It's interesting that Western red states like Arizona, Montana, and Alaska are still not very religious, while places like Illinois and Maryland are. I think this leads to the possibility of the Great East-West Divide of the 2030s-2050s in American politics.
I could see a scenario where Georgia and North Carolina are actually Safe R at mid-century, while Arizona has become Safe D and Alaska Likely D.
I doubt it, religion everywhere is on the decline, especially with the Millennial generation. By 2030 it's bound to be a much less impactful statistic politically.
^This
The reason states like Maryland still register as average religiosity is due to their heavy black population. The White population in Maryland more closely hews to New England Whites in terms of religiosity indicators than the Whites in states of the South or even the Midwest. Minorities and Hispanics are far more religiously inclined than educated Whites as a whole, but unlike Evangelicals and other White social conservatives, it's not the defining feature of their political beliefs.
Did you literally just say a sentence where you implied there was a dichotomy between being socially conservative and educated?
If by "socially conservative" you mean "strongly evangelical in religious orientation" then yeah, there's an inverse correlation between that and level of formal education. But it's only a correlation, and not as strong as elite liberals (and some more secular elite conservatives, for that matter) commonly think. And it must be emphasized that it's weaker than what it used to be, and skewed regionally (because obviously the Southern Bible Belt would skew this relationship).
Also, less formally educated people really aren't that religious (let alone, "socially conservative") in practice, even if their moral beliefs seem crude and ignorant by elite university-educated standards. Problem is, elite university graduates absolutely dominate the narrative, and not just in this context.
