.69488.382.394.3294−6.1−14.11.8
    2016Asian or other-race Catholics48.840.357.321951.645.158.13732.8−7.913.5
    2016Jewish71.367.175.655271.868.874.81,2000.5−4.75.7
    2016Mormon24.620.129.146531.325.637.04476.7−0.613.9
    2016Muslim96.089.4100.05086.379.692.9163−9.7−19.0−0.4
    2016Orthodox Christian51.840.463.29140.532.348.6222−11.3−25.32.7
    2016Buddhist or Hindu91.185.996.315077.672.582.8435−13.5−20.8−6.2
    2016Another religion or something else58.456.460.43,77858.155.161.02,022−0.3−3.93.3
    2016Unaffiliated76.575.078.14,54468.267.169.411,528−8.3−10.2−6.4
    2012White born-again Protestants20.719.322.14,39922.220.823.67,3941.5−0.43.5
    2012White Protestants who are not born-again50.948.952.83,35347.846.149.56,327−3.1−5.7−0.5
    2012Black Protestants93.490.995.945695.994.697.31,9792.5−0.35.4
    2012Hispanic Protestants36.428.744.117646.739.853.754910.3−0.120.7
    2012Asian or other-race Protestants29.323.734.934037.832.043.57068.50.516.5
    2012White Catholics43.641.945.34,26443.341.745.06,570−0.3−2.62.1
    2012Hispanic Catholics70.265.874.659969.665.573.81,191−0.6−6.55.4
    2012Black Catholics94.589.399.69496.192.1100.01951.6−4.98.2
    2012Asian or other-race Catholics48.840.357.321949.140.757.53220.3−11.712.3
    2012Jewish71.367.175.655266.762.570.91,031−4.7−10.61.3
    2012Mormon24.620.129.146515.211.219.1681−9.4−15.4−3.5
    2012Muslim96.089.4100.05081.167.794.669−14.8−29.80.1
    2012Orthodox Christian51.840.463.29150.239.061.4167−1.6−17.614.4
    2012Buddhist or Hindu91.185.996.315086.881.192.6316−4.3−12.13.4
    2012Another religion or something else58.456.460.43,77864.360.867.71,7775.91.99.9
    2012Unaffiliated76.575.078.14,54473.672.275.18,449−2.9−5.0−0.8
    Each of the five largest Christian groups moved toward the Republican candidate over the period, and the point estimates of the moves are largest among Hispanic Catholics and Black Protestants; the text tests the differences between the moves. The ring is 2008 and the dot the later election; a group is drawn when it meets the sample floor in both years, and the table gives the change with its interval.Note: In the default view, 2008 and 2024, Mormon voters are the one group whose point estimate rose by more than a few points, and the interval of the change includes zero; in the other views other groups rise. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30.Note: Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so they cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited.Source: Cooperative Election Study, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    The two largest falls are those of Hispanic Catholics and Black Protestants, and the differences between the changes can be tested. The change among Hispanic Catholics differs from the change among white born-again Protestants by −7.0 (95% CI −13.5 to −0.4)−7.0 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandchange in the Democratic share of the first group minus the change of the second; four independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −13.5 to −0.4n12,336Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents and white non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points and from the change among the unaffiliated by −7.6 (95% CI −14.2 to −1.0)−7.6 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandchange in the Democratic share of the first group minus the change of the second; four independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −14.2 to −1.0n20,805Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents and unaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study, and the change among Black Protestants differs from the change among the unaffiliated by −4.7 (95% CI −8.9 to −0.4)−4.7 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandchange in the Democratic share of the first group minus the change of the second; four independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −8.9 to −0.4n21,200Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents and unaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study. Hispanic Catholics differ from white Catholics by −6.7 (95% CI −13.5 to 0.0)−6.7 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandchange in the Democratic share of the first group minus the change of the second; four independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −13.5 to 0.0n12,188Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents and white non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study, an interval that reaches zero, and every other difference among the six changes has an interval that includes zero. The groups that moved most are therefore separable from some of the others and not from all of them.

    The order does not hold for every group. Muslim voters, Black Catholic voters and Buddhist or Hindu voters were among the most Democratic in 2008 and changed by −30.1 (95% CI −44.8 to −15.4)−30.1 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −44.8 to −15.4n189Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMuslim respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study, −18.5 (95% CI −28.7 to −8.2)−18.5 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −28.7 to −8.2n354Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study and −19.5 (95% CI −28.1 to −10.9)−19.5 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −28.1 to −10.9n581Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBuddhist or Hindu respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, so the order of all the groups differs between 2008 and 2024. Hispanic Protestants, Jewish voters and Mormon voters show no change that the sample can separate from zero: −3.3 (95% CI −13.0 to 6.4)−3.3 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −13.0 to 6.4n822Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study, −3.3 (95% CI −9.2 to 2.5)−3.3 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −9.2 to 2.5n1,771Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationJewish respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study and +6.5 (95% CI −1.2 to 14.2)+6.5 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandDemocratic share in 2024 minus Democratic share in 2008; independent samples, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −1.2 to 14.2n903Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMormon respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, the last being the only point estimate that rose by more than a few points. Chapter 3.4, Hispanic, Black and Asian voters (planned) follows Black and Hispanic voters as a whole, and the figure here describes the same voters split by tradition.

    Attendance relates to the vote in different directions inside each group

    Figure 4 splits each group by attendance. One sign comes from the CES coding and is not reproduced in the other surveys: the gap among white Protestants who are not born-again, taken up below and in the last section. Pooled over the five elections, seldom attenders voted more Democratic than frequent attenders by +10.1 (95% CI 8.7 to 11.4)+10.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.7 to 11.4n27,185Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points among white born-again Protestants, +13.7 (95% CI 12.2 to 15.3)+13.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 12.2 to 15.3n26,811Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among white Catholics, +11.9 (95% CI 7.5 to 16.3)+11.9 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 7.5 to 16.3n5,659Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among Hispanic Catholics and +13.8 (95% CI 7.5 to 20.0)+13.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 7.5 to 20.0n2,540Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among Hispanic Protestants. The white Catholic gap exceeds the white born-again gap by 3.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 5.7)3.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandthe seldom-minus-frequent gap of the first group minus that of the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 1.6 to 5.7n53,996Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents and white non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points, and the two Hispanic intervals are wide enough to include both. In 2024 alone the four gaps were +9.5 (95% CI 6.6 to 12.4)+9.5 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 6.6 to 12.4n5,380Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, +12.0 (95% CI 8.1 to 15.9)+12.0 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.1 to 15.9n5,448Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, +15.3 (95% CI 4.9 to 25.7)+15.3 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 4.9 to 25.7n1,193Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and +10.6 (95% CI −2.0 to 23.2)+10.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −2.0 to 23.2n570Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study.

    Figure 4

    Inside tradition-by-race groups the vote differs by attendance in different directions: seldom minus frequent attenders in the Democratic share was +13.7 points among white Catholics, +10.1 among white born-again Protestants, +1.9 among Black Protestants and −5.4 among white Protestants who are not born-again, a sign that the GSS and ANES do not reproduce

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among frequent attenders (weekly or more) and seldom attenders (a few times a year or never), by tradition and race, reported voters, percent, 2008 to 2024 pooled (buttons: single years and party identification); 95% intervals

