"Misunderestimated" Bush?

[Axis Kast]

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 6, 2004

very election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

From the NY Times.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This looks to be based on the same tripe that was smacked down in Joe's thread.

[Joe]

Also from the NYT, from one of those right-wing nuts at ABC News:

A Question of Values
By GARY LANGER

A poorly devised exit poll question and a dose of spin are threatening to undermine our understanding of the 2004 presidential election.

The news media has made much of the finding that a fifth of voters picked "moral values" as the most important issue in deciding their vote - as many as cited terrorism or the economy. The conclusion: moral values are ascendant as a political issue.

The reporting accurately represents the exit poll data, but not reality. While morals and values are critical in informing political judgments, they represent personal characteristics far more than a discrete political issue. Conflating the two distorts the story of Tuesday's election.

This distortion comes from a question in the exit poll, co-sponsored by the national television networks and The Associated Press, that asked voters what was the most important issue in their decision: taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values or health care. Six of these are concrete, specific issues. The seventh, moral values, is not, and its presence on the list produced a misleading result.

How do we know? Pre-election polls consistently found that voters were most concerned about three issues: Iraq, the economy and terrorism.

When telephone surveys asked an open-ended issues question (impossible on an exit poll), answers that could sensibly be categorized as moral values were in the low single digits. In the exit poll, they drew 22 percent.

Why the jump? One reason is that the phrase means different things to people. Moral values is a grab bag; it may appeal to people who oppose abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research but, because it's so broadly defined, it pulls in others as well. Fifteen percent of non-churchgoers picked it, as did 12 percent of liberals.

Look, too, at the other options on the list. Four of them played to John Kerry's strengths: economy/jobs, health care, education, Iraq. Just two worked in President Bush's favor: terrorism and taxes. If you were a Bush supporter, and terrorism and taxes didn't inspire you, moral values was your place to go on the exit poll questionnaire. People who picked it voted for him by 80 percent to 18 percent.

Moral values, moreover, is a loaded phrase, something polls should avoid. (Imagine if "patriotism" were on the list.) It resonates among conservatives and religious Americans. While 22 percent of all voters marked moral values as their top issue, 64 percent of religious conservatives checked it. And among people who said they were mainly interested in a candidate with strong religious faith (just 8 percent, in a far more balanced list of candidate attributes), 61 percent checked moral values as their top issue. So did 42 percent of people who go to church more than once a week, 41 percent of evangelical white Christians and 37 percent of conservatives.

The makeup and views of the electorate in other measures provide some context for the moral values result. The number of conservative white Protestants or weekly churchgoing white Protestants voting (12 percent and 13 percent of voters, respectively) did not rise in 2004. Fifty-five percent of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Sixty percent said they supported either gay marriage (25 percent) or civil unions (an additional 35 percent).

Opinion researchers don't always agree. The exit poll is written by a committee, and that committee voted down my argument against including "moral values" in the issues list. That happens - and the exit poll overall did deliver a wealth of invaluable data. The point is not to argue that moral values, however defined, are not important. They are, and they should be measured. The intersection of religiosity, ideology and politics is the staging ground for many of the most riveting social issues of our day.

The point, instead, is that this hot-button catch phrase had no place alongside defined political issues on the list of most important concerns in the 2004 vote. Its presence there created a deep distortion - one that threatens to misinform the political discourse for years to come.

Gary Langer is the director of polling for ABC News.

[Patrick Degan]

Twenty-two percent of voters stated that the biggest issue of the election for them was moral values. And of those, approximately eight in ten voted for Bush. You’re so full of shit it’s funny.

Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.

Thank you for demonstrating your inability to do basic arithmetic. 80% of 52% is 41%. 41% is not equal to 22%. Thank you, come again.

Oh really:

Bush carried white men, voters with family income over $50,000 and weekly churchgoers. Three-fourths of white voters who described themselves as born-again Christians or evangelicals supported Bush. Those white evangelicals — a crucial voting bloc for the president — represented about a fifth of all voters. Their top issue was moral values.

