Interesting Finds from new ABC/WaPo Poll

A newly released poll from ABC/WaPo once again reveals how close the presidential race is, and why it will be an uphill battle for both Clinton and Trump.

According to the latest poll, Trump leads Clinton among registered voters 46% to 44%. This also marks a huge shift in polling as Trump now narrowly leads in the overall RCP average. Prior to this poll Clinton lead by an average of 3 points. Factoring this in, Trump now leads by an average of just 0.2%. Though Clinton won 99% of the polls in April and May, Trump has now beaten her in 3 of the last 4 polls. 

One interesting thing to notice is that while Clinton actually leas by 6 points, 48–42, when looking at only people registered to vote, she loses by 2. The implications of this are that Democrats are currently losing the registration battle.

While 60% of Americans view Donald Trump as unfavorable, a majority of Americans––53% also view Hillary Clinton as unfavorable. Both candidates are very unpopular and while the media focuses most of its attention on Trump’s negatives, Clinton has a huge problem with her being so unpopular among Americans.

Another media talking point is how poorly Donald Trump does with women voters. However, despite the media and the Clinton campaign hammering away at this notion, Trump has actually gotten closer to Clinton with women since March. In this latest poll Clinton leads Trump by 14% with women, down 7% from 2 months ago. It appears as though that particular attack is not working. Further, Clinton’s numbers among men is abysmal (which I’m sure can all be attributed to sexism *sarcasm*). In March Trump lead Clinton by 5 points with men, but now he leads her 22 points among men, according to the ACB/WaPo poll.

The big take aways from this poll are that while Trump is pretty unpopular, Clinton is right behind him in terms of unpopularity. Democrats appear to be losing the registration battle at this moment in the process, which would change easily, but for now is a huge win for Republicans. Hillary Clinton polls terribly with men and her lead with women is slipping. Her talking points on Trump and women appear to be to little effect.

–M

New Polls Should Worry Clinton Campaign

Just two weeks have gone by since Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee for the Republican party and already two new polls show him within the margin of error of Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton.

Two days before the May 3rd Indiana primary in which Trump shellacked GOP rival Ted Cruz by 17 points, causing him to bow out of the POTUS race, a CNN poll showed Clinton leading Trump by a sound 13 points. Despite the persistence of Democrats that Hillary will wipe the floor with Trump in a general election, a recent string of polls indicate that the Clinton campaign may have a much bumpier path ahead.

National Polls

Since the CNN poll was released on May 1st, Clinton’s leads in a head to head matchup with Trump has decreased steadily, with the latest Fox News poll released yesterday (May 17th) showing Trump ahead of the former secretary of state by 3 points. On top of that, a recent NBC poll, surveying 14,100 people, shows Hillary with a slim 3 point lead over Trump which is within the margin of error.

Key finds within both the Fox and NBC polls show that Trump leads with white women and independents. According to the NBC poll, independent voters break for Trump by 8 points (44-36). If the election were held today the poll found 87% of Republicans backing Trump while 7% would not. On the other side, 87% of Democrats would support Clinton and 8% would not. With the party support rates essentially the same, and with more registered Democrats than Republicans, independents are crucial for Trump.

While sec. Clinton holds a solid 15 point lead among women, Trump holds an equally impressive lead among men carrying them by 11 points.

According to the Fox poll, Trump carries independents by 16 points, 46-30. Gender has been made a huge issue in this election, and while most of the talk has been of Trump’s woman problem, perhaps more should be drawn to Clinton’s man problem. Though Clinton leads Trump with women 50-36, Trump leads Clinton among men 55–33. In fact, Clinton is doing historically poor with white men, so badly in fact that assistant director of the Q-Poll, Peter Brown, asserted “the reason this race is so close overall is Clinton’s historic weakness among white men.”

Unfavorability

Another popular topic among pundits is the unfavorability of Trump not just among women but overall. Indeed is negatives are pretty high for a presumptive nominee. However, what the Fox poll has revealed is that despite Trump’s negatives being incredibly high, so are Clinton––and in fact in some cases, Clinton’s are higher than Trumps.

According to the Fox poll, just 41% of Americans view Donald Trump favorably. Yet just 37% of Americans view Hillary Clinton favorably. While 57% of Americans have a negative opinion of Trump, 61% of Americans hold a negative opinion of Clinton.

While Trump has a net -30 rating with women, Clinton has a net -44 rating among men.

Just 36% think Clinton is running ‘for the country’ while 57% think she is running ‘for herself.’ Similarly, 37% believe Trump is running ‘for the country’ and 56% believe he is running ‘for himself.’ 48% believe Clinton is more corrupt and 37% believe Trump is more corrupt.

When asked if each candidate was ‘honest and trustworthy’ just 31% answered yes for Clinton with a sound 66% saying no. Just 40% said they thought Trump was ‘honest and trustworthy’ while 57% said he was not.

Moral of the story, both candidates are immensely unpopular at the moment.