    • Weekly or more
    • A few times a year or never
    Show data
    Data for Inside tradition-by-race groups the vote differs by attendance in different directions: seldom minus frequent attenders in the Democratic share was +13.7 points among white Catholics, +10.1 among white born-again Protestants, +1.9 among Black Protestants and −5.4 among white Protestants who are not born-again, a sign that the GSS and ANES do not reproduce
    ViewGroupFrequent attenders (%)LowerUpperRespondentsSeldom attenders (%)LowerUpperRespondentsSeldom minus frequent (points)LowerUpperInterval width (points)
    votepoolJewish49.043.354.758172.871.074.64,17823.817.929.811.9
    votepoolUnaffiliated55.051.159.01,37273.172.573.750,91618.114.122.18.0
    votepoolMormon19.717.322.11,83037.231.243.254517.511.123.912.8
    votepoolAnother religion or something else44.642.446.83,88961.459.862.98,24516.814.119.55.4
    votepoolAsian or other-race Protestants28.024.631.31,48042.638.646.71,33214.79.419.910.5
    votepoolOrthodox Christian33.624.043.125847.441.453.449813.82.625.122.6
    votepoolHispanic Protestants37.032.941.11,45550.846.155.51,08513.87.520.012.5
    votepoolWhite Catholics32.531.333.79,44846.345.347.317,36313.712.215.33.1
    votepoolAsian or other-race Catholics41.836.247.466155.450.660.386213.66.221.014.8
    votepoolHispanic Catholics59.055.362.71,78270.968.573.33,87711.97.516.38.8
    votepoolWhite born-again Protestants14.213.614.917,92224.323.225.59,26310.18.711.42.7
    votepoolBlack Protestants90.789.392.04,31092.691.294.03,3981.90.03.83.9
    votepoolBlack Catholics88.083.093.040189.685.793.55501.6−4.78.012.7
    votepoolBuddhist or Hindu79.672.486.721778.175.081.21,442−1.5−9.36.315.6
    votepoolMuslim81.874.589.223079.372.186.5296−2.5−12.87.720.5
    votepoolWhite Protestants who are not born-again50.548.752.44,86845.144.146.017,790−5.4−7.5−3.44.1
    vote2024Unaffiliated42.030.953.127172.170.973.413,76230.119.041.322.3
    vote2024Jewish41.928.455.413471.767.476.095629.815.644.028.3
    vote2024Another religion or something else32.126.837.480450.046.153.92,02217.911.424.513.1
    vote2024Hispanic Catholics47.839.156.634963.257.568.884415.34.925.720.8
    vote2024Asian or other-race Protestants23.015.230.828736.428.244.534613.42.124.622.5
    vote2024White Catholics29.025.832.11,57241.038.743.33,87612.08.115.97.8
    vote2024Mormon27.520.934.128538.623.354.013111.1−5.627.833.4
    vote2024Hispanic Protestants29.221.137.231639.830.149.525410.6−2.023.225.2
    vote2024White born-again Protestants10.79.312.23,26720.217.822.72,1139.56.612.45.7
    vote2024Asian or other-race Catholics42.528.756.413449.438.660.12176.8−10.724.335.0
    vote2024Black Protestants83.479.187.683984.280.188.38450.8−5.16.711.8
    vote2024Black Catholics79.465.293.69177.265.089.3137−2.3−20.916.437.3
    vote2024White Protestants who are not born-again46.642.350.990442.540.244.83,588−4.1−9.00.89.8
    vote2008Asian or other-race Catholics34.521.347.69261.349.173.510126.88.944.735.8
    vote2008Jewish49.432.066.85874.269.678.742224.76.742.736.0
    vote2008Asian or other-race Protestants21.113.928.318144.033.954.111422.910.535.324.8
    vote2008White Catholics33.130.435.81,50750.147.752.52,21717.013.420.67.3
    vote2008Another religion or something else49.646.652.61,66466.263.369.11,67616.612.420.88.4
    vote2008Hispanic Catholics59.451.167.718475.970.481.433516.56.526.519.9
    vote2008Mormon19.915.224.536636.423.249.56916.52.630.427.9
    vote2008White born-again Protestants15.614.117.12,82330.727.533.91,08215.111.518.67.1
    vote2008Hispanic Protestants33.122.543.88742.227.457.0569.1−9.127.336.4
    vote2008Black Protestants91.687.895.522996.593.399.71564.9−0.19.910.1
    vote2008Unaffiliated76.264.388.08076.675.078.14,3510.4−11.512.323.8
    vote2008White Protestants who are not born-again54.249.858.664849.847.452.22,298−4.4−9.40.610.0
    partypoolMormon17.215.019.32,26941.335.846.868424.118.330.011.7
    partypoolJewish51.345.956.773474.272.475.94,51022.817.228.511.4
    partypoolAsian or other-race Catholics44.138.849.375260.355.764.81,04316.29.323.113.8
    partypoolAsian or other-race Protestants31.528.134.91,65147.643.651.61,47516.110.821.310.5
    partypoolAnother religion or something else49.046.951.04,73364.162.765.510,36515.112.617.65.0
    partypoolHispanic Protestants40.837.144.42,13654.850.659.11,64114.18.519.611.2
    partypoolWhite Catholics36.435.237.610,22849.348.450.319,11113.011.414.53.1
    partypoolUnaffiliated61.558.364.82,10274.373.874.961,41812.89.516.16.6
    partypoolOrthodox Christian38.831.146.435851.245.357.163412.42.822.119.3
    partypoolWhite born-again Protestants15.514.816.219,88126.725.527.810,63711.29.912.52.7
    partypoolHispanic Catholics64.861.767.92,67075.073.076.95,98910.26.513.87.3
    partypoolMuslim77.671.683.550883.278.388.15375.6−2.113.315.5
    partypoolBuddhist or Hindu74.267.780.732978.175.381.01,9493.9−3.211.114.3
    partypoolBlack Protestants90.789.691.96,55293.392.294.45,4092.61.04.23.2
    partypoolBlack Catholics87.082.791.268389.285.892.78672.3−3.27.710.9
    partypoolWhite Protestants who are not born-again49.647.751.45,16145.944.946.819,334−3.7−5.8−1.74.1
    The gap between the ring (frequent attenders) and the dot (seldom attenders) is positive for most groups, small among Black Protestants and negative in the CES among white Protestants who are not born-again, a sign that the GSS and ANES do not reproduce (last figure). Each row is one group with its frequent and seldom shares and a 95% interval on each, and the last column of the table is seldom minus frequent, in points.Note: Monthly attenders are in neither group. Frequent is the top two answers of the CES six-point item, once a week and more than once a week. A group is drawn when both attendance cells meet the sample floor, so fewer groups appear in a single year. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30.Note: Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so they cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited.Source: Cooperative Election Study, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    Among Black Protestants the pooled gap is small, +1.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 3.8)+1.9 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 0.0 to 3.8n7,708Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points, with frequent attenders at 90.7%90.7% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the voteInterval95% CI 89.3% to 92.0%n4,310Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study and seldom attenders at 92.6%92.6% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the voteInterval95% CI 91.2% to 94.0%n3,398Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study Democratic, and for party identification it is +2.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 4.2)+2.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 1.0 to 4.2n11,961Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points. The vote interval lies below the intervals of the four groups above, so Black Protestants who attend often and seldom voted within a few points of one another, while the same two attendance groups among white born-again Protestants voted +10.1+10.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.7 to 11.4n27,185Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points apart. In 2024 alone the Black Protestant gap was +0.8 (95% CI −5.1 to 6.7)+0.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −5.1 to 6.7n1,684Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points. In 2008 the gaps were +4.9 (95% CI −0.1 to 9.9)+4.9 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −0.1 to 9.9n385Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study for Black Protestants, +15.1 (95% CI 11.5 to 18.6)+15.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 11.5 to 18.6n3,905Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study for white born-again Protestants and −4.4 (95% CI −9.4 to 0.6)−4.4 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −9.4 to 0.6n2,946Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study for white Protestants who are not born-again, the same order as in the pooled estimates.

    Among white Protestants who are not born-again the direction reverses in the CES, and this is the sign that the GSS and the ANES do not reproduce: the GSS gives +2.8 (95% CI −3.8 to 9.4)+2.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; GSS party identification, RELTRADInterval95% CI −3.8 to 9.4n1,343Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite respondents RELTRAD places in the mainline tradition who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey points for the RELTRAD mainline group and +5.7 (95% CI −0.5 to 12.0)+5.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; GSS party identification, born-again ruleInterval95% CI −0.5 to 12.0n1,743Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey under the born-again rule, and the ANES gives +11.6 (95% CI −3.4 to 26.6)+11.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; ANES 2024 vote, ANES major-group summaryInterval95% CI −3.4 to 26.6n396WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite respondents in the ANES mainline category of the major-group summary who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series (the last section). In the CES, frequent attenders voted 50.5%50.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the voteInterval95% CI 48.7% to 52.4%n4,868Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study Democratic and seldom attenders 45.1%45.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the voteInterval95% CI 44.1% to 46.0%n17,790Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study, a gap of −5.4 (95% CI −7.5 to −3.4)−5.4 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −7.5 to −3.4n22,658Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points, and the point estimate is below zero in each of the five elections. The gap was −8.1 (95% CI −12.2 to −4.0)−8.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −12.2 to −4.0n4,587Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2020 and −4.1 (95% CI −9.0 to 0.8)−4.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −9.0 to 0.8n4,492Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. Party identification gives the same signs in the CES: +11.2 (95% CI 9.9 to 12.5)+11.2 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 9.9 to 12.5n30,518Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among white born-again Protestants, +2.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 4.2)+2.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 1.0 to 4.2n11,961Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among Black Protestants and −3.7 (95% CI −5.8 to −1.7)−3.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −5.8 to −1.7n24,495Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study among white Protestants who are not born-again (the last view).

    Jewish voters, Mormon voters and the unaffiliated have positive gaps, +23.8 (95% CI 17.9 to 29.8)+23.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 17.9 to 29.8n4,759Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationJewish respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study, +17.5 (95% CI 11.1 to 23.9)+17.5 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 11.1 to 23.9n2,375Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationMormon respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study and +18.1 (95% CI 14.1 to 22.1)+18.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 14.1 to 22.1n52,288Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points, with intervals wider than those of the larger groups because one of their two attendance cells is small. The Jewish gap exceeds the white born-again gap by 13.7 (95% CI 7.6 to 19.8)13.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandthe seldom-minus-frequent gap of the first group minus that of the second; independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 7.6 to 19.8n31,944Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationJewish respondents and white non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points. A positive gap means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic, and the sign does not say that attendance moves the vote.