One-fifth of all voters is around 20%.

And as for Comical Axi's latest drivel, some items from the exit polling data in the MSNBC article excerpted above:

Which one issue mattered most?

Taxes (56-44%)

Terrorism (86-14%)

Moral values (79-18%)

Now for the rest of his tripe:

I see I have to connect the fucking dots for you as always. Love is expressed toward a person or a favoured pet and therefore is an investment in something tangible. Faith is more nebulous and approaches increasing irrationality when invested in something unreal. The concept also has different connotations than religious belief.

People can believe that there is a God, and that one should follow specific moral codes as outlined in the Bible, without necessarily discriminating against others. Your jump to ferociously batter all religious thought as negative and intolerant is evidence of your own bigotry.

Which unfortunately has nothing to do with the motivation of Bush voters who cited "moral values" as their key issue and identified that with banning gay marriage —which is discrimination and bigotry. Your clumsy ad-hominem does not negate that fact no matter how much you wish it did.

Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.

You fucking lunatic; if the original data splice is 22% of all voters, than the eighty-percent figure must be associated with that 22%.

Dealt with above.

There have already been documented cases of faith-based charities receiving federal funds requiring those who work for those operations to subscribe to the beliefs of the particular church, and you are evading the central point: the shifting of funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis which itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.

The failure of the system to function fairly doesn’t invalidate the fact that one can accept that faith-based charities are a good idea even without supporting a particular form of religious thought, moron.

And you continue to try to evade the central point: the shifting of federal funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.

A non-answer which we'll list in the category of the many items you've simply pulled out of your ass in your time here at SDnet. It also ignores the specific reason why faith-based initiatives were crafted by the Bush White House: to blatantly cater to religious interests regardless of the possible damage to constitutional principles.

Your point? Kerry pandered to union votes with promises of ending outsourcing. Politicians pander.

Red Herring Fallacy and a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Kerry's activities have nothing to do with Bush's.

And you can shove your evasions up your lying ass, moron —prejudice against homosexuality is a phenomenon of the Big Three monotheistic religions and the cultures formed by them.

Really? The ancient Egyptians strongly disapproved of homosexuality. They were hardly monotheistic.

Oh really:

HISTORY OF SEX

ANCIENT EGYPT

Egypt was and is a civilization of vast diversity. Ancient Egypt had many different sexual behaviors and diversities: homosexuality, transgenderism, incest marriages, exhibitionism, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, necrophilia, and others. There were different customs among nobility, common people, and slaves. Nobility had a wide range of marital customs and practically all sexual behaviors were both accepted and condemned depending on the time period and the ruling class. This was similar with the common people, only there seemed to be a more strict regime in marriage, and a variety of punishments to those who broke the laws. What was acceptable to slaves and concubines was dependent upon their owners. Although Egypt has similarities to other civilizations, they also had unique sexual imagery and customs.

And:

There is also another common word for eunuch in ancient Egyptian inscriptions, which is hm. The word is similar to the word for female, but it lacks the feminine grammatical ending -t. The word hm is used with a variety of senses. The Berlin Dictionary defines it as a coward. A text in the temple at Edfu says that in Sebennytus one must not have sex with a hmti or a male, which positions the hm as a man who is not male. [This text was written in a late period after Greeks had already conquered Egypt, so its prohibition of sex with eunuchs may reflect the influence of European cultural homophobia and heterosexism.] Hm is also a very common word in tomb inscriptions which Egyptologists like to translate as "priest," because the hm's are depicted performing all kinds of sacrifices for the dead. This word for priest hm is written with a kind of upward pointing club, differently from the word for eunuch hm, but the pronunciation is exactly the same and the range of uses overlap in the meaning of servant.

