A shocking number of Americans believe God personally anointed Trump to rule the country
www.rawstory.com
Why do so many evangelical Christians support former President Donald Trump despite his decades of documented ungodly behavior?An in-depth report from The Economist shows that it has a simple explanation: They believe that God personally appointed him to rule the United States.In fact, the report ci...

Why do so many evangelical Christians support former President Donald Trump despite his decades of documented ungodly behavior?

An in-depth report from The Economist shows that it has a simple explanation: They believe that God personally appointed him to rule the United States.

In fact, the report cites a survey conducted by Denison University political scientist Paul Djupe that around 30 percent of Americans believe Trump “was anointed by God to become president.”

  • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
    5•11 months ago

    So I dug into this, and the following excerpt is the only piece of information related to the claim in question:

    In the run up to the 2020 election, religious conservative public figures – for example, Rick Perry – claimed that Donald Trump was anointed by God; Perry called him “the chosen one” (see Djupe and Burge 2019). The head of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Council, Paula White, went a bit further: “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God, and I won’t do that.” In May 2019, 21.4 percent of Protestants believed Trump was anointed by God to be president, as did 29 percent of evangelicals, and a majority of Pentecostals (like Paula White). Belief in Trump’s anointing increased considerably closer to the 2020 election (Djupe and Burge 2020; Edsall 2020).

    Here are the original sources of the claim:

    1. Djupe and Burge 2019
    2. Djupe and Burge 2020
    3. Edsall 2020 (archive link)

    I’ll keep editing this comment as I get further into it.

    Edit 1: added archive link for Edsall 2020

    Edit 2: fixed the link for Djupe and Burge 2019

    Edit 3: Here is an archive link to the Economist article.

    Edit 4: relevant quote from the Economist article:

    In a survey conducted by Mr Djupe shortly before the election, three in ten Americans believed Mr Trump “was anointed by God to become president”.

    Edit 5: Conclusion

    It seems as though the Economist article, and therefore the Raw Story and various other articles referencing it, are not correct. I’ve looked through a couple dozen resources at this point, and I cannot find any publications from Djupe or Burge substantiating this “30% of Americans” claim. However, I did find

    However, I did find this:

    Other surveys have shown similar results. A 2020 Pew Research Center survey asked Americans, not just church-attenders, about God’s role in recent presidential elections. They found that 32 percent of the more than 6,000 respondents, a sizable minority, believed Trump’s election must be part of God’s overall plan—though only 5 percent of those respondents believed God chose Trump because of his policies.

    So maybe the 30% finding was from Pew after all? I’m going to send all this to the Economist to ask for clarification.

    • @jacksilver@lemmy.world
      2•11 months ago

      I was able to find what I think is the original source: https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/11/25/was-donald-trump-anointed-by-god-are-all-presidents-anointed-by-god/

      It was a survey of 1000 protestant Christians (in 2019) and they found that 30% of those surveyed, who went to church once a week, thought Trump was appointed by God. So terrible reporting all around.

      Why I believe this is the original source is the article in the link is by the professor referenced in the original article/economist.

      • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        2•11 months ago

        This source linked under “Djupe and Burge 2019” in my original comment :-)

        It is also cited directly in Djupe’s Cambridge publication that OP posted.

        • @jacksilver@lemmy.world
          2•11 months ago

          Ah, I didn’t see that initially. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the study was terribly misquoted, and when looking at the original publication I didn’t see the same stats shared in the blog post that were being quoted. Overall, it seems like a game of telephone was played with wrong numbers and implications being published.