Are Latter-day Saints shifting left? Here's what the data shows

An analysis of the 2024 presidential election found that politically moderate and younger Latter-day Saints have 'warmed up' to President Donald Trump after swinging away from the Republican candidate in 2016 and 2020.
The Republican rebound among young and moderate voters goes against some predictions of a permanent Latter-day Saint shift toward the Democratic Party during the Trump era, according to a comparison of election data published Monday by political scientist Ryan Burge.
'There's nothing here that says that the LDS vote is trending to the left,' Burge told the Deseret News. 'You can't look at the data and make that claim.'
Trump's initial lackluster showing among Latter-day Saints in 2016 has largely been reversed, Burge shows, with moderate voters moving 15 percentage points toward Trump since 2020, and younger voters jumping 25 points back his direction.
Much has been made of Latter-day Saints' lukewarm reception of Trump in 2016.
That year, Trump received just 52% of the Latter-day Saint vote — down 30 percentage points from Mitt Romney in 2012, and 20 points from John McCain in 2008.
The drop was mostly caused by Trump's bid pushing 26% of Latter-day Saint voters toward third-party candidate Evan McMullin, Burge said, while 22% voted for Hillary Clinton.
But with no viable third-party alternative in 2020 and 2024, Trump's vote share among Latter-day Saints surged, resulting in identical results both times: with 66% of Latter-day Saints voting for Trump, and 30% for his opponent.
'I think most of the hesitancy people had about Trump went away,' Burge said.
Burge's calculations are based on the latest data from the Cooperative Election Study, an election-year poll that surveyed 144,500 people from 2022 to 2024, including 1,600 self-identified Latter-day Saints.
Taking a deeper look at the Latter-day Saint data reveals multiple transformations occurring simultaneously within one of the most religiously and civically active demographics in the United States.
While Latter-day Saint voters continue to lean heavily Republican, Trump's rise to the top of conservative politics has contributed to real changes in Latter-day Saint political identification.
Republican Party affiliation among Latter-day Saints fell from around 75% before Trump, to 64% in 2016, 62% in 2020 and 58% in 2024.
Democratic affiliation, on the other hand, increased by 9 points, to 25%, and the percentage of independents doubled to 17%, during the same time period.
Meanwhile, the share of Latter-day Saints who identify as 'conservative' fell from 61% to 50%, leading to an increase in self-described 'moderates' from 30% to 38%.
But, as can be seen in the overall Latter-day Saint vote, these shifts have not translated to the ballot box.
Trump's performance among Latter-day Saints has actually improved, paradoxically, as some voters attempt to distance themselves from certain conservative labels, Burge said.
In 2016, 64% of Latter-day Saint voters identified as Republicans, and 61% as conservative, but Trump received around 50% of their vote.
In 2024, GOP affiliation had fallen to 58%, and conservative identity to 50%, but Trump netted 66% of the Latter-day Saint vote.
These crosscurrents could represent a desire among a substantial portion of Latter-day Saints to remain independent from 'the whole MAGA movement,' Burge said, even if they can't stomach the Democratic alternative and still vote for Trump.
'A lot of people want to say they're ideologically moderate but if you actually look at the way those groups vote, it's almost always leaning to what the larger group does,' Burge said. 'A vote's a binary choice, you don't get to stand in the middle on that.'
Opposing pressures among the Latter-day Saint electorate have created a genuine 'swing voting bloc' among moderates, according to Burge.
In 2020, moderate Latter-day Saints favored Joe Biden over Trump by 27 points, with nearly 60% voting Democrat. In 2024, however, moderate Latter-day Saints were split down the middle between Trump and Kamala Harris.
Many of these swing voters appear to be those who came of age amid Trump's dominance in American politics.
Less than one-third, 31%, of Latter-day Saint voters age 18-35 cast their ballot for Trump in 2020. But in 2024, Trump received support from 56% of young Latter-day Saints.
The flip among young and moderate Latter-day Saint voters likely has something to do with tribal identities, and voters wanting to fit in with their community, Burge said, pointing out that 75% of Latter-day Saints over 50 voted for Trump in 2024.
What's more, the relatively small gap in partisan affiliation among the youngest Latter-day Saint voters — with about 50% identifying as Republican and 35% as Democrat — is likely to grow over time because voters tend to become more conservative as they age, Burge said.
But the increase in support for Trump among young Latter-day Saints might also reflect a process of self-selection, according to Burge.
Politics has a greater impact on religious loyalties than many people would like to admit, Burge said, and some young people who leave the Republican Party because of Trump may also leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for linking or overlapping reasons.
'People are drawn to or from religious groups based on their political persuasion,' Burge said. 'What you're really seeing with the 18-35-year-old group of young LDS is the true believers because they're still identifying as LDS.'
The church has issued statements declaring itself strictly 'neutral in matters of party politics.' The general handbook says, 'The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote.'
The church encourages its members to 'engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

20 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.

Bloomberg

35 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.

CNBC

43 minutes ago

• CNBC

NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.