Swing States

Recent polling data in swing states should give the Clinton campaign reason to worry as Trump is within the margin of error in three crucial states; Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. According to the recent Quinnipiac University poll, Clinton holds just a 1 point lead in both FL and PA, making them statistically tied. In Ohio Trump leads by 4 points, 43-39. While this is just one poll, it certainly shows that in a short amount of time Trump has managed to gain substantial grounds on Clinton’s once sizable leads in some states.

Even in New Hampshire, a typically safe Democrat state (it is after all in New England) a new WBUR poll shows a tight race with Clinton leading by just 2 points, 44-42. Again, unpopularity of both candidates is a major theme. Just 33% of voters in the Granite State have positive view toward Trump, and only 35% have positive views of Clinton.

Bernie or Bust

Perhaps one of the most daunting problems the Clinton campaign faces, is whether or not they will be able to corral the Bernie supporters. According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, only 69% of Bernie supporters would support Hillary if/when she finishes him off. 25% of Bernie supporters said they would not support her if she became the nominee. Given how many millions and millions of supporters Bernie has and how many votes he has received in this campaign, a quarter of them not showing up to support Hillary could be significant.

In West Virginia, 44% of Bernie voters said not only would they not support Hillary, they would actually vote for Trump if she became the nominee. Just 23% said they would support Hillary 31% wouldn’t support either candidate. In other words, of Bernie supporters in WV, 75% would not back Hillary in the general according to exit poll data.

Given this string of new polling data, the Clinton campaign cannot be sleeping well at night. The numbers show her lead over Trump diminishing, even reversed in some polls (Fox, Rasmussen). The race in key states are close with Clinton either barely holding on by a point, or trailing by a few. Both candidates are incredibly unpopular among voters and while the media makes much of Trump’s negative ratings, Clinton has equally or worse ratings. Despite Trump’s deficit with women voters, Clinton appears to have a serious problem with men according to the internal polling data. Not being able to corral Bernie supporters also could end up having a fatal affect on her campaign. If 25% of the Vermont senator’s supporters do not show up to support her that could be crucial. It would be even more crucial if like in West Virginia, many of them end up supporting Trump.

All this should give the Clinton campaign pause as they prepare to take on Trump in the general election. Perhaps Democrats shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Clinton will walk away with the election. If we’ve learned anything from this chaotic election season so far, it’s ‘underestimate Trump at your own peril.’

–M

The Messianic Secret From a Greco-Roman Perspective

Perhaps one of the more perplexing themes in all of New Testament studies is the messianic secret concept in Mark. Last year during my intro to the Bible class, the messianic secret was troubling for me to wrap my head around and was probably the last concept I “fully” (I put that in quotes as I am still an undergraduate and probably have a lot more to learn regarding Markan studies) understood. Repeatedly throughout Mark’s gospel Jesus is depicted performing miraculous deeds such as healings and exorcisms but then strictly tells those in attendance not to tell anyone about said miracles. Usually though the people fail to keep the miracle a secret and the word gets out anyway such as in 1.45 (which is usually how the scribes and pharisees find out).

This pattern can be seen on three separate occasions in Mark 1. The first occurs when Jesus performs an exorcism on the ‘man with and unclean spirit.’ 

23 Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, 24 and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. (Mark 1.23-26)

Notice the reason Jesus commands the demon to be silent. He does not silence him because he was espousing evil things, or slandering Jesus in anyway. He silenced him because he knew who he was.

The second instance of Jesus downplaying his wonderful deed occurs in 1.32–34 where again Jesus casts out demons as well as cures sick people.

32 That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. 33 And the whole city was gathered around the door. 34 And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Once again, Jesus prohibits the demons from speaking, not because of any wrong doing, but because they know who he is.

Finally at the end of Mark 1, Jesus heals a leper and orders him not to tell anyone. “43 After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, 44 saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go” (Mark 1.43–44). In 1.45, the last verse in the chapter, the healed leper fails to keep Jesus’ miracle a secret and as such Jesus can no longer be in the town and has to hide out in the country because his fame has spread and people know who he is. 

The motif of secrecy, i.e. performing wonderful acts and insisting that recipients and witnesses keep it a secret is entirely for the purpose of teaching a new definition of messiahship and what it means to be the messiah as well as what it means to be a disciple. (see Martin 2012 for a more detailed discussion) In total, only the demons actually recognize who Jesus truly is in Mark’s gospel. Even his own disciples routinely get it wrong when trying to identify Jesus (see 4.41, 6.51-52, 8.17-21)

The turning point for Jesus identification is in 8.27-30. On the way to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks his disciples, “who do people say that I am?” They offer up; John the Baptist (which makes no sense in light of 1.9), Elijah, and one of the prophets. Then Jesus asks them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answers, “you are the messiah.” Finally! Jesus goes on to teach them that the son of man must undergo great suffering and die at the hands of his enemy. Now, in ancient Judaism the messiah was expected to be a kingly figure, a priestly figure (or some combination thereof), a human, a superhuman, or some sort of angelic figure. But one thing for sure was that the messiah was suppose to win. The messiah would rise up from the people and drive out the enemies of Israel and reclaim the Davidic throne. The messiah was never suppose to suffer and be killed. In that sense, the messianic secret operates as a time saver while Jesus teaches a new concept of messiah. “Once he has gone through death and suffering, there will be no more need for secrecy: they will have learned that a suffering messiah is possible after all.” (Martin, pp. 88)

