Religious tradition and race

Among voters in the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (CES), those who attend religious services a few times a year or never voted more Democratic than those who attend weekly or more, the gap that Chapter 3.8, The god gap in America measures. Two groups that attend often sit at opposite ends of the vote. White born-again Protestants gave the Democratic candidate 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 of their two-party presidential vote and Black Protestants gave 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, while 58%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 the first group and 47%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 the second attend weekly or more, against 27%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. These are group averages, and members of each group differ in how they vote and how often they attend. The single gap by attendance pools groups like these.

The CES asks no denomination question, so white Protestants are split by whether they call themselves born-again or evangelical Christians. Those who do are white born-again Protestants here, 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 white means non-Hispanic white. The born-again rule stands in for denomination. RELTRAD, the scheme that sorts Protestants into evangelical, mainline and Black Protestant traditions [1], needs the denomination a person names, which the CES does not record. The 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.

Tradition and race order the vote and attendance does not

Figure 1 orders every group the CES can define by its Democratic share of the 2024 vote. Black Protestants have the highest share in the figure and white born-again Protestants the lowest. The other four of the six largest groups sit between them, from white Catholics through white Protestants who are not born-again and Hispanic Catholics to the unaffiliated. Party identification gives the same order, and so, for the largest groups, does the vote pooled over the five elections from 2008 to 2024 (the buttons under the figure).

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

Presidential vote, 2024Presidential vote, 2008 to 2024Party identification, 2024

• 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

View	Group	Democratic share (%)	Lower	Upper	Interval width (points)	Respondents	Group share of the sample (%)
vote2024	Black Protestants	83.1	80.3	86.0	5.7	1,889	4.7
vote2024	Black Catholics	76.0	67.2	84.8	17.7	260	0.6
vote2024	Buddhist or Hindu	71.6	64.8	78.5	13.7	431	1.1
vote2024	Unaffiliated	70.9	69.7	72.2	2.4	14,311	31.0
vote2024	Jewish	68.0	64.0	72.1	8.1	1,219	2.7
vote2024	Muslim	65.9	52.7	79.0	26.3	139	0.5
vote2024	Hispanic Catholics	57.0	52.5	61.5	9.1	1,351	4.0
vote2024	Asian or other-race Catholics	45.4	37.0	53.7	16.7	388	1.2
vote2024	Another religion or something else	43.9	40.8	46.9	6.2	3,082	7.7
vote2024	White Protestants who are not born-again	43.0	41.0	45.0	4.0	4,979	9.9
vote2024	White Catholics	37.1	35.4	38.9	3.5	5,974	12.7
vote2024	Hispanic Protestants	33.1	27.3	38.9	11.7	646	2.1
vote2024	Mormon	31.1	24.8	37.4	12.5	438	1.1
vote2024	Orthodox Christian	30.9	19.7	42.0	22.3	197	0.5
vote2024	Asian or other-race Protestants	30.4	25.0	35.9	10.9	699	2.1
vote2024	White born-again Protestants	14.5	13.2	15.7	2.5	5,987	18.1
votepool	Black Protestants	91.4	90.4	92.3	1.8	8,852	5.0
votepool	Black Catholics	88.4	85.5	91.3	5.8	1,105	0.6
votepool	Muslim	81.4	76.7	86.2	9.5	600	0.4
votepool	Buddhist or Hindu	78.9	76.2	81.6	5.4	1,827	0.9
votepool	Unaffiliated	72.2	71.6	72.8	1.1	53,647	26.8
votepool	Jewish	69.8	68.1	71.4	3.3	5,325	2.4
votepool	Hispanic Catholics	67.0	65.1	68.8	3.8	6,487	3.8
votepool	Another religion or something else	55.4	54.2	56.7	2.5	13,375	8.5
votepool	Asian or other-race Catholics	49.6	46.0	53.1	7.1	1,706	0.9
votepool	White Protestants who are not born-again	46.4	45.6	47.2	1.6	25,359	12.0
votepool	Hispanic Protestants	42.9	40.0	45.9	5.9	2,923	1.6
votepool	Orthodox Christian	42.1	37.4	46.9	9.5	879	0.5
votepool	White Catholics	41.4	40.6	42.1	1.5	29,810	14.8
votepool	Asian or other-race Protestants	34.8	32.4	37.3	4.9	3,172	1.7
votepool	Mormon	24.5	22.2	26.7	4.5	2,527	1.5
votepool	White born-again Protestants	18.1	17.6	18.7	1.1	30,356	18.4
party2024	Black Protestants	86.3	83.9	88.6	4.7	3,072	5.3
party2024	Black Catholics	80.7	73.3	88.1	14.9	427	0.8
party2024	Buddhist or Hindu	72.8	66.8	78.8	12.0	604	1.3
party2024	Unaffiliated	71.6	70.4	72.7	2.4	17,677	32.0
party2024	Jewish	68.9	64.8	73.0	8.2	1,353	2.5
party2024	Muslim	64.7	54.8	74.6	19.8	300	0.6
party2024	Hispanic Catholics	63.4	59.6	67.3	7.8	2,325	4.8
party2024	Asian or other-race Catholics	48.8	40.7	56.9	16.2	482	1.2
party2024	Another religion or something else	46.1	43.1	49.1	6.0	3,770	7.6
party2024	White Protestants who are not born-again	42.8	40.8	44.9	4.1	5,297	9.2
party2024	White Catholics	37.6	35.7	39.4	3.7	6,296	11.6
party2024	Hispanic Protestants	37.5	32.0	43.0	11.0	1,109	2.5
party2024	Orthodox Christian	37.3	25.4	49.1	23.7	257	0.6
party2024	Asian or other-race Protestants	34.0	28.2	39.7	11.5	825	1.9
party2024	Mormon	30.3	24.3	36.3	12.1	523	1.1
party2024	White born-again Protestants	13.7	12.5	15.0	2.5	6,484	16.8

