In a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken from April 22-25, 59% of white evangelicals say they will “definitely” vote for President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Another 23% say they will consider voting for him. Only 15% say they definitely will not vote for him.
Despite widespread coverage of the Mueller report, evangelical voters seem fixed on Trump. Perhaps white evangelicals don’t believe there is much to worry about. In the same poll, 57% of evangelicals said they don’t think Russian interference will be a threat to the 2020 election. Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) didn’t think the interference had an impact on the 2016 election. Compared to other groups, evangelicals led the way in skepticism about the influence of Russian meddling.
Evangelicals are with Trump on immigration as well. They are the leading group to say his immigration policies make them more likely to support him in the next election. Sixty-three percent believe Trump’s immigration policies are good compared to 16% who oppose them. Among all voters the breakdown is 34% who support Trump due to his immigration policies versus 42% who oppose him for that reason.
I don’t think it goes too far to say that white evangelicals as a group see the world about like Donald Trump. This is a frightening and sobering thought.
World Magazine has some interesting and helpful data regarding Trump and his supporters. World states “Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong.” World reports that they ran a survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 which showed almost zero initial support for Trump. It wasn’t until it was a face-off between Trump & Hillary Clinton that Trump picked up broad support from church-going evangelicals and the reason, according to World, was the Supreme Court.
According to research found in Timothy Carney’s books (as reported by World) “Alienated America” (Harper 2019) Trump’s support while seeking the Republican nomination came from “white evangelicals who do not go to church.” Carney’s research shows that “two out of 3 of most frequent church attenders voted against Trump, but nearly 2 out of 3 of those who call themselves evangelicals but never go to church (a contradiction in terms) voted for him.”
His point of broad brush identification of a “white evangelical” is an important observation. It is important to differentiate with those who self identify as evangelical and those who are truly “practicing” evangelicals. Carney points out that Trump did the worst in highly churched Sioux County, Iowa for example, as compared to other counties in Iowa.
The article in World goes on to point out that Trump’s strongest support came from those “unlikely to be in church but highly likely to say religion was important to them.”
By the way, early on World took a significant amount of heat because they went on record to discourage voting for Trump. You can check out the rest of the article here: https://world.wng.org/2019/04/unchurched_election
I have some friends who are pretty staunch Trump fans. However, I have many more (who would be classified as evangelical regular church attenders) who take issue with a good bit of what Trump says and does, yet they feel they chose the least of the evils when it came down to Hillary or Trump. I think it is unfair and going too far to say “that white evangelicals as a group see the world about like Donald Trump.” At least there needs to be a clarification of the definition of “white evangelical” and I think the data shows that true evangelicals (those who go to church regularly) do not blindly buy into Trump and his agenda.
As far as Russian interference playing a part in the close election, I think the fake Steele Dossier played a significant part in the elections as well which has been funded by those who sought to influence the election. So perhaps it wouldn’t have been as close had it not been that. It will be interesting to see what the results of AG’s research into how the Steele’s dossier was funded and who pushed it.
Thanks for listening / reading
This is OT, but Rachel Held Evans, 37, has died from an infection.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/04/rachel-held-evans-progressive-christian-author-who-challenged-evangelicals-dies/?utm_term=.94b180546fb0
Actually, this post of hers is spot on: https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/literalist-gluttony
Amazingly spot on! If anyone can get the true meaning of love and Christian love, Rachel got it, I think. Although not a Christian, I like and aspire to the values she wrote about. I believe her soul will live on in a great many people, but she will be missed.
I agree I was very sad to her of her death.
This one is also very pertinent:
https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/life-after-evangelicalism
God used her to bless and encourage many who have been hurt by the church and/or who found that the old fundamentalist ways of approaching the faith no longer worked. May God comfort her young family, and bring others alongside to fill the void for those who will deeply miss her compassionate and prophetic voice.
I wish voices like hers weren’t so rare.
So do I. The world would be more loving and compassionate for all living creatures.
Maybe it is Donald’s hair. Don’t a significant number of fundamentalist preacher fellows have have like that?
I was relieved when it turned out not to be a dead animal.
It is vital for us all to be aware that I never said that Donald’s hair wasn’t a pelt of some sort- I only opined that lots of fundamentalist preachers have similar “hair”.
