Will the Christianity Today Editorial Influence the 2020 GE?

[NOVA Green]

Christianity Today calls for the Impeachment and Removal of Trump from office.

This is naturally one of the most influential Evangelical Christian publicans within the United States.

Will this influence the results of the 2020 GE assuming that Trump is not convicted within the US Senate?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

[libertpaulian]

It might influence some white-collar professional evangelicals who are part of a more intellectual evangelical tradition, such as the Presbyterian Church in America or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

However, iti will have almost zero effect on evangelicals, regardless of education or profession, in churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assembly of God, which are less intellectual in their theology and practice.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It might influence some white-collar professional evangelicals who are part of a more intellectual evangelical tradition, such as the Presbyterian Church in America or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

However, iti will have almost zero effect on evangelicals, regardless of education or profession, in churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assembly of God, which are less intellectual in their theology and practice.

Some of the most prominent evangelicals who have been critical of Trump are Southern Baptists (ex Russell Moore), and there's a faction within the denomination who want to dissociate from the right esp. on questions of race and economics.  The divisions within evangelicalism on social questions don't fall neatly on denominational lines.

I think this stance from CT will make a few people reevaluate their stance and consider voting 3rd party if they can find an acceptable candidate on the ballot.  Likely there will be more people who change their mind about CT than who change their mind about Trump.  Though if it inspires more evangelical leaders to take a similar stance publicly, it could make a difference on the margins as people debate the impact for a Christianity that lends its support to Trump.

[libertpaulian]

It might influence some white-collar professional evangelicals who are part of a more intellectual evangelical tradition, such as the Presbyterian Church in America or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

However, iti will have almost zero effect on evangelicals, regardless of education or profession, in churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assembly of God, which are less intellectual in their theology and practice.

Some of the most prominent evangelicals who have been critical of Trump are Southern Baptists (ex Russell Moore), and there's a faction within the denomination who want to dissociate from the right esp. on questions of race and economics.  The divisions within evangelicalism on social questions don't fall neatly on denominational lines.

I think this stance from CT will make a few people reevaluate their stance and consider voting 3rd party if they can find an acceptable candidate on the ballot.  Likely there will be more people who change their mind about CT than who change their mind about Trump.  Though if it inspires more evangelical leaders to take a similar stance publicly, it could make a difference on the margins as people debate the impact for a Christianity that lends its support to Trump.

Hillary won 18% of the evangelical vote last time.  In order for the Democrat to win the Electoral College, they would probably need 21% to barely win, 22-24% to have a comfortable win, and 25-28% to have a decisive-to-large win.  30%+ is a monstrous victory, which is NOT going to happen.

[All Along The Watchtower]

White evangelicals would be the last people to abandon Trump, and they absolutely won't. White supremacy and violence is in the DNA of their culture and their denominations (why is it called the Southern Baptist Convention again?). They are easy marks for hucksters (televangelists, for example) and charismatic men who hold dictator-like power over their churches (lots of pastors here, some well known).

Donald Trump being a famously provincial New Yorker is the biggest point of contrast between him and white evangelicals and their leaders. He's given them essentially everything they want policy-wise, unprecedented access to the Oval Office, lots of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointments, all those federal judges - oh, and Mike Pence is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And he has the same fake persecution complex despite his power and privilege. What's not to love?

This completely accurate editorial changes nothing except that the number of Christianity Today subscriptions will drop.

[Banana Republican]

Like most things this gets asked about, it might have a small and/or temporary influence, but it is extremely unlikely to have a large/significant/permanent influence, because almost nothing ever has a large/significant/permanent influence, especially this early.

So the short answer is that it is almost certainly noise that you should tune out and won't even remember a few months from now.

[Annatar]

No, a lot of the evangelical elite don't like him, but the evangelical population as a whole does, this is true in many areas where the elites hate him but the people below them like him. It's just that the evangelical elites have lost power and can't influence the way people think any longer so what they say doesn't really matter. It's kind of funny seeing all these institutions burn bridges with their own people.

[Pericles]

White evangelicals would be the last people to abandon Trump, and they absolutely won't. White supremacy and violence is in the DNA of their culture and their denominations (why is it called the Southern Baptist Convention again?). They are easy marks for hucksters (televangelists, for example) and charismatic men who hold dictator-like power over their churches (lots of pastors here, some well known).

Donald Trump being a famously provincial New Yorker is the biggest point of contrast between him and white evangelicals and their leaders. He's given them essentially everything they want policy-wise, unprecedented access to the Oval Office, lots of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointments, all those federal judges - oh, and Mike Pence is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And he has the same fake persecution complex despite his power and privilege. What's not to love?

This completely accurate editorial changes nothing except that the number of Christianity Today subscriptions will drop.