Race separates voters inside each large Christian family. Hispanic Catholics voted 2019.9 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 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. more Democratic than white Catholics, and Hispanic Protestants voted above white born-again Protestants and below Black Protestants. Among white Protestants, those who are not born-again voted more Democratic than those who are.

Attendance does not order the groups. The groups with the highest Democratic shares include one with a high attendance rate, Black Protestants, and one with a low one, the unaffiliated. The data cannot say why. Accounts of the Black church describe an institution of community and political life as well as of worship [2], but the survey items here measure attendance, importance and identification and not what congregations do.

One opt-in panel, five elections, two attendance groups

The CES is an opt-in online panel. The sample here 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 respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or the Republican candidate in the five presidential elections from 2008 to 2024, and every share uses 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.. Frequent attenders go to religious services weekly or more, seldom attenders go a few times a year or never, and monthly attenders are in neither group. A gap is the Democratic share among seldom attenders minus the share among frequent attenders, so a positive gap means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic. The intervals are 95% confidence intervalsConfidence 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. that cover sampling error and not how respondents were recruited. In 2024 the CES put the Democratic share of the national two-party vote at 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, 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. Agreement at the national level does not show that a survey is accurate inside a tradition and race. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

Attendance relates to the vote differently in each group

Figure 2 splits the vote by attendance inside every group with enough respondents in both attendance cells. In 2024, seldom attenders 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 points 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. Pooled over the five elections, the Black Protestant gap is +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. Its interval lies below the intervals for white born-again Protestants, white Catholics, Hispanic Catholics and Hispanic Protestants, so Black Protestants who attend often and seldom voted within a few points of one another. White Catholics have a larger pooled gap than white born-again Protestants, and the two Hispanic intervals are wide enough to include both.