    The pooled gap is a sum of different gaps and different mixes

    The pooled gap can be written as two parts. The within-group part is each group's own seldom-minus-frequent gap, weighted by the group's average share of the two attendance groups. The mix part is the difference between a group's share of seldom attenders and its share of frequent attenders, valued at the group's average Democratic share relative to all voters. The two parts add to the pooled gap exactly, and the split is an accounting of the gap and not a causal one. In 2024 the pooled gap of 27.7 (95% CI 26.0 to 29.4)27.7 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpooled gap of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.4n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, the gap of Chapter 9.1, The god gap in America restricted to voters with a group and an attendance answer, divides into 14.6 (95% CI 11.8 to 17.4)14.6 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpart inside tradition-by-race groups of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 11.8 to 17.4n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points within groups and 13.1 (95% CI 10.6 to 15.5)13.1 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpart from the mix of groups in the two attendance levels of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 10.6 to 15.5n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points from the mix (Figure 5). Pooled over the five elections the gap is 24.4 (95% CI 23.7 to 25.1)24.4 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpooled gap of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 23.7 to 25.1n172,344Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points, of which 11.4 (95% CI 10.3 to 12.4)11.4 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpart inside tradition-by-race groups of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 10.3 to 12.4n172,344Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study is within groups and 13.1 (95% CI 12.2 to 13.9)13.1 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share (seldom minus frequent attenders)Estimandpart from the mix of groups in the two attendance levels of the seldom-minus-frequent gap in the Democratic share; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 12.2 to 13.9n172,344Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study is the mix. Each part is at least 8.08.0 percentage pointsEstimandsmallest of the ten within-group and mix parts across the five electionsWeightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and an attendance answerPeriod2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points in every election, and the mix part is the larger in 33 electionsEstimandcount of elections in which the mix part exceeds the within-group partWeightsweight_cumulativePopulationthe five presidential elections 2008 to 2024Period2008 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study elections and the within-group part in the others.

    Figure 5

    Of the 27.7 point gap between seldom and frequent attenders in the 2024 vote, 14.6 points is a gap inside tradition-by-race groups and 13.1 points reflects which groups the two attendance levels contain

    Seldom minus frequent attenders in the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, percentage points, split into a within-group part and a mix part, 2008 to 2024; 95% intervals

    Seldom minus frequent attenders (percentage points)

    Show data
    Data for Of the 27.7 point gap between seldom and frequent attenders in the 2024 vote, 14.6 points is a gap inside tradition-by-race groups and 13.1 points reflects which groups the two attendance levels contain
    PartElectionPointsLowerUpperVoters
    Pooled gap200825.623.927.221,124
    Gap inside groups200810.78.412.921,124
    Mix of groups200814.913.116.721,124
    Pooled gap201227.325.728.834,338
    Gap inside groups201215.012.717.234,338
    Mix of groups201212.310.514.234,338
    Pooled gap201618.917.420.537,341
    Gap inside groups20168.06.19.937,341
    Mix of groups201611.09.412.537,341
    Pooled gap202023.522.125.040,502
    Gap inside groups20208.76.710.740,502
    Mix of groups202014.813.316.440,502
    Pooled gap202427.726.029.439,039
    Gap inside groups202414.611.817.439,039
    Mix of groups202413.110.615.539,039
    Each part is at least 8.0 points in every election, and the mix part is the larger in 3 of the five elections. The unaffiliated carry 49.4% of the 2024 within-group part, from a small weekly cell. The lines join the five presidential elections, and the bands are 95% intervals from a bootstrap of respondents.Note: The pooled gap here covers voters with a tradition-by-race group and an attendance answer in the frequent or seldom group, so it can differ by a few tenths of a point from the all-voter gap of the god-gap chapter. The within part weights each group's own gap by its average share of the two attendance groups, and the mix part prices the difference in the groups' shares at each group's average Democratic share; the two parts add to the pooled gap exactly.Note: Standard errors come from 1,000 seeded bootstrap resamples of respondents; the interval is a normal 95% interval around the estimate. The decomposition is an accounting of the gap and not a causal split.Note: The unaffiliated contribute 7.2 of the 14.6 points of the 2024 within-group part, and without them that part is 7.4 points. Their weekly cell has an effective sample of 77 respondents in 2024 against 134, 212 and 208 in 2012, 2016 and 2020, and their gap of +30.1 points in 2024 compares with +20.2, +15.7 and +14.3 in those elections.Source: Cooperative Election Study, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    Figure 6 assigns the parts to groups. White born-again Protestants are 39.0% (95% CI 37.5% to 40.6%)39.0% percent of weekly or more attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to white born-again protestants; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 37.5% to 40.6%n9,409Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of the voters who attend weekly or more and 9.1% (95% CI 8.6% to 9.7%)9.1% percent of seldom attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to white born-again protestants; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 8.6% to 9.7%n29,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of those who attend seldom. They are less Democratic than other voters, so their concentration among weekly attenders adds 10.2 (95% CI 9.5 to 10.9)10.2 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's mix part (the difference in its share between seldom and frequent attenders times its Democratic share relative to all voters); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 9.5 to 10.9n5,380Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points to the mix part. Black Protestants are 8.4% (95% CI 7.5% to 9.3%)8.4% percent of weekly or more attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to black protestants; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 7.5% to 9.3%n9,409Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of weekly attenders and 3.0% (95% CI 2.7% to 3.3%)3.0% percent of seldom attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to black protestants; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 2.7% to 3.3%n29,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of seldom attenders and are more Democratic than the average voter, so their contribution to the mix part is −1.8 (95% CI −2.2 to −1.5)−1.8 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's mix part (the difference in its share between seldom and frequent attenders times its Democratic share relative to all voters); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI −2.2 to −1.5n1,684Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationBlack Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points, below zero. White Catholics add 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.0)1.5 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's within-group part (the group's own gap times its average share of the two attendance levels); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 1.0 to 2.0n5,448Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points through their own gap and white born-again Protestants 2.3 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0)2.3 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's within-group part (the group's own gap times its average share of the two attendance levels); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 1.6 to 3.0n5,380Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer.. Pooled over the five elections, white born-again Protestants contribute 9.2 (95% CI 9.0 to 9.5)9.2 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's mix part (the difference in its share between seldom and frequent attenders times its Democratic share relative to all voters); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 9.0 to 9.5n27,185Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points through the mix and the unaffiliated 3.9 (95% CI 3.1 to 4.8)3.9 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's within-group part (the group's own gap times its average share of the two attendance levels); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 3.1 to 4.8n52,288Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points through their own gap, the largest part of each kind.

    Figure 6

    White born-again Protestants contribute 10.2 points to the mix part of the 2024 gap and Black Protestants −1.8 points, while the unaffiliated contribute 7.2 points to the within-group part

    Each group's contribution to the gap between seldom and frequent attenders in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, percentage points, split into the group's own gap and the mix of attendance groups, 2024 (button: five elections pooled); 95% intervals

