How have shifts in evangelical leadership endorsements changed Republican primary dynamics since 2016?
Executive summary
Since 2016 evangelical leadership endorsements have shifted from being perceived as kingmakers to functioning more as signaling devices within a broader, base-driven Republican primary, with elite endorsements sometimes following grassroots momentum rather than determining it 2024-evangelical-primary" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] and with many high-profile leaders either coalescing around Donald Trump or choosing to withhold explicit primary endorsements in 2024 [2] [3].
1. The 2016 baseline: elite endorsements failed to control the outcome
In 2016 many Religious Right elites backed Ted Cruz and other establishment alternatives, yet those endorsements did not prevent Donald Trump’s insurgent primary victory, a dynamic critics pointed to when questioning the once-assumed “kingmaker” power of evangelical leaders [1] [4].
2. The invisible primary and the variable value of endorsements
Endorsements remained a core part of the invisible primary — useful, but highly conditional: endorsements from local officials in early states or sitting governors carry disproportionate weight, while national celebrity endorsements signal legitimacy more than votes; historical lists of endorsements underscore how endorsement value depends on timing and provenance [4] [5].
3. Evangelical leaders adapt: from unified front to fractured signals
After 2016 the evangelical leadership landscape became more fractured; some prominent pastors and networks doubled down on Trump, others withheld primary endorsements or backed alternatives such as Ron DeSantis, and a number of influential figures publicly declined to pick a side during the primaries — a pattern evident in 2024 when leaders like Franklin Graham delayed endorsement and Iowa influencers split their support [2] [3].
4. Rank-and-file independence undercuts top-down influence
Scholars and journalists observed that rank-and-file evangelical voters do not automatically follow elite cues the way earlier models assumed, with 2016 proving that top leaders could be bypassed by a candidacy that successfully spoke to evangelical concerns directly; subsequent primary cycles show leaders often reacting to grassroots trends rather than steering them [1] [6].
5. Data: evangelicals remain decisive but polarized
Quantitative reports show white evangelicals remain a crucial Republican constituency — making up a disproportionately large share of GOP primary electorates in key early states and delivering overwhelming support to Trump in general election and primary contexts (CBS noted evangelicals comprised ~48% of GOP primary voters in 2016 while PRRI and related analyses show very high evangelical support for Trump in 2024) [3] [7] [8].
6. How endorsements changed primary dynamics in practice
Because the evangelical base stayed cohesive on certain policy goals (e.g., Supreme Court appointments, abortion) and media-savvy candidates courted them directly, endorsements shifted from decisive kingmaking to amplifying existing momentum: endorsements helped consolidate support after primary winners emerged or signaled acceptability, but rarely displaced a leading candidate with strong grassroots backing [1] [9].
7. Competing incentives and hidden agendas among leaders
Elites and faith leaders carry competing incentives — some seek policy leverage with a victorious nominee, others seek institutional credibility or donor access — meaning endorsements can reflect institutional self-interest as much as theological conviction, a reality visible in the mixed record of public endorsements and strategic silence by high-profile figures [2] [3].
8. The practical effect for primary campaigns
Campaigns now run dual strategies: court evangelical voters directly through policy promises and faith-focused events while selectively courting endorsements that can deliver credibility in early states; as a result, endorsements have become tactical accelerants rather than determinative forces in Republican primaries since 2016 [5] [6].
9. Open questions and limits of current reporting
Reporting documents the broad trend — reduced unilateral power of leaders, persistence of evangelical political clout, and mixed endorsement strategies — but available sources do not fully quantify the causal effect of any single endorsement across cycles, and demographic shifts among younger evangelicals suggest longer-term transformations that current data only begin to map [1] [10].