Figure 2

In 2024 the vote gap between seldom and frequent attenders was +9.5 points among white born-again Protestants, +0.8 among Black Protestants and −4.1 among white Protestants who are not born-again

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

Vote, 2008 to 2024Vote, 2024Vote, 2008Party identification, 2008 to 2024

• 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

View	Group	Frequent attenders (%)	Lower	Upper	Respondents	Seldom attenders (%)	Lower	Upper	Respondents	Seldom minus frequent (points)	Lower	Upper	Interval width (points)
votepool	Jewish	49.0	43.3	54.7	581	72.8	71.0	74.6	4,178	23.8	17.9	29.8	11.9
votepool	Unaffiliated	55.0	51.1	59.0	1,372	73.1	72.5	73.7	50,916	18.1	14.1	22.1	8.0
votepool	Mormon	19.7	17.3	22.1	1,830	37.2	31.2	43.2	545	17.5	11.1	23.9	12.8
votepool	Another religion or something else	44.6	42.4	46.8	3,889	61.4	59.8	62.9	8,245	16.8	14.1	19.5	5.4
votepool	Asian or other-race Protestants	28.0	24.6	31.3	1,480	42.6	38.6	46.7	1,332	14.7	9.4	19.9	10.5
votepool	Orthodox Christian	33.6	24.0	43.1	258	47.4	41.4	53.4	498	13.8	2.6	25.1	22.6
votepool	Hispanic Protestants	37.0	32.9	41.1	1,455	50.8	46.1	55.5	1,085	13.8	7.5	20.0	12.5
votepool	White Catholics	32.5	31.3	33.7	9,448	46.3	45.3	47.3	17,363	13.7	12.2	15.3	3.1
votepool	Asian or other-race Catholics	41.8	36.2	47.4	661	55.4	50.6	60.3	862	13.6	6.2	21.0	14.8
votepool	Hispanic Catholics	59.0	55.3	62.7	1,782	70.9	68.5	73.3	3,877	11.9	7.5	16.3	8.8
votepool	White born-again Protestants	14.2	13.6	14.9	17,922	24.3	23.2	25.5	9,263	10.1	8.7	11.4	2.7
votepool	Black Protestants	90.7	89.3	92.0	4,310	92.6	91.2	94.0	3,398	1.9	0.0	3.8	3.9
votepool	Black Catholics	88.0	83.0	93.0	401	89.6	85.7	93.5	550	1.6	−4.7	8.0	12.7
votepool	Buddhist or Hindu	79.6	72.4	86.7	217	78.1	75.0	81.2	1,442	−1.5	−9.3	6.3	15.6
votepool	Muslim	81.8	74.5	89.2	230	79.3	72.1	86.5	296	−2.5	−12.8	7.7	20.5
votepool	White Protestants who are not born-again	50.5	48.7	52.4	4,868	45.1	44.1	46.0	17,790	−5.4	−7.5	−3.4	4.1
vote2024	Unaffiliated	42.0	30.9	53.1	271	72.1	70.9	73.4	13,762	30.1	19.0	41.3	22.3
vote2024	Jewish	41.9	28.4	55.4	134	71.7	67.4	76.0	956	29.8	15.6	44.0	28.3
vote2024	Another religion or something else	32.1	26.8	37.4	804	50.0	46.1	53.9	2,022	17.9	11.4	24.5	13.1
vote2024	Hispanic Catholics	47.8	39.1	56.6	349	63.2	57.5	68.8	844	15.3	4.9	25.7	20.8
vote2024	Asian or other-race Protestants	23.0	15.2	30.8	287	36.4	28.2	44.5	346	13.4	2.1	24.6	22.5
vote2024	White Catholics	29.0	25.8	32.1	1,572	41.0	38.7	43.3	3,876	12.0	8.1	15.9	7.8
vote2024	Mormon	27.5	20.9	34.1	285	38.6	23.3	54.0	131	11.1	−5.6	27.8	33.4
vote2024	Hispanic Protestants	29.2	21.1	37.2	316	39.8	30.1	49.5	254	10.6	−2.0	23.2	25.2
vote2024	White born-again Protestants	10.7	9.3	12.2	3,267	20.2	17.8	22.7	2,113	9.5	6.6	12.4	5.7
vote2024	Asian or other-race Catholics	42.5	28.7	56.4	134	49.4	38.6	60.1	217	6.8	−10.7	24.3	35.0