Logically this should make more of them support impeachment. Why should they have to put up with Trump's sins when they can get the same policy agenda and someone who should be a better fit for them? It'd be slightly more understandable for them to support Trump as the lesser evil in the general over a 'baby killer' Democrat, but why aren't more Republicans taking up the opportunity to ditch Trump when they don't actually lose anything policy-wise from doing so?

[SuperCow]

Keep in mind that removing Trump gives them their near perfect candidate in Pence who is much more in synch with the behavior they would like to see.

[Lord Halifax]

White evangelicals would be the last people to abandon Trump, and they absolutely won't. White supremacy and violence is in the DNA of their culture and their denominations (why is it called the Southern Baptist Convention again?). They are easy marks for hucksters (televangelists, for example) and charismatic men who hold dictator-like power over their churches (lots of pastors here, some well known).

Donald Trump being a famously provincial New Yorker is the biggest point of contrast between him and white evangelicals and their leaders. He's given them essentially everything they want policy-wise, unprecedented access to the Oval Office, lots of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointments, all those federal judges - oh, and Mike Pence is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And he has the same fake persecution complex despite his power and privilege. What's not to love?

This completely accurate editorial changes nothing except that the number of Christianity Today subscriptions will drop.

Logically this should make more of them support impeachment. Why should they have to put up with Trump's sins when they can get the same policy agenda and someone who should be a better fit for them? It'd be slightly more understandable for them to support Trump as the lesser evil in the general over a 'baby killer' Democrat, but why aren't more Republicans taking up the opportunity to ditch Trump when they don't actually lose anything policy-wise from doing so?

Probably because they know Pence can't win the election.

[SingingAnalyst]

First, I think the editorial is well-written and fairly compelling. It states that Trump tried to use his power to coerce a foreign leader to harass a political opponent, pointing out that this is "profoundly immoral". No "whataboutism", no "both sides do it", just a presentation of a strong moral case, backed up by facts.

Second, from reading the comments so far, it appears that, unlike many other threads, the nature of the comments does not fit any cookie-cutter, red vs. blue paradigm. The opinions seems to be all over the map, so to speak. I find this gratifying.

Third, I am well aware that membership in mainline Protestant denominations began declining precipitously in the mid-1960s, right around the time that liberal theologians began talking of a new theology--more social gospel, less hellfire-and-brimstone--even as virtually every other religious group (Evangelical Christianity, various cults) began exploding in popularity.

Having said all this, I believe it will have an impact, at the very least on the 2020 GE, in ways I will describe below.

I believe that both religious identification and the manner in which one applies one's faith to one's own life is a somewhat fluid matrix (not merely a spectrum). Most Evangelicals are closer to some Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish groups on social political issues (both those pertaining to Israel and otherwise) than they are to liberal, mainline Protestants. Yet the Evangelical and the liberal Protestant share a belief in the divinity (or quasi-divinity) of Jesus that the Orthodox Jew does not. Having said that, a comparison can certainly be made between this week's CT editorial and the pronouncements of Paul Tillich and other liberal theologians; in that narrow sense, there is perhaps a grain of truth to Trump's patently ridiculous characterization of CT as "far left".

Here are some possible effects it will have, and m,y estimate of their likelihood.

1. At least one GOP Senator, one with close ties to the Religious Right, will announce that she or he will seriously consider voting to convict, should the impeachment articles be sent to the Senate. She or he will allude to the CT editorial. As a result, the articles are sent over. Probability: 5%

2. Growing pressure from Evangelicals for Trump to resign will be part of a "ripple effect" that will eventually lead to Trump's resignation in 2020. Whether Pence or some other Republican is the 2020 GOP nominee, the 2020 election will have somewhat of a 1976-like feel to it. (No one saw that coming!) Probability: 15%

3. Trump still wins in 2020 with strong support from Evangelicals. Probability: 30%

4. Just enough Evangelicals stay home in 2020 to tip the election to the Democrat. Probability: 50%

An interesting subscenario in 4 is that the loss of Evangelical support tips MI, PA, and NE-2, resulting in a 269-269 tie, but with the Dem winning the PV by 3% or more. Dems, vindicated in their impeachment vote (due in no small part to CT's editorial) keep the House, and even in divided states the House votes to reflect the will of the people (imagine that!) and votes for the Democrat nominee, who, in his inaugural speech on Jan. 20, 2021, pledges to help unite a deeply divided nation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It might influence some white-collar professional evangelicals who are part of a more intellectual evangelical tradition, such as the Presbyterian Church in America or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

However, iti will have almost zero effect on evangelicals, regardless of education or profession, in churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assembly of God, which are less intellectual in their theology and practice.

Some of the most prominent evangelicals who have been critical of Trump are Southern Baptists (ex Russell Moore), and there's a faction within the denomination who want to dissociate from the right esp. on questions of race and economics.  The divisions within evangelicalism on social questions don't fall neatly on denominational lines.