That’s the mainstream explanation for the messianic secret motif in Mark. However, there  is another explanation that has more to do with appeal to Roman audiences. As Carrier has pointed out (see Carrier 2014), the messianic secret theme makes zero sense historically. In spite of all his calls for secrecy, virtually no one actually complies with them. Even theologically it’s a bit shaky in terms of being a solid explanation. Simply saying that the device is used so that Jesus can have time to teach a new definition of messiah is a bit lame. However, as Carrier points out, it does actually parallel quite nicely to the theme of Odysseus in disguise among the suitors. Mark is clearly well versed in the Homeric epics (see MacDonald 2000) and as such made use of Homeric themes in his gospel to relate to Roman readers who would instantly understand Mark’s literary schemes. In the Odyssey, the suitors are in Odysseus’s palace trying really hard to get with his wife. Even the idea of the leper spilling the beans after being told not to tell anyone fits with the Odyssey parallel. 

Of that Carrier writes:

Like Jesus, Odysseus endeavors, even when occasionally recognized, to maintain that disguise until he can get his revenge on those suitors who have inhabited his house––analogous to the priest and Pharisees inhabiting the temple (God’s house), who are likewise corrupt sinners mired in hypocrisy and greed. (Carrier pp. 442)

Establishing Mark’s familiarity with the Greek epics, and employing similar literary tactics  for the sake of Roman readers makes perfect sense. Though some, like one of my professors this semester, asserts that you can get every element of early Christianity from Judaism, it appears far more likely that this concept was borrowed not from Judaism, but from Greco-Roman literature.

–M

The Decline of Religiosity in Britain from 1850–1914

It is commonly accepted by World War I scholars that the Church of England had an exceptionally bad first world war. Throughout the war the Church and its chaplains were generally perceived as an out of touch, ill prepared, and, lost organization. Throughout the war the Church failed to gain new members and revive the religiosity in Britain which had decline sharply since the mid 1800s. Multiple factors accounted for the decline of religiosity in Britain, among others were; the popularization of science and literature, the fall of Victorian era fundamentalism, the emergence of the labour party, and the urban expansion brought about by industrialization. While initially the Church hoped to capitalize on the war as a means of reinvigorating religious and spiritual life in Britain, they routinely failed to appeal to both soldiers and the public. The war took a heavy toll on the Church of England which ultimately forced it to take a change of direction which would leave the Church much better suited by the time the second world war began.

During the height of Victorian England, religion dominated life in Britain. People went to church every Sunday, prayed, and read their Bibles every day. In suburbs and rural areas, the church functioned as the center of the town, wielding heavy influence over the population. Sermons and scripture were the basis of learning one’s duty and morning and evening prayer services were widely attended. In short, evangelical religious piety was the fan favorite during the Victorian era.

Toward the end of Victoria’s reign however, things began to change. With the popularization of science and literature, writers like Oscar Wilde, and the attitudes of the Prince of Wales, puritanism and religion lost its firm grip of British society. The Church began to be viewed as somewhat out of touch, clinging to old beliefs that were now voided by scientific discoveries. Literature started to be widely read rather than just the Bible. In 1870 the biggest group of books published were on religious subjects. By the 80s, fiction was the biggest group, and by the turn of the century, books on science and history had passed religious ones. Even concerning the Bible, biblical criticism was now widely accepted by biblical scholars and their findings appeared to undermine much of the fundamentalism being espoused by the Church. By 1900 biblical criticism was the norm of scholarship and the fundamentalism that once dominated religious life in Britain became confined to a small group of ‘extremists.’ When Queen Victoria passed in 1901, so too passed the taboos and restraints that defined the Victorian era. 

With the fall of the Church’s influence, church attendance began to fall off. A survey of life  in London from 1897–1900 found that just 20% of the population were attending church and chapel, a huge decline from surveys in years past. Even more damning for the Church of England was that the biggest decline in attendance was found in Anglican congregations. 

Urbanization, which was a direct result of the industrial revolution forced the Church into competition with local pubs, and weekend attractions. By 1890s, the two-day recreational weekend had been established, causing families to spend Saturday and Sunday away from home, leading to a decline in Sunday church attendance. As city life became more active, museums started opening up on Sundays, and football became a huge Sunday spectator sport. With the migration to the city starting in the 1860s, the communal role of the Church began to dissolve. As more and more people came to the cities, the Church had fewer church-goers as a percent of the population, lessening its influence. 

On top of that, the Labour Party’s rise to power clashed greatly with clergy who were hostile to their liberal policies. As the Labour came to ally itself with working class people in Britain, those workers gradually felt at odds with the Church leadership. 

As a whole, the decline of Victorian era conservatism, the urbanization produced by the industrial era, the popularization of science and literature, and the rise of the Labour party all played a role in the decline of the Anglican church. Britain came a more secular, and liberal society and the fundamentalism of the 1850s had been shelved in the back. While the Great War is commonly associated with the decline of the Anglican church, in almost every aspect the decline was already in place and the war merely put the final nail in the coffin.

–M