    • Gap inside the group
    • Mix of the attendance groups
    Show data
    Data for White born-again Protestants contribute 10.2 points to the mix part of the 2024 gap and Black Protestants −1.8 points, while the unaffiliated contribute 7.2 points to the within-group part
    ViewGroupPartContribution (points)LowerUpperShare of frequent attenders (%)Share of seldom attenders (%)Voters in the group
    pooledWhite born-again ProtestantsGap inside the group2.32.02.737.39.227,185
    pooledWhite born-again ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups9.29.09.537.39.227,185
    pooledUnaffiliatedGap inside the group3.93.14.82.940.552,288
    pooledUnaffiliatedMix of the attendance groups4.53.85.22.940.552,288
    pooledWhite CatholicsGap inside the group2.11.82.316.213.826,811
    pooledWhite CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.30.20.416.213.826,811
    pooledAnother religion or something elseGap inside the group1.51.21.79.77.812,134
    pooledAnother religion or something elseMix of the attendance groups0.00.00.09.77.812,134
    pooledMormonGap inside the group0.40.20.53.80.52,375
    pooledMormonMix of the attendance groups0.80.70.93.80.52,375
    pooledJewishGap inside the group0.50.40.61.03.04,759
    pooledJewishMix of the attendance groups0.20.10.21.03.04,759
    pooledAsian or other-race ProtestantsGap inside the group0.30.20.42.91.22,812
    pooledAsian or other-race ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups0.30.20.42.91.22,812
    pooledHispanic ProtestantsGap inside the group0.30.10.43.00.82,540
    pooledHispanic ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups0.20.10.23.00.82,540
    pooledHispanic CatholicsGap inside the group0.40.30.63.73.65,659
    pooledHispanic CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.00.00.03.73.65,659
    pooledBuddhist or HinduGap inside the group0.0−0.10.00.41.21,659
    pooledBuddhist or HinduMix of the attendance groups0.20.20.20.41.21,659
    pooledAsian or other-race CatholicsGap inside the group0.10.10.21.30.71,523
    pooledAsian or other-race CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.00.00.01.30.71,523
    pooledOrthodox ChristianGap inside the group0.10.00.10.50.4756
    pooledOrthodox ChristianMix of the attendance groups0.00.00.00.50.4756
    pooledMuslimGap inside the group0.0−0.10.00.50.3526
    pooledMuslimMix of the attendance groups−0.1−0.10.00.50.3526
    pooledBlack CatholicsGap inside the group0.00.00.10.80.5951
    pooledBlack CatholicsMix of the attendance groups−0.1−0.2−0.10.80.5951
    pooledWhite Protestants who are not born-againGap inside the group−0.6−0.8−0.47.613.522,658
    pooledWhite Protestants who are not born-againMix of the attendance groups−0.3−0.3−0.27.613.522,658
    pooledBlack ProtestantsGap inside the group0.10.00.28.53.07,708
    pooledBlack ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups−2.2−2.3−2.08.53.07,708
    y2024White born-again ProtestantsGap inside the group2.31.63.039.09.15,380
    y2024White born-again ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups10.29.510.939.09.15,380
    y2024UnaffiliatedGap inside the group7.24.79.73.044.814,033
    y2024UnaffiliatedMix of the attendance groups3.11.05.33.044.814,033
    y2024White CatholicsGap inside the group1.51.02.013.312.05,448
    y2024White CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.20.00.313.312.05,448
    y2024Another religion or something elseGap inside the group1.40.91.98.57.32,826
    y2024Another religion or something elseMix of the attendance groups0.10.00.28.57.32,826
    y2024Hispanic ProtestantsGap inside the group0.30.00.64.31.1570
    y2024Hispanic ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups0.50.30.74.31.1570
    y2024JewishGap inside the group0.70.31.01.33.01,090
    y2024JewishMix of the attendance groups0.10.00.21.33.01,090
    y2024Asian or other-race ProtestantsGap inside the group0.30.10.63.61.5633
    y2024Asian or other-race ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups0.40.20.63.61.5633
    y2024MormonGap inside the group0.2−0.10.52.90.5416
    y2024MormonMix of the attendance groups0.40.20.62.90.5416
    y2024Hispanic CatholicsGap inside the group0.60.21.04.33.51,193
    y2024Hispanic CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.0−0.10.04.33.51,193
    y2024Buddhist or HinduGap inside the group0.1−0.10.30.31.4406
    y2024Buddhist or HinduMix of the attendance groups0.20.10.30.31.4406
    y2024Orthodox ChristianGap inside the group0.10.00.30.70.3163
    y2024Orthodox ChristianMix of the attendance groups0.10.00.20.70.3163
    y2024Asian or other-race CatholicsGap inside the group0.1−0.10.31.70.9351
    y2024Asian or other-race CatholicsMix of the attendance groups0.00.00.11.70.9351
    y2024MuslimGap inside the group0.10.00.30.60.3126
    y2024MuslimMix of the attendance groups0.0−0.10.00.60.3126
    y2024Black CatholicsGap inside the group0.0−0.20.11.00.5228
    y2024Black CatholicsMix of the attendance groups−0.2−0.30.01.00.5228
    y2024White Protestants who are not born-againGap inside the group−0.4−0.80.16.910.74,492
    y2024White Protestants who are not born-againMix of the attendance groups−0.2−0.3−0.16.910.74,492
    y2024Black ProtestantsGap inside the group0.0−0.30.48.43.01,684
    y2024Black ProtestantsMix of the attendance groups−1.8−2.2−1.58.43.01,684
    White born-again Protestants, who are a large part of weekly attenders and a small part of seldom attenders, raise the pooled gap through the mix, and Black Protestants, who are more Democratic than average and more often weekly attenders, lower it. The unaffiliated carry the largest within-group part. The contributions of all groups add to the pooled gap.Note: The unaffiliated within-group contribution rests on a small number of weekly attenders: the frequent cell has an effective sample of 77 in 2024. Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Note: A group enters when it has at least 30 voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer in the sample.Source: Cooperative Election Study, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; weighted (weight_cumulative)

    The unaffiliated need a caution. They are 44.8% (95% CI 43.9% to 45.7%)44.8% percent of seldom attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to unaffiliated; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 43.9% to 45.7%n29,630Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of seldom attenders and 3.0% (95% CI 2.3% to 3.6%)3.0% percent of weekly or more attenders who votedEstimandweighted share of the attendance group that belongs to unaffiliated; bootstrap standard errorInterval95% CI 2.3% to 3.6%n9,409Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of weekly attenders, and they contribute 3.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 5.3)3.1 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's mix part (the difference in its share between seldom and frequent attenders times its Democratic share relative to all voters); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 1.0 to 5.3n14,033Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points through the mix and 7.2 (95% CI 4.7 to 9.7)7.2 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandthe group's within-group part (the group's own gap times its average share of the two attendance levels); bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 4.7 to 9.7n14,033Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the group's voters with a frequent or seldom attendance answer. points through their own gap. The second is 49.4% (95% CI 38.9% to 59.8%)49.4% percent of the within-group partEstimandthe unaffiliated group's within-group contribution as a share of the within-group part; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 38.9% to 59.8%n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of the 2024 within-group part, and without the unaffiliated that part is 7.4 (95% CI 6.0 to 8.8)7.4 percentage points of the pooled gapEstimandwithin-group part of the gap summed over every group except the unaffiliated; bootstrap standard error, 1000 resamplesInterval95% CI 6.0 to 8.8n39,039Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported voters with a tradition-by-race group and a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points. It rests on a small weekly cell, with an effective sample of 7777 effective respondentsEstimandKish effective sample size of the celln271Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study respondents in 2024 against 134134 effective respondentsEstimandKish effective sample size of the celln266Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2012SourceCooperative Election Study, 212212 effective respondentsEstimandKish effective sample size of the celln386Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2016SourceCooperative Election Study and 208208 effective respondentsEstimandKish effective sample size of the celln369Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study in 2012, 2016 and 2020. The unaffiliated gap was +0.4 (95% CI −11.5 to 12.3)+0.4 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −11.5 to 12.3n4,431Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2008 on an effective weekly sample of 5151 effective respondentsEstimandKish effective sample size of the celln80Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, who attend weekly or morePeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study, then +20.2 (95% CI 11.7 to 28.8)+20.2 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 11.7 to 28.8n8,170Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2012SourceCooperative Election Study, +15.7 (95% CI 8.9 to 22.6)+15.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.9 to 22.6n11,189Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2016SourceCooperative Election Study and +14.3 (95% CI 7.5 to 21.0)+14.3 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 7.5 to 21.0n14,465Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study points, and +30.1 (95% CI 19.0 to 41.3)+30.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)Estimandweighted Democratic share of the vote, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 19.0 to 41.3n14,033Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated respondents (atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular) who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. The 2024 estimate is the largest of the five, and its interval overlaps those of 2012, 2016 and 2020.

    The pooled gap therefore contains two kinds of difference. One is the difference in vote between seldom and frequent attenders inside a tradition and race, which is small among Black Protestants and below zero in the CES among white Protestants who are not born-again, a sign that other surveys do not reproduce. The other is a difference in who the two attendance groups are. Because Black Protestants are a larger share of frequent attenders than of seldom attenders, they hold the pooled gap below what the other groups alone would give. The born-again rule also builds part of the white born-again contribution into the coding, because the group is defined by an answer that marks religious commitment.

    In the GSS white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants leaned Democratic in the 1970s

    The CES begins in 2008. The GSS asks Protestants which denomination they belong to, which allows RELTRAD from 1972 to 2022 (68,89668,896 respondentsEstimandcount of respondentsWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS respondents with a religious preference answer that RELTRAD can placePeriod1972 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey respondents placed; the 2024 GSS has no detailed denomination). This chapter codes it from the denomination and open-ended answers with the published syntax of the scheme, as the methods note describes. Figure 7 follows the Democratic share of party identifiers in five windows of survey years. Among white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants it fell from 61.0% (95% CI 59.0% to 63.0%)61.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 59.0% to 63.0%n3,099Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1972 to 1984 to 43.8%43.8% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 42.0% to 45.5%n3,902Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1985 to 1996SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1985 to 1996, 35.3%35.3% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 33.4% to 37.2%n3,076Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1998 to 2008SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1998 to 2008 and 30.6% (95% CI 28.1% to 33.1%)30.6% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 28.1% to 33.1%n1,855Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2010 to 2018. Black Protestants stayed between 88.5%88.5% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 86.5% to 90.5%n1,537Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationRELTRAD Black Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey and 91.1%91.1% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 88.6% to 93.6%n752Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationRELTRAD Black Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in every window, and white RELTRAD mainline Protestants between 40.9%40.9% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 37.3% to 44.5%n1,091Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD mainline Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey and 45.4%45.4% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 43.6% to 47.2%n4,018Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD mainline Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey. Catholics, of any race, fell from 72.4% (95% CI 70.7% to 74.1%)72.4% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 70.7% to 74.1%n3,635Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationCatholic respondents of any race who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey to 56.9% (95% CI 55.1% to 58.8%)56.9% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 55.1% to 58.8%n3,813Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationCatholic respondents of any race who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1985 to 1996SourceGeneral Social Survey and were at 58.3% (95% CI 55.7% to 60.9%)58.3% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 55.7% to 60.9%n2,117Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationCatholic respondents of any race who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2010 to 2018. The GSS race item counts respondents of Hispanic origin who say white as white: 7.7%7.7% percent of white RELTRAD evangelical ProtestantsEstimandweighted share of Hispanic origin (the GSS race item counts them as white)n2,268Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant GSS respondents with a Hispanic origin answerPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of white RELTRAD evangelical respondents in 2010 to 2018 are of Hispanic origin, and the non-Hispanic Democratic share is 28.8% (95% CI 26.3% to 31.4%)28.8% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 26.3% to 31.4%n1,732Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationnon-Hispanic white RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey against 30.6%30.6% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 28.1% to 33.1%n1,855Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey.