vote2024	Black Protestants	83.4	79.1	87.6	839	84.2	80.1	88.3	845	0.8	−5.1	6.7	11.8
vote2024	Black Catholics	79.4	65.2	93.6	91	77.2	65.0	89.3	137	−2.3	−20.9	16.4	37.3
vote2024	White Protestants who are not born-again	46.6	42.3	50.9	904	42.5	40.2	44.8	3,588	−4.1	−9.0	0.8	9.8
vote2008	Asian or other-race Catholics	34.5	21.3	47.6	92	61.3	49.1	73.5	101	26.8	8.9	44.7	35.8
vote2008	Jewish	49.4	32.0	66.8	58	74.2	69.6	78.7	422	24.7	6.7	42.7	36.0
vote2008	Asian or other-race Protestants	21.1	13.9	28.3	181	44.0	33.9	54.1	114	22.9	10.5	35.3	24.8
vote2008	White Catholics	33.1	30.4	35.8	1,507	50.1	47.7	52.5	2,217	17.0	13.4	20.6	7.3
vote2008	Another religion or something else	49.6	46.6	52.6	1,664	66.2	63.3	69.1	1,676	16.6	12.4	20.8	8.4
vote2008	Hispanic Catholics	59.4	51.1	67.7	184	75.9	70.4	81.4	335	16.5	6.5	26.5	19.9
vote2008	Mormon	19.9	15.2	24.5	366	36.4	23.2	49.5	69	16.5	2.6	30.4	27.9
vote2008	White born-again Protestants	15.6	14.1	17.1	2,823	30.7	27.5	33.9	1,082	15.1	11.5	18.6	7.1
vote2008	Hispanic Protestants	33.1	22.5	43.8	87	42.2	27.4	57.0	56	9.1	−9.1	27.3	36.4
vote2008	Black Protestants	91.6	87.8	95.5	229	96.5	93.3	99.7	156	4.9	−0.1	9.9	10.1
vote2008	Unaffiliated	76.2	64.3	88.0	80	76.6	75.0	78.1	4,351	0.4	−11.5	12.3	23.8
vote2008	White Protestants who are not born-again	54.2	49.8	58.6	648	49.8	47.4	52.2	2,298	−4.4	−9.4	0.6	10.0
partypool	Mormon	17.2	15.0	19.3	2,269	41.3	35.8	46.8	684	24.1	18.3	30.0	11.7
partypool	Jewish	51.3	45.9	56.7	734	74.2	72.4	75.9	4,510	22.8	17.2	28.5	11.4
partypool	Asian or other-race Catholics	44.1	38.8	49.3	752	60.3	55.7	64.8	1,043	16.2	9.3	23.1	13.8
partypool	Asian or other-race Protestants	31.5	28.1	34.9	1,651	47.6	43.6	51.6	1,475	16.1	10.8	21.3	10.5
partypool	Another religion or something else	49.0	46.9	51.0	4,733	64.1	62.7	65.5	10,365	15.1	12.6	17.6	5.0
partypool	Hispanic Protestants	40.8	37.1	44.4	2,136	54.8	50.6	59.1	1,641	14.1	8.5	19.6	11.2
partypool	White Catholics	36.4	35.2	37.6	10,228	49.3	48.4	50.3	19,111	13.0	11.4	14.5	3.1
partypool	Unaffiliated	61.5	58.3	64.8	2,102	74.3	73.8	74.9	61,418	12.8	9.5	16.1	6.6
partypool	Orthodox Christian	38.8	31.1	46.4	358	51.2	45.3	57.1	634	12.4	2.8	22.1	19.3
partypool	White born-again Protestants	15.5	14.8	16.2	19,881	26.7	25.5	27.8	10,637	11.2	9.9	12.5	2.7
partypool	Hispanic Catholics	64.8	61.7	67.9	2,670	75.0	73.0	76.9	5,989	10.2	6.5	13.8	7.3
partypool	Muslim	77.6	71.6	83.5	508	83.2	78.3	88.1	537	5.6	−2.1	13.3	15.5
partypool	Buddhist or Hindu	74.2	67.7	80.7	329	78.1	75.3	81.0	1,949	3.9	−3.2	11.1	14.3
partypool	Black Protestants	90.7	89.6	91.9	6,552	93.3	92.2	94.4	5,409	2.6	1.0	4.2	3.2
partypool	Black Catholics	87.0	82.7	91.2	683	89.2	85.8	92.7	867	2.3	−3.2	7.7	10.9
partypool	White Protestants who are not born-again	49.6	47.7	51.4	5,161	45.9	44.9	46.8	19,334	−3.7	−5.8	−1.7	4.1