I always wish these surveys would drill down more. Maybe ask the set of white evangelicals to choose in a hypothetical primary match up between Trump and a slate of other GOP names. Off the top of my head, could ask about Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Bill Weld, Larry Hogan, Evan McMullin, Sasse, Pence, Scott Walker and Nikki Haley. When framing the question, precede each person’s name with their title, “Ben Sasse, Republican Senator from Nebraska”, since some of those names won’t have wide recognition.
Also throw in a hypo matchup against Romney.
Well it does mean that around 41% of white evangelicals are at least doing a little thinking … That’s more than the rhetoric might lead one to believe.
The approval rating among catholics appears to be around 36%, although among white catholics it is more like 45%.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/03/19/catholic-support-for-trump-declines-according-to-latest-poll/
African-American protestants come in a very creditable 12%! Probably not much higher than the level of support in the general population …
Evangelicals in summary:
Trump is LORD! Take His Mark!
So White Evangelicals saved us from Hillary Clinton, saved the Republic and the Constitution and is the last line of defense. Interesting.
You might want to include ^sarcastrophes^ or /s endtag.
Well, they do worship the Golden Goat, so of course they will vote for him.
Pretty large percentage of main liners also say they will vote for Trump. That’s very disappointing.
I voted for Trump because he promised to help lower class workers who have been hammered into oblivion by globalization. If it had been Bernie versus Bush I would’ve voted for Bernie because he was the only other one addressing the issue.
Not everyone can code.
And you believed him?
And you believed him?
What a sad statement. The only saving grace for Christianity is that not all Christians are Evangelicals.
You all seem to think that it is about immigration and the Russians, but it appears to me that it more has to do with protecting religious liberties, where Evangelical Christians are being constantly targeted. It is sad that our society is forcing Evangelical Christians in the closet.
Evangelical Christians wield the biggest influence club in the country. When they use it to help elect a man as antithetical to any concept of Christlikeness as Trump, they do damage to us all – most certainly including the Church itself. When you claim that Christians in this country are being persecuted, there are plenty of genuinely persecuted Christians (and others) throughout the world who probably want to throw up. Losing a tiny bit of hegemony is not persecution. And selling your soul to get that back is not following Jesus.
I think that Romans 2:12-16 can justify for Evangelical Christians to vote for Trump.
I’ve seen some “creative” use of Scripture in my time, but I would love to hear what tortured interpretation of the text could possibly elicit that thought from Paul. Or are you just pulling my leg now?
That verse talks about people who don’t have the law but do things that are according to the law, so it means they have the law in their hearts, and because of this, God will take that into consideration on judgment day. To me, Trump, is like those people. But, does this verse mean something else to you?
Proper exegesis doesn’t depend on what the text “means to me,” but what the writer was saying. The view you are taking Paul expressly contradicts in 3:23. The best summary I have found is from Douglas J. Moo:
“. . . Paul agreed with the Jewish belief that justification could, in theory, be secured through works. Where Paul disagreed with Judaism was in his belief that the power of sin prevents any person, even the Jew who depends on his or her covenant status, from actually achieving justification in that manner. While, therefore, one could be justified by doing the law in theory, in practice it is impossible . . .”
(Moo, p. 155 “The Epistle to the Romans”) https://bit.ly/2IPSI0Q
Even if your view were correct, I can’t see how it in any way justifies an evangelical vote for Trump. He still carries with him the antithesis of Christlikeness, and even in secular terms is a very immoral man, full of self and the most base failures of character. If Paul can be made to justify support of such a man, then Christian Scripture truly is meaningless tripe that can be made to say anything. Then again, that seems to be where the Evangelicals are going these days.
What you are doing with the text, btw, is called eisegesis.
Maybe, it’s also about Mike Pence, who is an Evangelical Christian, and since we are voting for both of them, he can become president if Trump resigns. You never know.
You vote for a man like Trump in hopes that he will resign and give you the man you want? What kind of reasoning is that?
I don’t know what to expect, but it could be a possibility. It think that both the president and VP are doing are a fantastic job as a team.
Oy vey.
You crack me up! Well done
Oy vey.
Sure, they are doing a fantastic job of caging children. It seems that is the evangelical position nowadays.
No, they are investigating illegal border crossers who have started using children as tools for various criminal activities. The Bible clearly prohibits that and tells us to respect authorities who do good by punishing the evil.
Seeking asylum is explicitly legal per US and international law. They are by definition not illegal border crossers.