    Figure 7

    In the GSS the Democratic share of party identifiers among white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants fell from 61.0% in 1972 to 1984 to 30.6% in 2010 to 2018, while Black Protestants stayed near 91.1%

    Democratic share of Democratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) by RELTRAD tradition, for all members and for frequent and seldom attenders, five survey windows from 1972 to 2022, percent; 95% intervals (button: the ANES presidential vote, 1980 to 2020)

    Democratic share of party identifiers (%)

    • All members
    • Frequent attenders
    • Seldom attenders
    Black Protestants (RELTRAD)CatholicsWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)White mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)
    Show data
    Data for In the GSS the Democratic share of party identifiers among white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants fell from 61.0% in 1972 to 1984 to 30.6% in 2010 to 2018, while Black Protestants stayed near 91.1%
    SurveyGroupGroup of attendersSurvey yearsDemocratic share (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1972 to 198488.586.590.51,537
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1985 to 199688.586.590.41,576
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1998 to 200890.989.092.71,266
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2010 to 201891.188.693.6752
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2021 to 202288.583.593.5320
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1972 to 198489.185.992.3586
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1985 to 199690.287.293.1592
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1998 to 200891.088.193.9532
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2010 to 201893.189.596.7299
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2021 to 202291.082.999.2126
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1972 to 198489.486.092.8512
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1985 to 199686.683.090.2496
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1998 to 200889.886.293.4383
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2010 to 201890.085.394.7236
    GSSBlack Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2021 to 202283.575.291.8138
    GSSCatholicsAll members1972 to 198472.470.774.13,635
    GSSCatholicsAll members1985 to 199656.955.158.83,813
    GSSCatholicsAll members1998 to 200856.955.058.93,354
    GSSCatholicsAll members2010 to 201858.355.760.92,117
    GSSCatholicsAll members2021 to 202253.249.157.31,188
    GSSCatholicsFrequent attenders1972 to 198471.368.973.81,788
    GSSCatholicsFrequent attenders1985 to 199657.154.260.01,552
    GSSCatholicsFrequent attenders1998 to 200853.650.356.91,210
    GSSCatholicsFrequent attenders2010 to 201854.149.358.9642
    GSSCatholicsFrequent attenders2021 to 202252.044.060.0315
    GSSCatholicsSeldom attenders1972 to 198472.169.374.91,349
    GSSCatholicsSeldom attenders1985 to 199657.955.160.71,576
    GSSCatholicsSeldom attenders1998 to 200858.755.861.51,555
    GSSCatholicsSeldom attenders2010 to 201860.657.064.21,062
    GSSCatholicsSeldom attenders2021 to 202253.448.258.5743
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1972 to 198461.059.063.03,099
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1985 to 199643.842.045.53,902
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1998 to 200835.333.437.23,076
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2010 to 201830.628.133.11,855
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2021 to 202216.012.419.6834
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1972 to 198455.052.058.11,415
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1985 to 199637.434.940.01,684
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1998 to 200826.524.029.01,517
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2010 to 201823.220.026.4941
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2021 to 202213.79.218.3488
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1972 to 198467.464.370.51,217
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1985 to 199649.346.552.01,522
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1998 to 200845.842.449.31,020
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2010 to 201840.235.544.9606
    GSSWhite evangelical Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2021 to 202218.411.625.3231
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1972 to 198445.443.647.24,018
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1985 to 199642.240.344.13,117
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)All members1998 to 200841.639.343.92,215
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2010 to 201840.937.344.51,091
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)All members2021 to 202245.039.950.1641
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1972 to 198438.635.541.81,224
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1985 to 199640.436.844.0877
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders1998 to 200834.930.938.9674
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2010 to 201844.437.850.9344
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Frequent attenders2021 to 202236.928.045.8174
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1972 to 198451.048.553.52,008
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1985 to 199644.441.747.21,566
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders1998 to 200845.542.248.91,100
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2010 to 201840.835.845.9541
    GSSWhite mainline Protestants (RELTRAD)Seldom attenders2021 to 202247.040.553.5393
    ANESBlack ProtestantsAll members1980 to 198891.788.694.9303
    ANESBlack ProtestantsAll members1992 to 200093.891.096.6328
    ANESBlack ProtestantsAll members2008 to 201297.696.299.1918
    ANESBlack ProtestantsAll members2016 to 202093.190.296.1512
    ANESWhite CatholicsAll members1980 to 198842.939.346.5725
    ANESWhite CatholicsAll members1992 to 200047.043.550.6843
    ANESWhite CatholicsAll members2008 to 201246.642.251.0742
    ANESWhite CatholicsAll members2016 to 202042.539.445.71,427
    ANESWhite Protestants who are not born-againAll members1980 to 198830.927.833.9865
    ANESWhite Protestants who are not born-againAll members1992 to 200044.140.647.5871
    ANESWhite Protestants who are not born-againAll members2008 to 201244.439.949.0702
    ANESWhite Protestants who are not born-againAll members2016 to 202047.043.650.41,331
    ANESWhite born-again ProtestantsAll members1980 to 198830.126.833.5710
    ANESWhite born-again ProtestantsAll members1992 to 200029.325.932.6787
    ANESWhite born-again ProtestantsAll members2008 to 201221.918.625.2854
    ANESWhite born-again ProtestantsAll members2016 to 202019.116.521.81,437
    White RELTRAD evangelical Protestants moved from a Democratic majority to a Republican one, white RELTRAD mainline Protestants and Black Protestants stayed in place, and Catholics fell and then held. Each panel is one tradition, each point a pooled window of survey years placed at its midpoint, and each band a 95% interval. The shaded 2021 to 2022 window includes web interviews.Note: GSS view: tradition follows RELTRAD (Steensland and others 2000) from the GSS denomination items; the 2024 GSS has no detailed denomination, so the series ends in 2022. White evangelical and white mainline Protestants are RELTRAD evangelical and mainline respondents whose GSS race is white, which includes white respondents of Hispanic origin. Catholics are all Catholics, since the GSS records Hispanic origin only from 2000.Note: Frequent attenders attend nearly every week or more; seldom attenders a few times a year or never. The window 2021 to 2022 mixes web and in-person interviews: 87.8% of 2021 respondents were interviewed on the web. Respondents that RELTRAD cannot place are left out, 7.6% of respondents in 2021 to 2022. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30. Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Note: ANES view: reported two-party presidential vote, with the born-again rule of the CES. The born-again item is asked in every presidential-year study from 1980 to 2020 except 2004, and a respondent with no answer is in neither white Protestant group. The 2012 and 2016 studies add web samples and the 2020 study was collected online, by telephone and by video, so the last windows mix interview modes with the in-person studies of earlier years; there are no mode weights for 2020. The ANES weight is 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990. The 2024 religion codes of the cumulative file are unusable, so the series ends in 2020.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2022, and ANES Cumulative Data File, 1980-2020; weighted (weight_use and VCF0009z, each rescaled to average one within each survey year)

    Attendance separated white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants before the group moved. In 1972 to 1984 frequent attenders were 55.0% (95% CI 52.0% to 58.1%)55.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 52.0% to 58.1%n1,415Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents, who attend nearly every week or more who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey Democratic and seldom attenders 67.4% (95% CI 64.3% to 70.5%)67.4% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 64.3% to 70.5%n1,217Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents, who attend a few times a year or never who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey, a gap of +12.4 (95% CI 8.0 to 16.8)+12.4 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.0 to 16.8n2,632Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and the gap was +17.1 (95% CI 11.4 to 22.7)+17.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 11.4 to 22.7n1,547Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2010 to 2018. Its interval lies above zero in every window except the last, where it includes zero (+4.7 (95% CI −3.5 to 12.9)+4.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −3.5 to 12.9n719Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey). The Black Protestant gap has an interval that includes zero in all five windows. The white RELTRAD mainline gap was +12.3 (95% CI 8.3 to 16.4)+12.3 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 8.3 to 16.4n3,232Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD mainline Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 1972 to 1984 and −3.5 (95% CI −11.8 to 4.8)−3.5 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −11.8 to 4.8n885Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD mainline Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2010 to 2018, so frequent mainline attenders were less Democratic than seldom attenders early and by the 2010s the gap is within sampling error of zero. The 2021 to 2022 window, at +10.1 (95% CI −0.9 to 21.2)+10.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share of party identifiers, seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (nearly every week or more); independent groups, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI −0.9 to 21.2n567Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD mainline Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey, does not continue that path.

