Bah. I misread your post so I'll be honest and hold my hand up to that mistake even though I know I'm really going to regret it at some point. I had the impression you were disagreeing initially (Probably stemming from the post in the other thread) but rereading your post ITT it's clear that there is no misunderstanding in it. So, moving on....

I don't think he makes a big deal about it although he has explicitly said he would defend Christianity, it's more that he's an alpha male, 'take no crap' type and that has a broad appeal that overrides the fact that he doesn't necessarily adhere to Christian ideals. I would imagine that the promise to ban Muslims resonates strongly with Christians who share the belief that Christianity is 'under attack'. It's not the only reason evangelicals vote for him but I think it's an underrated reason. In any case, it's not my theory, I first read about it in the Washington Post some time ago.

Source

Quote mining Trump is easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8

Do you think "we're going to protect Christianity" is in the top list of major trump themes? Do you think it is in the top ten list of other candidates? As in, are you doing more than quote mining a single example of something trump said? Because yes that line is very standard, but this is key, much LESS a dominant trump theme than other traditional evangelical favoured candidates.

And if so, how do you square the circle given that regularly practicing Christians seem to prefer Cruz - a more classic pro religion candidate - than non practicing Christians? You claim we are undervaluing this factor but I suggest you are overvaluing it. It surely isn't nonexistent. But on the various metrics that trump appeals, there are many very much non religious ones, and he is sort of uniquely weak on religious issues.

i don't quite know what to make of this. What exactly are you implying here? Am I wrong to read it as incredibly passive aggressive?

In the context, it seemed to me that you were supporting MB's narrative that this is a particularly religious thing. But if you were not using "they" to refer specifically to religious people, that's fine with me.

Your guys list left out a big one anyway....A long time feeling of betrayal by the Republican party. I guess establishment kind of goes with that. But its the Republican establishment that they feel betrayed by.

Oh and anti PC is a big one too.

Got ya covered bro

Yes you are, read it instead as somewhat reluctant to admit to error, call it the 'Pareidolia effect' maybe. Some people have never stopped delighting in reminding me of that.

Honestly I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about anymore. There are more Christians who would not vote for Trump than would, about 66% the last time I saw a stat. And some of the 34% who would vote him might be doing it for reasons unrelated to religion. There are no doubt more Trump voters who aren't evangelicals and are voting for all the reasons you listed, and more. But the number of people voting for him has been boosted by the evangelicals who see him as a someone who will defend Christianity, even he's a lousy Christian himself. I think this demographic/effect is being underestimated. I've never been saying anything more than that.

Whoops.

Do think it goes deeper then just saying the establishment though. Its a long time feeling for some that liberalism is wining and the republican party have not done in a long time and is not doing anything to bring back the beaver. Bar Ron.

Your insistence on holding onto this narrative only show your level of willful defiance of reality. You have produced no evidence as to why you think it's being underestimated. You just keep saying that over and over again as if by repetition you might somehow make it reality. That's just not how things work!

This might be an interesting way to think about this situation:

Suppose that Trump did NOT give the speech he gave to Liberty University. How much difference do you think there would be in Trump's support?

Let's be clear, you did say more than this:
But even ignoring that, from where I am looking, trump has amplified many OTHER issues and traits that the GOP base finds appealing but support for religious issues is relatively suppressed and at the very least doesn't prioritize religion much at all. Other candidates of the past have put religion and the key religious social issues as the very centre piece of their campaigns, but this is not remotely the case for trump. But things like the wall IS a centrepiece issue.

So why do you think we are undervaluing it? And why should be value it more?

Not that i agree with boosh (to make it clear) and i dont really know who is undervaluing so i wound not go there...

But i do think discounting religion as a motivational factor is not as easy as to point over there at the other motivations.

First people are not usually singularly motivated. Seconded and more importantly. A lot of things like like PC and the Establishment are sometimes a religious gripe in themselves. Even the alpha male stuff can go there sometimes.

TO be clear, I certainly am not discounting that religion is a massive motivating factor among the GOP base, generally one of the top main "threads" that forms the big tent, one that politician after politician courts and exploits. I don't even deny that trump ALSO benefits from appeals on these grounds and also does some stuff to explicitly court it. What my claim is that trump - among most GOP candidates - is almost uniquely weak on this front while dominating on other "threads" that have wide appeal and so this normally very powerful thread is to be appropriately discounted when it comes to him.

I can say the same about Ron Paul. Ron Paul's popularity, such as it was, was not principally something to do with his rleigious views, or even the belief that he would defend your religious views. Certainly it was his various libertarian views that were the main raison d'etre of his popularities. Does this entangle with religious views in various ways? Sure. But it is discounted in a way it isn't for a canadidate like huckabee or santorum who explicitly go for those exact threads.

I don't think anyone denies that religion factors into people's decisions. But if you're trying to understand why people are supporting Trump, and you want to say that religion is playing some relevant factor, it requires some sort of specific data.