It’s really hard to tell who is and who isn’t. This is why ICE has certain regulations to abide by. The rule of the law says that anybody who crosses border from Mexico without authorization must be detained at first and investigated. Those who can prove to be a political refugees should enter, those who can’t, must be denied entry or get lawful permit/visa to enter.
Again, seeking asylum is always legal. Even if later found not granted asylum. Seeking it is a protected right both in US and international law.
I’m not sure why you are restricting it to “political refugees.”
“…the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.”
Officially, they would all be called refugees seeking political asylum.
Well, yes, if they were seeking asylum from political persecution. You are jumbling these terms around. I believe technically, anyone seeking to enter the US to seek asylum is a refugee. If you are already here and do not wish to be forced to another place due to fear of any sort of persecution, you are seeking political asylum. However, that’s not really how the terms are commonly used anymore. Since 1967, US law on this has drawn from article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as adopted by the UN. We abide by international law on this, or we did.
I actually was at a lecture Sunday that had a portion about this specifically. A refugee is a distinct class from an asylum seeker, and they do not follow the same rules. A refugee can seek asylum, but they do not necessarily have to. Refugees can be kept out of a country while their case is considered, but asylum seekers must be in the nation they are seeking asylum from.
The central Americans coming in caravans are asylum seekers, not refugees and its a major legal distinction.
Thanks for the clarification.
“but asylum seekers must be in the nation they are seeking asylum from”
*but asylum seekers seeking asylum to the US can apply for protection from inside the country or at a port of entry.
I thought this wording might make it more clear.
If you are not on the US soil, you are refugee, once your feet reach it, you have the right to seek asylum. Yet, regardless, our federal law allows you to be detained.
I mean sure, if you are going to go with the non-legal definitions of refugee and asylum seeker I guess.
Not keeping track of the children and causing emotional harm to them is not what the law was meant for. Putting a 2 year old in front of a judge is not what the law was intended for.
I’m not denying abuses of ICE, but it wasn’t caused by Trump, it existed during his predecessors, too.
While family separations did occur in previous administrations, it was greatly exacerbated by Trump and his “zero-tolerance” policy. Further, it has never been “weaponized” in the way Trump used it, i.e. using the threat of tearing a family apart as a way to stop immigrants from coming.
In a poll last year of white evangelicals, 3% of Trump voters identified “running mate” as the reason they chose Trump.
Oh, and “immigration” was HIGHER than so-called “religious liberty”. Oh, and HIGHER than his allegations of being pro-life (the reason the vast majority of them CLAIMED they were voting for him, but apparently got honest enough to be truthful about once their king showed them how much power they have).
People don’t always disclose their reasons why they vote for a particular candidate. It’s quite possible that these polls can change significantly once we get a confirmed Democratic nominee. We’ll see.
I’m sure they will change, as we’ll be back to them telling us that we have to vote for Trump because of the unborn, when they revealed in 2018 that they really don’t care about them.
I suppose it’s possible that they do care about the unborn. In which case, it’s only once the unborn are born and living among us in poverty, ignorance and sickness that they don’t care.
While I agree with the latter, I’m no longer even slightly convinced of the former. Leading up to the election, every Trump-voting white evangelical to whom I was exposed in any way was screaming “abortion” and literally nothing else. When they were polled in 2018, abortion issues was near the bottom of the primary reason that they voted for him.
Here’s a CT article on the poll: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/october/why-evangelicals-trump-vote-81-percent-2016-election.html
Most of it is behind the paywall, but if you’re a subscriber, have at it. Note that the title is very misleading. It doesn’t debunk anything — it confirms, loudly.
How the heck can CT survive behind a paywall?
Not a subscriber, but thanx much for the link. Thoughtful of you, even if I can’t access the article. C’est la vie.
It was open when it first dropped. I was actually going back to get exact figures when I saw the paywall now.
So including a complicit, basically powerless hypocrite Jesus-washes it all? Interesting.
“If Paul can be made to justify support of such a man, then Christian Scripture truly is meaningless tripe that can be made to say anything. ”
Ding ding ding we have a winner!
For people we’re “forcing in the closet, ” Evangelical Christians are highly visible, and very loud. Where is this closet of which you speak? The only religious liberty these folks seem to want to protect is the one that lets them try to force their beliefs on everybody else, through legislation if possible. They seem to want political power far more than the freedom to practice Christianity. When have they ever been deprived of that?