    The last window includes web interviews and its estimates differ with the mode. White RELTRAD evangelical Protestants were 16.0% (95% CI 12.4% to 19.6%)16.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 12.4% to 19.6%n834Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey Democratic across 2021 to 2022. In 2022, in-person respondents gave 9.2% (95% CI 2.2% to 16.3%)9.2% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 2.2% to 16.3%n180Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents interviewed in person in 2022 who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2022SourceGeneral Social Survey and web respondents 12.4% (95% CI 4.3% to 20.5%)12.4% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 4.3% to 20.5%n158Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents interviewed on the web in 2022 who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2022SourceGeneral Social Survey, and the 2021 survey, 87.8%87.8% percent of respondentsEstimandshare interviewed on the web (count, unweighted)Weightsnone (count)PopulationGSS 2021 respondents with a religious preference answerPeriod2021SourceGeneral Social Survey of it on the web, gave 21.3% (95% CI 16.5% to 26.1%)21.3% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 16.5% to 26.1%n380Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents interviewed on the web in 2021 who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021SourceGeneral Social Survey. RELTRAD also leaves 7.6%7.6% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD cannot placeWeightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with a religious preference answerPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey of respondents in that window unplaced, 5.4%5.4% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD cannot place: Protestants with no denomination who attend less than monthlyWeightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with a religious preference answerPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey of respondents being Protestants with no denomination who attend less than monthly and 1.6%1.6% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD cannot place: respondents who say only Christian or interdenominationalWeightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with a religious preference answerPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey being respondents who say only Christian or interdenominational, a gap in the syntax that [4] describe. Counting every white respondent that RELTRAD cannot place as evangelical gives 23.5% (95% CI 20.0% to 27.0%)23.5% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their party; the respondents added are an upper bound on the evangelical groupInterval95% CI 20.0% to 27.0%n1,166Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite respondents RELTRAD places in the evangelical tradition plus every white respondent it cannot place (Protestants with no denomination who attend less than monthly, and those who say only Christian or interdenominational), who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey Democratic, and counting only those who say Christian or interdenominational gives 18.0% (95% CI 14.4% to 21.6%)18.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their party; the respondents added follow Stetzer and Burge's reading of the omissionInterval95% CI 14.4% to 21.6%n895Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite respondents RELTRAD places in the evangelical tradition plus white respondents who say only Christian or interdenominational, who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2021 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey. Even the larger estimate lies below the estimate for 2010 to 2018.

    The ANES cumulative file measures the presidential vote and not party identification, and its born-again item, asked in every presidential-year study from 1980 to 2020 except 2004, allows the CES rule (the second view of Figure 7). White born-again Protestants voted 30.1% (95% CI 26.8% to 33.5%)30.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 26.8% to 33.5%n710Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File Democratic in 1980 to 1988 and 19.1% (95% CI 16.5% to 21.8%)19.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 16.5% to 21.8%n1,437Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016 to 2020. By party identification the GSS puts white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants at 61.0%61.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 59.0% to 63.0%n3,099Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite RELTRAD evangelical Protestant respondents who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1972 to 1984SourceGeneral Social Survey in the first window and the ANES puts white born-again Protestants at 44.0% (95% CI 40.8% to 47.1%)44.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 40.8% to 47.1%n944Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File, so the gap between the GSS party share and the ANES vote share has two sources, the coding of the group and the difference between identification and vote. White Protestants who are not born-again voted 30.9% (95% CI 27.8% to 33.9%)30.9% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 27.8% to 33.9%n865Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File Democratic in 1980 to 1988 and 47.0% (95% CI 43.6% to 50.4%)47.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 43.6% to 50.4%n1,331Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016 to 2020, a rise whose intervals do not overlap, while their party identification is flat at 42.5%42.5% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 39.6% to 45.4%n1,092Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 42.0%42.0% percent of Democratic and Republican identifiersEstimandweighted Democratic share of party identifiers, leaners with their partyInterval95% CI 38.9% to 45.0%n1,579Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again who identify with or lean toward a partyPeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File, as the GSS series is. Black Protestants were at 91.7%91.7% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 88.6% to 94.9%n303Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationBlack non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 93.1%93.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 90.2% to 96.1%n512Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationBlack non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File and white Catholics at 42.9%42.9% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 39.3% to 46.5%n725Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod1980 to 1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 42.5%42.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 39.4% to 45.7%n1,427Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each studyPopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The 2012 and 2016 ANES studies add web samples and the 2020 study was collected online, by telephone and by video, so the last windows mix interview modes.

    The sign of the gap among white Protestants who are not born-again depends on the survey and the coding

    The CES rule puts a white Protestant in the born-again group when the respondent calls themselves born-again or evangelical. In the GSS from 2006 to 2018, the two codings agree for 61.3%61.3% percent of white ProtestantsEstimandweighted share placed in the same group (evangelical or mainline) by RELTRAD and by the born-again rule; respondents RELTRAD cannot place count as disagreeingn4,838Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant GSS respondents with a born-again answer and a party identification (pure independents excluded)Period2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of white Protestants with a born-again answer and a party identification, counting respondents RELTRAD cannot place as disagreeing and leaving out pure independents, and for 70.7%70.7% percent of white ProtestantsEstimandweighted share placed in the same group by RELTRAD and by the born-again rulen4,183Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant GSS respondents with a born-again answer and a party identification whom RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline traditionPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of those RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline tradition. Among white Protestants RELTRAD places, with no condition on party identification, 39.0%39.0% percent of white ProtestantsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD places in the evangelical traditionn2,075Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant GSS respondents who do not call themselves born-again whom RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline traditionPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of those who are not born-again are RELTRAD evangelical and 22.3%22.3% percent of white ProtestantsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD places in the mainline traditionn2,960Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant GSS respondents who call themselves born-again whom RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline traditionPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of those who are born-again are RELTRAD mainline, so the CES groups are not the denominational ones. Figure 8 shows what that does. The first tab compares 2024 levels in the CES and the ANES with the born-again rule applied in both. The ANES puts white Protestants who are not born-again at 56.1% (95% CI 49.9% to 62.3%)56.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 49.9% to 62.3%n478WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite respondents in an ANES Protestant category who do not call themselves born-again who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series Democratic and the CES at 43.0% (95% CI 41.0% to 45.0%)43.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 41.0% to 45.0%n4,979Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, a difference of +13.2 (95% CI 6.7 to 19.7)+13.2 percentage points of Democratic two-party vote shareEstimandANES Democratic share minus CES Democratic share, both under the born-again rule; independent surveys, standard errors combinedInterval95% CI 6.7 to 19.7n5,457WeightsV240107b (ANES) and weight_cumulative (CES)Populationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again and who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points, and the major-group summary of the ANES gives 57.6% (95% CI 51.0% to 64.1%)57.6% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 51.0% to 64.1%n456WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite respondents the ANES codes mainline Protestant who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series for its mainline category. The ANES national Democratic share, 54.4% (95% CI 52.2% to 56.7%)54.4% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 52.2% to 56.7%n3,928WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationall ANES 2024 respondents who reported a Harris or Trump votePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series, is above the CES share, 49.0% (95% CI 48.2% to 49.7%)49.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 48.2% to 49.7%n42,008Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall CES respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, and the certified count, 49.2%49.2% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandcertified national Democratic share of the two-party voteWeightsnone (full counts)Populationall votes cast for the Democratic and Republican candidatesPeriod2024 presidential electionSourceState presidential returns, so part of the difference belongs to the survey. The ANES also places each of six groups above the CES and orders them the same way.

    Figure 8

    The ANES and the CES differ by +13.2 points for white Protestants who are not born-again in 2024, and only the CES puts their attendance gap below zero

    Two checks on the CES tradition-by-race coding: 2024 levels in the CES and the ANES Time Series, and the attendance gap for white Protestants under each survey and coding

    In 2024 the ANES places each of six groups above the CES, most for white Protestants who are not born-again and Hispanic Catholics, and the two surveys order the groups identically

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, reported voters, percent, 2024; white Protestants are split by the born-again rule in both surveys; 95% intervals

    • CES
    • ANES

    White Protestants who are not born-again are 56.1% Democratic in the ANES and 43.0% in the CES, and the intervals do not overlap. Each dot is a weighted share with a 95% interval, in the 2024 CES and the 2024 ANES Time Series.

    Show data
    Data for The ANES and the CES differ by +13.2 points for white Protestants who are not born-again in 2024, and only the CES puts their attendance gap below zero, Levels in 2024
    GroupSurveyDemocratic share (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    White born-again ProtestantsCES14.513.215.75,987
    White born-again ProtestantsANES20.915.726.0497
    White Protestants who are not born-againCES43.041.045.04,979
    White Protestants who are not born-againANES56.149.962.3478
    Black ProtestantsCES83.180.386.01,889
    Black ProtestantsANES90.284.096.3179
    White CatholicsCES37.135.438.95,974
    White CatholicsANES44.438.250.5540
    Hispanic CatholicsCES57.052.561.51,351
    Hispanic CatholicsANES71.559.983.1123
    UnaffiliatedCES70.969.772.214,311
    UnaffiliatedANES78.674.682.5854
    The first tab compares levels in 2024 and the second compares attendance gaps. Under the CES born-again rule and under the denominational codings of the GSS (RELTRAD) and the ANES (its major-group summary), the evangelical or born-again group shows a positive gap, and the sign of the gap in the mainline or not-born-again group depends on the survey.Note: The CES rule puts white Protestants who call themselves born-again or evangelical in the evangelical group and the others in the mainline group. The GSS RELTRAD rows use denomination, the ANES summary rows use the ANES major-group religion summary (V241445x), and the born-again rows in the GSS and the ANES apply the CES rule to those surveys. This chapter has not checked the ANES summary against RELTRAD. In the GSS, 61.3% of white Protestants with a born-again answer and a party identification fall in the same group under RELTRAD and the born-again rule, counting respondents RELTRAD cannot place as disagreeing and leaving out pure independents; among those RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline tradition the share is 70.7%.Note: Among white Protestants whom RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline tradition, 39.0% of those who are not born-again are RELTRAD evangelical and 22.3% of those who are born-again are RELTRAD mainline.Note: GSS rows cover the surveys of 2006 to 2018, in all interview modes those surveys used, which include some telephone interviews; the CES rows cover the five presidential elections, and the ANES rows 2024, which mixed in-person, web and mail-return samples under one post-election weight. Frequent in the GSS is nearly weekly or more and in the ANES weekly or almost weekly, one answer wider than the CES. A cell is drawn only when it has at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30. Intervals are 95% intervals from the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Source: Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; General Social Survey, 2006-2018; ANES 2024 Time Series; weighted (weight_cumulative, weight_use and V240107b)