In a tomb established by two men at Sakkara near Memphis they are depicted holding hands, feasting together, and in their sacrificial chamber they are shown twice in very loving embraces (see Moussa, Ahmed, and Altenmüller, Hartwig, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara, Excavated by the Department of Antiquities, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, vol. 21, Mainz Philipp von Zabern, 1977). They were both manicurists for the king Neuserre, and both referred to by the word hm (priest)...

...Seth's behavior may be considered inappropriate and harmful, and he may lose face, but he unquestionably displays homosexual tendencies, which means a homosexual is one of the most ancient central archetypes in Egyptian mythology...

And:

Then Set said to Horus: "Come, let us have a feast day at my house." And Horus said to him: "I will, I will." Now when evening had come, a bed was prepared for them, and they lay down together. At night, Set let his member become stuff, and he inserted it between the thighs of Horus. And Horus placed his hand between his thighs and caught the semen of Set.

—Story of Horus and Set

The Egyptians were so intolerant of homosexuality that they wove it into one of their key mythological archetypes. You just never tire of displaying your myriad ignorance of any subject you presume to debate, do you?

Kindly demonstrate how biblical fundamentalists are not basing their views on homosexuality on what their sacred text is saying.

Strawman. We are not debating whether Biblical fundamentalists voted to ban homosexuality because of the Bible, and if you think we are, then that’s just more evidence of your own stupidity. We are debating whether many of Bush’s “morality” voters were necessarily fundamentalists.

Your Strawman actually, and a ridiculous one at that. This year's entire debate on moral values came down to two issues: abortion and gay marriage. This has been so comprehensively reported as to end any dispute over the matter except for a pinhead like yourself.

The "stigma" of friends of loved ones who are gay is also a product —directly or indirectly— of religiously-based prejudice and is again foreign to any culture in which homosexuality has existed compatibly alongside heterosexuaity.

Your fear of religion doesn’t make you a fundamentalist, nitwit. If secular voters fear to have homosexual contacts because they are concerned that members of society would strongly oppose it, that doesn’t make them religious bigots; it makes them stupid bigots.

Not only a pointless non-answer but a Stolen Concept Fallacy to boot. The prejudice doesn't exist in a vacuum; it simply didn't come from nothing.

[White Cat]

Based on the CNN exit polling on "Most Important Issue"...

Code: Select all

                               Bush    Kerry
Taxes (5% of voters)            57%     43%
Education (4% of voters)        26%     73%
Iraq (15% of voters)            26%     73%
Terrorism (19% of voters)       86%     14%
Economy/Jobs (20% of voters)    18%     80%
Moral Values (22% of voters)    80%     18%
Health Care (8% of voters)      23%     77%

(Note: the total "% of voters" adds up to 93%; I'm guessing the rest were "Other" categories.)

...we can work out the percentage of Bush voters who had each one as their most important issue as follows: (Percent of voters) times (Bush's share of those voters) divided by (Bush's overall vote share (0.51))

Code: Select all

Moral Values: 34.5%
Terrorism:    32.0%
Iraq:          7.6%
Economy/Jobs:  7.1%
Taxes:         5.6%
Health Care:   3.6%
Education:     2.0%

Total: 92.4%

In conclusion, it looks like just over a third of Bush voters chose him primarily for "moral values" reasons, narrowly edging out terrorism as the number one reason.

[Beowulf]

Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.

Thank you for demonstrating your inability to do basic arithmetic. 80% of 52% is 41%. 41% is not equal to 22%. Thank you, come again.

Oh really:

Bush carried white men, voters with family income over $50,000 and weekly churchgoers. Three-fourths of white voters who described themselves as born-again Christians or evangelicals supported Bush. Those white evangelicals — a crucial voting bloc for the president — represented about a fifth of all voters. Their top issue was moral values.

One-fifth of all voters is around 20%.