There are a lot of examples, for example, the lawsuit Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where a baker was forced by a state to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. It looks like society is forcing anti-biblical beliefs upon Evangelical Christians.
It was his choice to enter the public marketplace and offer a product.
A real Herbert 🙂
We reach, Brother! We reach!
If you offer a product for sale, you have to be willing to sell it to everybody eligible to buy it. If you’re not willing to do that, you need to go into another line of work.
You seriously label this “persecution?” And for the umpteenth time, no one was being forced to bake anything. They simply had to offer goods and services equally. They didn’t have to agree with the lives of the couple, any more than they had to agree with divorce and remarriage, or sex before marriage, or interracial marriage, or mixed faith marriage, etc.
The baker was engaged in artistic expressive conduct as part of his business, that’s why I think it’s different with provision of general good and services. According to court’s records, several members of the Civil Rights Commission have attacked the baker for his biblical beliefs, that’s why the Supreme Court considered it a religious persecution and ruled in his favor. It should noted that the author for the majority was Anthony Kennedy.
You are partly correct. Artistic expression was the defense strategy used, yes. However, the court’s ruling was narrow, and centered on possible misconduct by the commission in this instance. In that respect, I might even agree. This does not mean that another case would not have a different ruling, based solely on the Public Accommodation discrimination issue.
Try taking this story of “persecution” to Myanmar. Christians are abducted and killed there for their faith. Tell them about how your bakery business had to sell a cake to a gay couple – oh the horrors the Church must endure here!
Persecution for your faith by definition means causing any inconvenience, it’s not just baking cakes for same-sex weddings, but also about being told by teachers you can’t read the bible during your off time in public schools, it’s also about being fired from a job by refusing to attend ‘diversity training’, etc. The question is, how long do we have to wait until similar things will be allowed to happen to Christians like they happen in Myanmar? By the way, a Catholic group TFP has experienced physical attacks by gays and gay rights activists whenever they were marching with signs reflecting the Roman Catholic Church’s position on abortion and homosexual relations. Trump and Pence are pleading to take this issue very seriously.
…being told by teachers you can’t read the bible during your off time in public schools…
…being fired from a job by refusing to attend ‘diversity training’…
Citations please. I’ll wait but wont hold my breath.
Just do a youtube search ‘reading the bible in public school’ or ‘diversity training and christians’ and I’m sure you’ll find plenty of stories.
I assume you are talking about the story from five years ago about a lone teacher telling a student he could not read his bible during free time in class. If so it is a poor example of what you colored as some sort of systemic attempt at ‘persecuting’ Christians.
It’s a poor example because, once you get past all the Fox News and Liberty Institute hyperventilation, the evidence pointed to systemic protections allowing students to read the bible during free time. The brouhaha lasted maybe a week and ended with an apology from the School District to the student.
So try again; because by the standard you’ve just set I can tell you that Christians are trying to have gays rounded up an put in concentration camps. Just do a youtube search for ’round up gays’.
Sam… keep this line of reasoning up, keep this blatant hypocrisy going, keep voting in the most reprobate characters you can find (because they “say” they’re going to back you), keep this whiny but fraudulent victim narrative going and yeah… you probably will reap what you sow and it might be real persecution… ie this kind of behavior by your co-religionists is inviting, nay begging for persecution (ie revenge from unbelievers). But it won’t be because you were following or acting like Jesus; it will be because God allows the evil seeds you’ve sown, to come back on you… In fact the gay activists point you bring up is a great example- do some historical research and you’ll find that it was conservatives, white evangelicals, etc who have largely brought the current hostility upon themselves. Sorry sam80, not real persecution when most of it was brought upon us by talking and acting in ways that Jesus wouldn’t and by (especially public figures, ministers, politicians etc) just being unethical, dishonest jerks in most of these complicated situations.
And btw, I’m a christian and pretty much protestant/evangelical in many ways and I don’t look forward to what you guys are going to bring down on all of us… but it won’t surprise me and I won’t fight it too much because most of it will be well-deserved. My only prayer is that it hits the holier-than-thou, shameless worshippers of trumpism and like isms the hardest somehow… They have so mislead the Church over these last 40-30yrs of cultural warfare (of their making).