As for the reasons people are voting for Trump, here are some things that are being said:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politi...-donald-trump/

Of these, none point particularly to religion or anything religious.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...voters/401408/

There are 30 statements. Only one refers to either "religion" or "Evangelicals":

So, in a very, very long article, you get a vague "protecting religious freedoms" and some statement about gay marriage (Trump's position on gay marriage is unclear to me).

And you can keep going on your own. Just google something like "Why people are voting for Trump" and start reading articles. The basic point is not to claim that it plays no role (I don't think Uke or I have done that), but rather that MB's claims that it's an undervalued motivator is not grounded in data.

In order to claim that religion *IS* a stronger motivator that what is being expressed, you'd have to argue that people are not accurately characterizing their reasons. And, of course, this is what MB does.

He might not say much about religion or school prayer or abortions. All the traditional stuff. But he for sure is not weak when it comes to some things some Christians want and want out of their religiosity. Islam go away being a big one. And like i said a lot of the other things he brings to the table where he is not weak like the PC stuff and overthrowing the establishment can intermix with religion.

But in general id agree he is pretty religiously weak and his appeal is not really a religious one. Its more like err were mad and not going to take it anymore. Though some of that is religious too....

Yes I did, and I would still say it because it's what I've been saying all along, that his success can't be explained only by the racists & wall building idiots, that he's acquired more voters than that from somewhere, and I think the difference is explained by the evangelicals I've been describing, and that the difference could be what swings it in his favour.

Did you visit the article I linked? Failing that, you could do some research, it's not my theory I've just been seeing it in the news. I wasn't expecting to have to defend this in depth and I think we've cleared up any misunderstandings of what the other is saying. Some conversations I'm happy to go on till everyone else has died of boredom, but I'm not that invested in this topic.

You should be more worried with Cruz then Trump anyway...

So do you still hold you're "mainly because" clause or don't you?

Why do you believe this? Also, you're hedging again with "could be" and trying to argue from the position that possibility = probability.

You have provided two links (one not in this thread):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...it-might-work/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ty-under-siege

Both revolve around a single incident. A single speech. I am unaware of Trump returning to that line of speaking. And I have provided plenty of evidence that this is not particularly what people are saying when it comes to their support of Trump. All of this gives the appearance of quote-mining. He gave one talk to a strictly Evangelical audience (Liberty University) and (to my knowledge) has not done anything like that since. I also don't think he's done the church circuit where he speaks to mega-church crowds or historically black churches or anything like that.

You *SAW* it *ONCE* in the news.

You're saying that you think you can throw out plainly false analyses and then just walk away when people push back on you. This is totally what people who are trying to avoid cognitive biases do...

What this really means is that you're not invested in changing your opinion when faced with challenges to it. On the one hand, you're not invested in this topic. On the other, you will staunchly refuse to change your opinion.

When the main menu shows that "Donald Trump Exposes the..." as the most popular topic in RGT, it's a new low in American politics.

JFC. You have been telling us we are undervaluing this. It isn't just some thing you saw on the news, it's something you are saying you agree with, that you think we are undervaluing this. But here is the problem: you have not yet actually typed out a single argument for why you think this. You have not yet actually typed out why my responses are wrong. You simply repeat your assertion over again. And you argue why you don't need to say any more about it.

And don't play that passive aggressive "die of boredom" and "defend this in depth" game. You haven't started! You haven't defended your position at all! Dieing of boredom from in depth defences are a LONG way off.

Your earlier assertions that his appeal is MAINLY due to religion, that his religious appeal is explains more than his anti-Mexican stuff seem on their face wrong. So convince us we are wrong!

Nope, and there was me thinking we'd cleared up the misunderstandings. Since you don't like me repeating myself, I'll let you read back.

Here ya go, knock yourself out. I would have linked more but I only get three free articles.

Evangelical Christians are so sick of losing that they’re voting for Trump
How Donald Trump dominated Nevada, in one word: Anger
Evangelical Christians should not vote for Donald Trump


There was one called something like 'Trump's support among evangelicals is exaggerated and misunderstood' but I couldn't see that one, might be a good one for you to read.

This makes sense to me but that's all I've got. If you don't agree, take it up with the WP.

Don't you ever get bored of typing 'passive aggressive'?

Since I don't have anything to add, I'm finished now. Please don't wear out your CapsLock key on your next reply.

This reminds me so much of another poster who kept saying that something was written "up there" and nobody could ever find it. We have explicit evidence of you saying

And we do not have any available information to suggest that you reject that position.

It's not even clear what you're arguing any more. None of this really explains the quote that you gave, nor does it point to anything in particular about things that support the quote you gave that is under question, or your other statements that you have given about the underestimating of the effect.

What about this "makes sense"? What is the statement that "makes sense"?

LOL -- Classic. I would be surprised if he actually stays away from this thread.