I think this stance from CT will make a few people reevaluate their stance and consider voting 3rd party if they can find an acceptable candidate on the ballot.  Likely there will be more people who change their mind about CT than who change their mind about Trump.  Though if it inspires more evangelical leaders to take a similar stance publicly, it could make a difference on the margins as people debate the impact for a Christianity that lends its support to Trump.

Hillary won 18% of the evangelical vote last time.  In order for the Democrat to win the Electoral College, they would probably need 21% to barely win, 22-24% to have a comfortable win, and 25-28% to have a decisive-to-large win.  30%+ is a monstrous victory, which is NOT going to happen.

One thing to keep in mind is that "evangelical" self-ID isn't a static category.  Someone may have evangelical beliefs and/or go to a church generally identified as being evangelical, but decide for cultural or political reasons that they don't identify with the category.

Some people move away from the evangelical category because they are dissatisfied with evangelical support for Republicans.  On the other hand, with this CT editorial, some may decide that politics is not a reason for them to not identify as evangelical.

[SingingAnalyst]

I will certainly consider it on March 10 (MI Presidential Primary day) and Nov. 3rd, and in the days and weeks and months leading up to them.

I will certainly take a closer look at the Dem candidates than I have up to now, as it is now more likely (1) that I will vote for one of them and (2) that one of them will win.

[Adam Griffin]

lolno

[ON Progressive]

An editorial a year out from the general election in any publication will have zero impact.

[Orser67]

I don't want to overstate the importance of Christianity Today specifically, but it's exactly the kind of outlet that can get through to apolitical/low-information voters who get lost in the ongoing partisan warfare. The most likely way it would influence the election would be if it leads to other non-partisan outlets coming out against Trump, but for all the people who take the "lol, nothing matters" approach to politics, I really think it would be worth taking a look at what the editorial actually said. This part of an Atlantic interview with the author of the editorial really stood out to me:

I don’t think it was until the impeachment hearings that there was some sort of smoking gun that was just unambiguously clear. The Mueller investigation was so confusing. It was hard to tell what was legal or illegal, moral or immoral. I just don’t know how that world works. But with the impeachment hearings, it became absolutely clear that he tried to use his power as the president to manipulate a foreign leader into getting dirt on his political enemies. That’s unconstitutional, and it’s immoral. So it was kind of a clear moment.

...I know some will read [the editorial] very negatively. They’ll consider me partisan, that I’m a closet Democrat—which I’m not. I’m independent. They’re going to say that Trump appoints pro-life justices; he’s working for religious freedom. And it occurred to me today, as I was writing the editorial, that the “on the one hand, on the other hand” logic of whether you’re going to support Trump or not—that falls apart at some point.

[SingingAnalyst]

An editorial a year out from the general election in any publication will have zero impact.

You don't think GOP Senatorial candidates will be asked about it, particularly those who rely heavily on Evangelical votes (and lately that seems to be most of them!)?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't want to overstate the importance of Christianity Today specifically, but it's exactly the kind of outlet that can get through to apolitical/low-information voters who get lost in the ongoing partisan warfare. The most likely way it would influence the election would be if it leads to other non-partisan outlets coming out against Trump, but for all the people who take the "lol, nothing matters" approach to politics, I really think it would be worth taking a look at what the editorial actually said. This part of an Atlantic interview with the author of the editorial really stood out to me:

I don’t think it was until the impeachment hearings that there was some sort of smoking gun that was just unambiguously clear. The Mueller investigation was so confusing. It was hard to tell what was legal or illegal, moral or immoral. I just don’t know how that world works. But with the impeachment hearings, it became absolutely clear that he tried to use his power as the president to manipulate a foreign leader into getting dirt on his political enemies. That’s unconstitutional, and it’s immoral. So it was kind of a clear moment.

...I know some will read [the editorial] very negatively. They’ll consider me partisan, that I’m a closet Democrat—which I’m not. I’m independent. They’re going to say that Trump appoints pro-life justices; he’s working for religious freedom. And it occurred to me today, as I was writing the editorial, that the “on the one hand, on the other hand” logic of whether you’re going to support Trump or not—that falls apart at some point.

When I think Christianity Today readers I certainly don't think "low-information voters," though they may be more focused on policy. 

[Progressive Pessimist]

No chance. Not just because it's too early to make an impact, but also because conservative evangelicals will follow Trump's lead and declare this publication a liberal, socialist, deep state sellout. Trump has replaced Jesus.

[Hammy]

Conservatives at this point will just ignore Christianity rather than betray their false prophet and cult leader.

[W]

no lel.

[pbrower2a]

Editorials do not convince people to change their minds to vote differently.

[Morgan Kingsley]

probaby not really

[redeagleofficial]

No.  Mike Pence on the ticket will keep Evangelicals with Trump

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

There are Evangelicals and especially Catholics that did vote for Trump in 2016, that will either stay home or vote third party, like they did in 2008 or 2012. Pope didnt like Romney and Boehner that much.