I don’t worship trumpism, I worship God and follow His Word. I’ve already explained why people are voting their conscience and I even pointed out the virtues of the current administration and I don’t think we can accomplish anything by continuing to belabor the point.
Diversity training, seriously? The only purpose of DT is to help people of different backgrounds and views to get along well in a group or organization. It asks one to empathize and basically, practice the golden rule. You can still believe what you want and be an SOB everywhere else if you like, but workplaces have an obligation and a right to make the work environment hospitable. Now, if you find being expected to get along with others you work with in itself “inhospitable,” then you are probably not going to have much joy. I dare say the jump from diversity training to being kidnapped, tortured and killed is a long one indeed.
You mentioned TFP (Tradition, Family and Property). No one should be physically attacked for their beliefs, but I would need some pretty solid evidence of what happened, or that it did happen. This group has a bizarre history and doesn’t even enjoy support from the leaders of the RC, of which they are a part. I think they were labeled a cult or cult-like in the 80s, and they appear to have ginned up some sort of “satanist cult” opposition that is reminiscent of the Satanic Panic of the 90s. IOW, they are one weird group and, while that doesn’t mean they should be physically attacked, they are an extreme and I would be suspicious of information coming from them.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/
I’m sorry, but any of us may be “inconvenienced” at some point to preserve the rights of the next person, or the general welfare itself. There is a give and take in any society. What truly disappoints anyone who has respect for the faith is that Christians have become so petty. One would have expected them to be the most generous in this space.
… but it appears to me that it more has to do with protecting religious liberties…”
So let me be sure I have this right.
You’re saying Evangelical Christians voted for an individual who embodies nearly every kind of wickedness. He is a notorious serial adulterer; full of envy, strife, deceit and malice; a gossip and slanderer whose insolence, arrogance, and boastfulness are seen every day in 280 characters.
You’re saying they voted for this man to preserve their ‘religions freedom’; which they ostensibly want so they can meet their creator with the clear conscience of not having baked a cake for a same-sex couple?
“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.’ ~ Some strange radical refugee named Jesus Christ.
The same can be said about Obama. People tend to vote for a president because they think he can do a good job, without necessarily being a good person. Trump and Pence, who is an Evangelical Christian, together, do a better job than Obama and Biden in terms of domestic and foreign policies, and I think that’s sufficient enough to vote for them and commitment to religious liberties is another plus.
As for Jesus, he specifically said that we are all bad, only God is good. He also saw that he could do good works through Matthew, who cheated people on taxes, through Mary who was a prostitute, and through a Roman general who was a pedophile. Apparently, he can do good works through Trump, who is everything you have described.
You also might reread Romans 2:12-16, which is about people who don’t have the law but do good things that are according to the law, and how God is going to be pleased with that.
As we discussed before, that’s not what it says. Find one reputable biblical scholar who interprets this text that way.
Doesn’t it say that nonbelievers can also do what is good in God’s eyes?
You are just repeating what you think it says, which is irrelevant if you are one who puts stock in the integrity of scripture. You are the one using the text to support your position, it is your job to support it.
I believe it says so, but it appeared like you’re doubting it, so I was raising a question, what else could it possibly mean? To me, it’s obvious, though.
I’ve already given you a commentary from a respected biblical scholar on the issue. Grab one from the shelf or do a search and see what you find. What seems obvious to you is not correct. This is how people end up using scripture for their own ends.
Your argument is so detached from reality it’s next to impossible to engage with.
How exactly was Obama not a ‘good person’? Was it his Christian faith? The fidelity he showed to his one (and only) wife? His prosaic social/married life? (i.e. no illegal payments to porn stars to conceal extramarital affairs) His reaching out to the marginalized? His introspection on American ideals?
As to your second paragraph, yikes! Not only did Matthew repent but in his following of Christ, brought others to repentance. There is no definitive evidence the Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, (not that it would be germane to this topic even if she was). I have no idea what Roman General you refer to…
Your exegesis is sorely lacking. But then again; your argument is so detached from reality it’s next to impossible to engage with.