    The second tab gives the attendance gap for the evangelical and the mainline group of white Protestants under six combinations of survey and coding. The gap in the evangelical group has a positive point estimate in every row: +10.1 (95% CI 8.7 to 11.4)+10.1 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; CES vote, born-again ruleInterval95% CI 8.7 to 11.4n27,185Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite Protestant respondents who do call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points in the CES vote, +19.3 (95% CI 14.6 to 24.1)+19.3 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; GSS party identification, RELTRADInterval95% CI 14.6 to 24.1n2,134Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite respondents RELTRAD places in the evangelical tradition who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in the GSS under RELTRAD and +11.9 (95% CI 0.1 to 23.8)+11.9 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; ANES 2024 vote, ANES major-group summaryInterval95% CI 0.1 to 23.8n378WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite respondents in the ANES evangelical category of the major-group summary who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series in the ANES under its own summary, and its interval lies above zero in every row except the ANES born-again row. The sizes differ across surveys. The gap in the mainline group is below zero in the CES, −5.4 (95% CI −7.5 to −3.4)−5.4 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; CES vote, born-again ruleInterval95% CI −7.5 to −3.4n22,658Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points for the vote and −3.7 (95% CI −5.8 to −1.7)−3.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; CES party identification, born-again ruleInterval95% CI −5.8 to −1.7n24,495Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 pooledSourceCooperative Election Study for party identification, and its interval includes zero under the denominational codings of the GSS, +2.8 (95% CI −3.8 to 9.4)+2.8 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; GSS party identification, RELTRADInterval95% CI −3.8 to 9.4n1,343Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite respondents RELTRAD places in the mainline tradition who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey, and the ANES, +11.6 (95% CI −3.4 to 26.6)+11.6 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; ANES 2024 vote, ANES major-group summaryInterval95% CI −3.4 to 26.6n396WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite respondents in the ANES mainline category of the major-group summary who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series. Applying the CES born-again rule to the GSS gives +5.7 (95% CI −0.5 to 12.0)+5.7 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; GSS party identification, born-again ruleInterval95% CI −0.5 to 12.0n1,743Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who identify with or lean toward a party, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2006 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey and to the ANES +6.2 (95% CI −7.9 to 20.3)+6.2 percentage points of Democratic share (seldom attenders minus frequent attenders)EstimandDemocratic share, seldom minus frequent attenders; ANES 2024 vote, born-again ruleInterval95% CI −7.9 to 20.3n421WeightsV240107b (post-election weight)Populationwhite Protestant respondents who do not call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, with a frequent or seldom attendance answerPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series, so the rule alone does not reproduce the CES sign. The data do not say whether the CES result comes from its sample, from the mode of interview or from the rule, and the gap among white Protestants who are not born-again is the least settled estimate in this chapter.

    What these data cannot show

    Each survey interviews a different sample, so the gaps compare groups and say nothing about any voter changing. Religious behavior and identity respond to politics as well as the reverse: panel studies find that partisan identity shapes whether people identify with a religion and how often they attend [5] [6]. A gap between seldom and frequent attenders, or a difference between traditions, can therefore reflect people moving between groups, and the decomposition splits an observed gap into parts without saying what would happen if the mix of attenders changed.

    Tradition in the CES is a proxy. The born-again rule ties the white born-again group to an answer that marks religious commitment, and the group of white Protestants who are not born-again is whoever is left. The CES cannot separate Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran and non-denominational respondents, cannot place Black Protestants by denomination, and cannot tell Pentecostal from other Hispanic Protestants. The GSS codes tradition by denomination but stops in 2022, records Hispanic origin only from 2000, and leaves 5.3%5.3% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share that RELTRAD cannot placeWeightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with a religious preference answerPeriod2010 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey of respondents in 2010 to 2018 unplaced. The ANES 2024 rows of the coding check have wider intervals than the CES rows, and the ANES sample is too small to give a Hispanic Protestant estimate at all.

    The levels depend on the survey and the weight. The CES estimates use the cumulative-file weight because it is the one CES weight defined for all five elections; the validated-vote weight exists only for 2018 to 2024. In 2024 it gives 34.1% (95% CI 32.4% to 35.8%)34.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote with the validated-vote weightInterval95% CI 32.4% to 35.8%n4,669Weightsvvweight (validated vote)Populationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, whose turnout the CES validatedPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study for white Catholics against 37.1%37.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 35.4% to 38.9%n5,974Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, 13.2% (95% CI 11.9% to 14.4%)13.2% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote with the validated-vote weightInterval95% CI 11.9% to 14.4%n4,816Weightsvvweight (validated vote)Populationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, whose turnout the CES validatedPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study for white born-again Protestants against 14.5%14.5% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 13.2% to 15.7%n5,987Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic Protestant respondents who call themselves born-again or evangelical who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 59.6% (95% CI 53.9% to 65.2%)59.6% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote with the validated-vote weightInterval95% CI 53.9% to 65.2%n883Weightsvvweight (validated vote)PopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, whose turnout the CES validatedPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study for Hispanic Catholics against 57.0%57.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 52.5% to 61.5%n1,351Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationHispanic Catholic respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study. The CES national Democratic share is 49.0%49.0% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential voteInterval95% CI 48.2% to 49.7%n42,008Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationall CES respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential votePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study with the cumulative-file weight and 49.1%49.1% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandweighted Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote with the validated-vote weightInterval95% CI 48.3% to 49.9%n32,948Weightsvvweight (validated vote)Populationall respondents who reported a Democratic or Republican presidential vote, whose turnout the CES validatedPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study with the validated-vote weight, against a certified 49.2%49.2% percent of the two-party presidential voteEstimandcertified national Democratic share of the two-party voteWeightsnone (full counts)Populationall votes cast for the Democratic and Republican candidatesPeriod2024 presidential electionSourceState presidential returns, and agreement at the national level does not show that a survey is accurate inside a tradition and race. The ANES group levels exceed the CES levels by the most for white Protestants who are not born-again and Hispanic Catholics, and by more than the two national shares differ. Small groups carry intervals as wide as the Muslim estimate, and the figures draw those intervals; the only cells removed are those under the floor.

    The sample is voters who reported a Democratic or Republican vote, so nonvoters, third-party voters and respondents who did not answer are outside it. The chapter has no measure of belief, congregation, region or age, and nothing in it identifies why Black Protestants and white born-again Protestants vote as they do. The growth of the unaffiliated and their subtypes belong to Chapter 9.2, The rise of the nones (planned), and the link between attendance and moral attitudes to Chapter 9.5, Two moralities (planned).


    Data sources

    • Cooperative Election StudyCumulative Common Content, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024; religion, race, born-again, attendance, vote and partyYears: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight_cumulative; vvweight for the 2024 sensitivity check · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • General Social SurveyCumulative data 1972 to 2022 from the raw file: relig, denom (detailed), other, race, hispanic, attend, partyid, reborn; mode joined from the raw fileYears: 1972-2024 (35 study years) · Weights: weight_use, rescaled within year · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • ANES Cumulative Data FileCumulative Data File, presidential-year studies 1980 to 2020: religion, born-again, race, party identification and presidential vote; the 2024 religion codes are unusableYears: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: weight (VCF0009z) · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • ANES 2024 Time Series2024 Time Series: major-group religion summary, race, attendance, born-again, 2024 vote and turnoutYears: 2024 (pre-election and post-election interviews) · Weights: V240107b · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • State presidential returnsState presidential returns 1976 to 2024, used only for the certified national two-party share in 2024Years: 1976-2024 (13 elections) · Weights: none (full counts) · License: See the provider's terms of use.

