Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.

The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It would be ironic if all they did was show up to overturn roe, and this election would have had them sit out the election, but then due to the abortion ammendments they were pushed back into voting.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can they please not vote every year? A lot of them will be people who vote based on irrational ideas, so that’d be a win for reasonable people.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    That seems odd to me considering that antiabortion rules are on the line. I would think they’d be especially motivated to support Trump and get the Senate flipped Republican to keep a federal law from getting implemented to reverse the decision that government can force doctors to let you die if a fetus is the one killing you.

    • Routhinator@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Trump told them they would never need to vote again after this election.

      A bunch of them probably stopped listening after they heard what they want to hear and didn’t hear the part after “again”

    • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      From my experience in my very red state, there’s a high degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to those things. A family friend who’s very religious is secretly undergoing IVF even though the church banned it’s use because they want a child more than the threat of excommunication. Supposedly they’ll be forgiven for going against the church since they’re “fundamentally good” people.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Anecdotal, but there was considerable dissatisfaction and exhaustion with Trump amongst the religious in my hometown back in 2020. Most of them still supported and voted for him, but that any peeled off was novel. Not that they’d ever vote Dem, but simply not voting GOP in a presidential election was a big deal. It’s not inconceivable that the number has increased since.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Perhaps one or two could even be convinced to support the party that advocates for charity, kindness and goodwill to the poor. Responsible stewardship of gods creation. Openness to forgiveness and redemption for criminals. Treating your neighbors well. Just generally doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even when you do not fully understand them.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not enough to not to vote. It’s critical the we vote AGAINST any and all of these extremists. That’s the only way to begin bringing any sanity to our political dialogue.

    • Countess425@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      We live in a two party system. Not voting for your guy is essentially a vote for the other guy. Especially when elections are this close.

      • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s the most common misconception. Not voting for your guy does NOT mean a vote for other guy.

        Here is an example:

        Let’s say you don’t want candidate B to win but you chose to not vote against B and just sit at home or write in your dog’s name instead.

        Candidate A: gets 1000 votes

        Candidate B: gets 1002 votes

        100 people like you didn’t vote or wrote their dog’s name on ballot.

        B wins!

        This is what I meant by “actively voting against” vs just not voting.

        • Countess425@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.

            When I don’t vote in the upcoming US elections, my lack of a vote will not become one vote for either candidate. I will cast no votes, and the fact of my existence will not be measured on any ballot or counting system.

            By not voting for the candidate you prefer, the candidate you prefer gets one fewer votes. That’s it.

            • Countess425@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              That is accurate in a theoretical bubble, but in practice, in a two party system, in an incredibly close race, it’s simply not true.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          So not voting for your guy (candidate A) lead to the other guy (candidate B) winning. Seems like you agree with the premise that in our 2 party system, not voting for the candidate you want directly helps the candidate you don’t want.

  • DragonTail@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You get handed a bag of snakes, all are lethal, and they demand you pick one. I just have to pass on the snake bite. We are slaves to them, and this is an illusion of the freedom of choice, nothing more.

    • Draghetta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s not how it is though, is it. By not voting you are not exempting yourself from political life, you just choose not to matter.

      You are not passing on the snake bite. You are letting others choose the snake for you.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        …you just choose not to matter.

        Yes, this is the best way to live. Pretending to matter is what creates all the bullshit around us.

        • Draghetta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Sure, man. Be uninterested in politics if you like, but don’t think for a second that this will make politics uninterested in you.

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m a queer disabled immigrant. I know that humans generally hate me. If you wait long enough, though, humans will destroy themselves.

    • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      A Republican rep from Indian wants mixed race marriage to be a state matter. I am white, my partner is Mexican. If he gets what he wants, our relationship will be a crime in at least his state.

      There are no Democrats openly advocating for my marriage to be a crime.

      It seems not all of those snakes aim to kill me.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        People who cannot detect a meaningful difference between the “snakes” in the bag are outrageously privileged.

      • Banshee@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yep. Exactly this. I’m white and my wife is black. We live in one of the states where our relationship was a crime just 55 years ago.

        Her grandfather has stories about what happened to people who crossed the race barrier (of course the law only punished minorities for it, not the white partner). We’re not far removed from those horrors and lunatics are already trying to drag us back.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Muh both sides bad. All available snakes are venomous. Therefore instead of choosing the least venomous (possibly survivable) snake, instead wait for the most venomous snake to slither up your own colon so you can look it in the eyes.