Election 2000: Partisanship in the Pews
Race, religion played decisive roles in the presidential vote
Sheryl Henderson Blunt | posted 4/02/2001 12:00AM
Chads and dimples aside, in the 2000 presidential election, race and religious commitment were the key determinants in whether one voted for Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Al Gore.
A study conducted by the University of Akron (Ohio) reveals sharp partisan divisions between black and white evangelicals, as well as between religiously observant and less observant voters.
"There is a strong cultural split within religious traditions, not just among evangelicals but also among [observant] Mormons and Catholics, versus the modernists and those who are a lot less orthodox," said study coauthor Lyman Kellstedt, a political science professor at Wheaton College (Illinois).
Election in Black and White
Bush's strongest constituency was white evangelical Protestants who attend church at least once a week. Eighty-four percent of them voted for Bush, providing nearly one-third of his total. Evangelicals made up only 13 percent of Gore's vote. Gore did much better among black Protestants, those who claim no religious affiliation, and those who attend church less than once a week. White evangelical Protestants also voted much more strongly for Bush in 2000 than they voted for GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996.
The Akron study, however, painted with a broad ecclesiastical brush. It defined evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism by denominational affiliation, using the official positions of the denominations to categorize respondents. For example, all Southern Baptists were classified as evangelicals, while all United Methodists were called mainline Protestants.
The increase in white evangelical Protestants voting Republican is consistent with trends showing a gradual shift away from the Democratic Party—with which evangelicals were once strongly aligned, particularly in the South—and a shift in attitudes. "White evangelicals are not moved by social-justice issues generally associated with the Democratic Party," Kellstedt says.
A poll conducted by the California-based Barna Research Group found that "character was clearly the most compelling factor" in voting for Bush. According to the November 2000 survey, "Bush was four times more likely than was Gore to be identified as a man of good character by the respective candidate's supporters."
Bush was also "deemed superior to Gore in providing moral leadership by a 19-point margin."
John Green, a University of Akron political science professor and coauthor of the study, points out that although Gore did better among the less religiously observant, who were not as concerned with moral issues, he failed to carry these groups. This contrasts with former President Bill Clinton, who consistently managed to attract support from less observant white Protestants, as well as from evangelicals.
Green believes Gore's loss of these and the more religiously observant voters could well have cost him his home state of Tennessee and other Democratic-leaning states such as Arkansas and West Virginia, any one of which would have given him the presidency.
Gore, however, did win over many self-described born-again Christians. The Barna poll reveals that a significant number of born-again Christians (42 percent) voted for Gore, while 57 percent voted for Bush. Barna defines born-again Christians as "people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior."
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
1 of 2
share this page
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