Among white Protestants who are not born-again the direction reverses in the CES. Frequent attenders voted more Democratic than seldom attenders, a pooled 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 General Social Survey (GSS) and the American National Election Studies (ANES) do not reproduce the sign; under their denominational codings the interval for the mainline group includes zero. Applying the CES born-again rule to those two surveys does not reproduce it either. The data do not say whether the CES result comes from its sample, from the mode of interview or from the rule, and this gap is the least settled estimate in the chapter.

The pooled gap combines different gaps and different mixes

The all-voter gap can be written as two parts, and Figure 3 follows both across the five elections. 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 27.727.7 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 all-voter gap restricted to voters with a group and an attendance answer, divides into 14.614.6 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 13.113.1 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 3

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

Part	Election	Points	Lower	Upper	Voters
Pooled gap	2008	25.6	23.9	27.2	21,124
Gap inside groups	2008	10.7	8.4	12.9	21,124
Mix of groups	2008	14.9	13.1	16.7	21,124
Pooled gap	2012	27.3	25.7	28.8	34,338
Gap inside groups	2012	15.0	12.7	17.2	34,338
Mix of groups	2012	12.3	10.5	14.2	34,338
Pooled gap	2016	18.9	17.4	20.5	37,341
Gap inside groups	2016	8.0	6.1	9.9	37,341
Mix of groups	2016	11.0	9.4	12.5	37,341
Pooled gap	2020	23.5	22.1	25.0	40,502
Gap inside groups	2020	8.7	6.7	10.7	40,502
Mix of groups	2020	14.8	13.3	16.4	40,502
Pooled gap	2024	27.7	26.0	29.4	39,039
Gap inside groups	2024	14.6	11.8	17.4	39,039
Mix of groups	2024	13.1	10.6	15.5	39,039

The two groups of the opening enter the mix part with opposite signs. White born-again Protestants are a larger share of weekly attenders than of seldom attenders and are less Democratic than other voters, so their concentration among weekly attenders adds to the mix part. Black Protestants are also a larger share of weekly attenders than of seldom attenders and are more Democratic than the average voter, so their contribution to the mix part is below zero. 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. Each group's contribution, with its interval, is in Table 6.

The pooled gap therefore contains two kinds of difference. One is the gap between seldom and frequent attenders inside a tradition and race, and the other is a difference in who the two attendance groups are. A positive gap means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic, and the sign does not say that attendance moves the vote.

What these groups and gaps cannot show

Each survey interviews a different sample, so the gaps compare groups and say nothing about any voter changing. Panel studies find that partisan identity shapes whether people identify with a religion and how often they attend [3] [4], so a gap between attendance groups or between traditions can reflect people moving between groups. Tradition in the CES is a proxy for denomination, and 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 sample is voters who reported a Democratic or Republican vote, so nonvoters and third-party voters are outside it, and the chapter has no measure of belief, congregation, region or age.

---

Go deeper

• The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
• Tables: every figure of the report as a table.

Reading paths that include this chapter:

• Race and ethnicity
• Religion and morality

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

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. Lincoln, C. Eric; Mamiya, Lawrence H. (1990). The Black Church in the African American Experience. Duke University Press.
3. Margolis, Michele F. (2018). From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity. University of Chicago Press.
4. 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.}
}