Let’s see, Obama kept sending troops overseas in large numbers like Bush did, while Trump has brought almost all of them home. He also continued pressing against Russia thus creating a hostile environment in the world while Trump dedicated his term on how to improve relationship between America and Russia for the sake of world’s peace. It’s too bad that many people in Congress are standing in the way. I got family in Russia, so I blame Obama administration for all this anti-Russian hysteria in the media. It’s a typical McCarthyism. Obama also created this useless healthcare law that eventually got truncated by the Supreme Court. Just like people are saying that Trump is deceitful and cheated on his wife, there are people who are saying that Obama covered up what happened in Bengazi and that he also cheated on his wife but… with men…. I am not saying that I believe either of those things but I simply acknowledge how the spin can go on. The point is that people like you who are judging those who vote for Trump are being hypocritical when you praise Obama.
According to the Bible, every person is a sinner who needs Jesus, that’s why Jesus said that only God is good. I was also referring to a Roman centurion and his teenage boy concubine.
You’re stunningly wrong in everything you write. A regular 5 O’Clock Charlie on truth and facts.
He [Obama] also continued pressing against Russia thus creating a hostile environment in the world while Trump dedicated his term on how to improve relationship between America and Russia for the sake of world’s peace.
This is laugh out loud hilarious. Trump’s dedication to world peace and Russia would have nothing to do with a possible building in Moscow, would it? Or winning the 2016 election?
Trump’s dedication to world peace has led him to veto a Congressional bill that would stop the US from supplying arms and advice to the Saudis in Yemen. He is supplying nuclear material to the Saudis in secrecy – including for nuclear weapons that could affect Iran and Israel.
Trump has threatened to remove US troops from S. Korea, which would make N. Korea very happy as it would like to see Korea united under Kim Jong-Un. He has refused to help Ukraine break away from the corruption of Russia. Dismissal of NATO ranks high in his list of wrongs along with his complete misunderstanding of how funding for NATO works.
There’s more, but you no doubt see all these as good things because you’re a regular fountain of misinterpretation and misinformation.
I think you got it backwards on North Korea, Trump together with Putin and Xi Jinping, president of China has put pressure on Kim Jong-un to stop his nuclear testing program by arguing how it threatens the world’s security, and Kim has complied with most of it. Subsequently, Trump stated if North Korea would stop posing a threat to the world, it would make sense to reduce the number of US troops stationed in South Korea. Overall, Trump has addressed an issue which was posing a serious threat to the world, the North Korea, something that Obama and Bush have been overlooking, by making us believe that the real threat was in Syria and Iraq. Kudos to him for that! The Ukraine’s deal shows that Trump considers it is more important for Europe than for the United States, so it’s not a priority for him to get involved over there. His behavior also shows that he does not see a necessity for having NATO anymore and might even render it useless, and so do I.
You really are living in a bizarre fantasy.
Generally if you advertise your services to the public you can’t discriminate, as that amounts to a lie.
Custom arranged artistic expression business is different from general public service business.
WWJH?
Jesus saw he could do good work through different kinds of people who haven’t been living good lives, at all.
Scraping the bottom of the theological excuse barrel there.
H???
HATE.
Really? how are EVANGELICAL christians (as opposed to other christians) being “constantly targeted”?
I already talked about it numerous times. It seems to me like you are in denial.
I’m part of that 15% who will not vote for him. Didn’t the first time either. Did they ask Christian who don’t identify as evangelicals?
Yes, click through the links and you can look at the mainline and Catholic numbers as well.
Do you think Trump won the 2016 election because of Russian interference? What is your posture on illegal immigration?
Given how close the election was and given the nature of the disinformation campaigns by the Russians, I think it is likely. I don’t think it can be proven. However, with Manafort giving Kilimnik polling data, I don’t see how it can be denied that the Russians had the intel to focus their efforts.
I am a Reaganite on immigration. But whatever my stance on specific points, I don’t favor family separation, I don’t favor lying about asylum seekers being an invasion, or considering the country to be “full.”
If anthropogenic global warming can be proven then so can Russian election interference. Sample the people who saw the Russian ads and interview them to see if they changed their votes because of it. Basically do the same thing that’s done to investigate false advertising claims.
Actually, you would also need to sample the people who DIDN’T vote. since that was also a big effect of the mis-information campaign, to drive a way many people who voted for Obama to not bother to go to the polls.
further, russia interfered by doing more than just “putting out ads”. they timed the release of (mis) information damaging to Hillary to squash bad news about Trump and get it out of the news cycle faster.
He won because he paid off Stormy and Karen although I think that evangelicals would’ve stayed with him as they are now.
This tells us a lot about their true agenda. Not much to do with Jesus.
Yes, only white republican Jesus matters to them.