    All data sources

    Methods

    Sample. Cooperative Election Study (CES) cumulative file, presidential years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024: 188,145 respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or the Republican presidential candidate (third-party and other votes are excluded), and 227,049 respondents who identify with or lean toward a party. Outcomes are the Democratic share of the reported two-party presidential vote and the Democratic share of Democratic and Republican identifiers (CES pid7 1 to 3 against 5 to 7, leaners with their party). Tradition and race in the CES. The cumulative file has religion (1 Protestant, 2 Catholic, 3 Mormon, 4 Orthodox, 5 Jewish, 6 Muslim, 7 Buddhist, 8 Hindu, 9 atheist, 10 agnostic, 11 nothing in particular, 12 something else), race (race5: white non-Hispanic, Black, Hispanic, Asian, other) and the born-again or evangelical self-description (relig_bornagain). White Protestants who say yes are white born-again Protestants and those who say no are white Protestants who are not born-again. Black, Hispanic and Asian or other-race Protestants and Black, Hispanic, white and Asian or other-race Catholics are separate groups. Codes 9 to 11 are the unaffiliated. There is no denomination item, so the born-again rule is a proxy for the evangelical and mainline traditions, and the chapter calls the CES groups by the rule and keeps the names evangelical and mainline for the denominational codings of the GSS and the ANES. Attendance is the six-point item church_attend_6pt: frequent is once a week or more than once a week (codes 5 and 6) and seldom is never, seldom or a few times a year (codes 1 to 3); monthly attenders (code 4) are in neither group. Weights and pooling. CES estimates use weight_cumulative, which sums to the same total in every year over all respondents, so pooled estimates over the five elections count each election by its weighted voters. It is used instead of the validated-vote weight vvweight because it is the only CES weight defined for all five elections (vvweight exists for 2018 to 2024, and it also requires a validated turnout record); the text gives the 2024 shares of three groups and of all voters under vvweight. Pooled GSS windows use weight_use rescaled to average one within each survey year. ANES 2024 estimates use the post-election weight V240107b. Estimators and intervals. A share is a weighted mean of a 0/1 variable, and a gap or a change is the difference of two independent shares with the standard errors combined in quadrature; a difference between two changes combines the four standard errors, and a difference between two gaps combines the two. Every interval is a 95% interval from the Kish effective sample size with a normal approximation. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so its intervals are model based and cover sampling error and not the recruitment of respondents, and none of the intervals follows the clustering of a sampling design. Suppression: a cell is published only with at least 30 respondents and an effective sample of at least 30. The figures draw the interval of every published cell, and the tables give its width. Decomposition. With p_gS and p_gF the shares of group g among seldom and frequent attenders and m_gS and m_gF its Democratic percentages, the seldom-minus-frequent gap equals the sum over groups of pbar_g (m_gS minus m_gF) plus the sum over groups of (p_gS minus p_gF) mbar_g, where pbar_g and mbar_g are averages of the two cells. The first sum is the within-group part and the second the mix part; subtracting the overall mean from mbar_g changes no total and gives each group's contribution. Standard errors are the standard deviation over 1,000 resamples of respondents with replacement (seed 12345), and the interval is a normal 95% interval around the estimate. The within-group part without the unaffiliated and the unaffiliated share of the within-group part use the same resamples. GSS RELTRAD. Tradition follows Steensland and others (2000), coded from the posted syntax of Jerry Park for the Association of Religion Data Archives (6 August 2018), which implements the scheme: relig (religious preference), the detailed denomination denom (the file's denom_7222, asked 1972 to 2022; the 2024 GSS has only a seven-group denom and no other-denomination code, so 2024 cannot be coded), the open-ended other-denomination code other, race and attend. The variable fund is not used by the syntax. Black Protestant: the National Baptist Conventions, the African Methodist Episcopal churches, a list of Black sectarian other codes, and Black respondents in other Baptist, American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Baptist-do-not-know-which, other Methodist and Methodist-do-not-know-which groups. Evangelical: a list of other codes, the American Baptist Association, Southern Baptist and other Baptist groups, white Baptist-do-not-know-which, white other Methodist, Missouri, Wisconsin and other Lutheran synods, the Presbyterian Church in America, and Protestants with no denomination who attend at least monthly. Mainline: a list of other codes, United Methodist, white Methodist-do-not-know-which, American Baptist Churches USA (white), the other Lutheran and Presbyterian groups and Episcopalians. Catholic, Jewish, other faith and unaffiliated follow relig and a list of other codes; Jacobite Apostolics are coded Orthodox. Respondents the syntax cannot place are left out of every tradition: Protestants with no denomination who attend less than monthly, respondents who answer only Christian or interdenominational, and other codes 161 and 185. The syntax's own comment says codes 161 and 185 are dropped but its order of statements leaves them classified; this chapter drops them. 68,896 respondents are placed. Stetzer and Burge (2016) describe the omission of generic Christian and interdenominational answers from the evangelical tradition. This chapter keeps the syntax as written and bounds the effect for 2021 to 2022: the text gives the white evangelical Democratic share when every white respondent RELTRAD cannot place (Protestants with no denomination who attend less than monthly, and those who say only Christian or interdenominational) is counted as evangelical, and when only those who say Christian or interdenominational are. Tradition by race in the GSS: white evangelical and white mainline Protestants are RELTRAD evangelical and mainline respondents whose race is white (race 1), which includes white respondents of Hispanic origin (Hispanic origin is recorded from 2000, and the text gives the non-Hispanic share for 2010 to 2018); Black Protestants are the RELTRAD Black Protestant category; Catholics are all Catholics; Black respondents that RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline traditions and respondents of other races in those two traditions belong to no group. Windows pool survey years (1972 to 1984, 1985 to 1996, 1998 to 2008, 2010 to 2018, 2021 to 2022). Party is partyid 0 to 2 against 4 to 6, and attendance groups are frequent (attend 6 to 8, nearly every week or more) and seldom (attend 0 to 3). The born-again rule in the GSS uses reborn (1 yes, 2 no) among white respondents who say Protestant, 2006 to 2018. The agreement between RELTRAD and the born-again rule is computed on white Protestants with a born-again answer and a party identification (pure independents out; respondents RELTRAD cannot place count as disagreeing) and, separately, among those RELTRAD places in the evangelical or mainline tradition; the cross-check of each group by the other rule uses white Protestants with a born-again answer whom RELTRAD places, with no condition on party identification. ANES 2024 Time Series. Religion is the ANES major-group summary V241445x (mainline, evangelical, Black Protestant, undifferentiated Protestant, Roman Catholic, other Christian, Jewish, other religion, not religious); this chapter has not checked its rules against RELTRAD. Race is V241501x. In the coding check the ANES evangelical and mainline groups are white respondents in those two ANES categories. For the comparison of levels with the CES, white Protestants are split by the born-again rule (V241442) among white respondents in the four ANES Protestant categories, as in the CES; Black and Hispanic Protestants are Black and Hispanic respondents in any Protestant category, and Catholics are split by race. Attendance is V241440 (frequent: every week or almost every week; seldom: a few times a year or never, with V241439 = no counted as never). A reported voter has V242095x = voted and V242096x = Harris or Trump; 3,928 respondents meet this. The 2024 study mixes face-to-face, web and mail-return samples under one weight and is not split by mode. ANES Cumulative Data File. Respondents in the presidential-year studies of 1980 to 2020 (the 2024 religion codes of the cumulative file are unusable); the midterm studies of the file carry no presidential vote. Groups follow the CES rule: white non-Hispanic Protestants (religion, race_4cat) who say they are born-again (born_again, asked in every presidential-year study from 1980 to 2020 except 2004) and who do not, Black non-Hispanic Protestants, and white non-Hispanic Catholics. A respondent without a born-again answer is in neither white Protestant group. Windows are 1980 to 1988, 1992 to 2000, 2008 to 2012 and 2016 to 2020. The vote is the reported two-party presidential vote of voters, and party identification is pid_7pt 1 to 3 against 5 to 7 among all respondents. The weight VCF0009z is 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990 and is rescaled to average one within each study among voters or among party identifiers. The 2012 and 2016 studies add web samples and the 2020 study was collected online, by telephone and by video, with no mode weights for 2020, so the last windows mix interview modes. Survey mode. The CES is online in every year. GSS survey years from 2021 include web interviews; the 2021 to 2022 window is flagged in the figure and the text, and the 2022 split by mode is reported for white RELTRAD evangelical Protestants. The GSS rows of the coding check use the surveys of 2006 to 2018 in all the interview modes those surveys used, which include some telephone interviews.

    References

    1. Steensland, Brian; Park, Jerry Z.; Regnerus, Mark D.; Robinson, Lynn D.; Wilcox, W. Bradford; Woodberry, Robert D. (2000). The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art. Social Forces 79(1): 291-318. doi:10.2307/2675572
    2. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
    3. Lincoln, C. Eric; Mamiya, Lawrence H. (1990). The Black Church in the African American Experience. Duke University Press.
    4. Stetzer, Ed; Burge, Ryan P. (2016). Reltrad Coding Problems and a New Repository. Politics and Religion 9(1): 187-190. doi:10.1017/S1755048315000929
    5. Margolis, Michele F. (2018). From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity. University of Chicago Press.
    6. Campbell, David E.; Layman, Geoffrey C.; Green, John C.; Sumaktoyo, Nathanael G. (2018). Putting Politics First: The Impact of Politics on American Religious and Secular Orientations. American Journal of Political Science 62(3): 551-565. doi:10.1111/ajps.12365

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026religioustraditionandrace,
      author = {Singh, Vishal},
      title = {Religious tradition and race},
      year = {2026},
      url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/religious-tradition-and-race},
      note = {In The Public Mind. Published 3 October 2026.}
    }

    Reading paths