So far gone you can't even think properly. You just claimed that 80% of Bush voters were evangelicals. Bush had more than 50% of the vote. Hence, the number of total voters who where evangelicals was 40% of the total vote. But then you have a quote saying 20%. And in fact, only 15% of the voters were evangelicals who voted for Bush.

[Augustus]

I suppose some in this thread would argue that universal sufferage is a concept that has out lived its usefullness because the result didn't agree with them this time around.

Maybe there should be some sort of intelligence test voters in red states have to take before they get to vote...wait a minute...Hey!

[Darth Wong]

This wrangling over the correct percentage of Bush voters who were evangelicals is stupid and irrelevant. In an election decided by a few percentage points, it is manifestly obvious that their contribution easily gave him the victory.

[Axis Kast]

Which unfortunately has nothing to do with the motivation of Bush voters who cited "moral values" as their key issue and identified that with banning gay marriage —which is discrimination and bigotry. Your clumsy ad-hominem does not negate that fact no matter how much you wish it did.

It’s discrimination and bigotry, yes. But not every Bush voter will fall back on the Bible when defending that position.

And you continue to try to evade the central point: the shifting of federal funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.

Which is a big, fat, Red Herring. The point is not to defend the argument, you jackass, but to present it as an alternative.

Red Herring Fallacy and a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Kerry's activities have nothing to do with Bush's.

If Kerry can be forgiven for appealing to idiots, so can Bush.

The Egyptians were so intolerant of homosexuality that they wove it into one of their key mythological archetypes. You just never tire of displaying your myriad ignorance of any subject you presume to debate, do you?

The civilization itself was highly intolerant of homosexuality – such that one of the primary reasons Horus rose in ascendance over Set was because of Set’s presumed homosexuality, idiot. The presence of homosexuality in Egyptian mythology is evidence that they broached the topic, not that they approved it, moron.

Your Strawman actually, and a ridiculous one at that. This year's entire debate on moral values came down to two issues: abortion and gay marriage. This has been so comprehensively reported as to end any dispute over the matter except for a pinhead like yourself.

[/quote]

Which MAKES NO DIFFERENCE ON WHETHER THE VOTERS WERE EVANGELICALS OR AVERAGE JOES WHO SHARED THE BIGOTED VIEWS OF THE FIRST GROUP WITHOUT APPEALING TO THE BIBLE AS THEIR KEY SOURCE OF ENCOURAGEMENT. But do go right on muddying up the waters.

Not only a pointless non-answer but a Stolen Concept Fallacy to boot. The prejudice doesn't exist in a vacuum; it simply didn't come from nothing.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard. Concession accepted.

[Patrick Degan]

Which unfortunately has nothing to do with the motivation of Bush voters who cited "moral values" as their key issue and identified that with banning gay marriage —which is discrimination and bigotry. Your clumsy ad-hominem does not negate that fact no matter how much you wish it did.

It’s discrimination and bigotry, yes. But not every Bush voter will fall back on the Bible when defending that position.

The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is the basis for the discrimination and bigtory against homosexuals, you moron.

And you continue to try to evade the central point: the shifting of federal funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.

Which is a big, fat, Red Herring. The point is not to defend the argument, you jackass, but to present it as an alternative.

No, this is you evading the point, as always.

Red Herring Fallacy and a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Kerry's activities have nothing to do with Bush's.

If Kerry can be forgiven for appealing to idiots, so can Bush.

Wrong, you dishonest little fuck —appealing to economic interest is in no way the same as a blatant appeal to prejudice. Nor do Kerry's actions explain or justify Bush's.

The Egyptians were so intolerant of homosexuality that they wove it into one of their key mythological archetypes. You just never tire of displaying your myriad ignorance of any subject you presume to debate, do you?

The civilization itself was highly intolerant of homosexuality – such that one of the primary reasons Horus rose in ascendance over Set was because of Set’s presumed homosexuality, idiot. The presence of homosexuality in Egyptian mythology is evidence that they broached the topic, not that they approved it, moron.

I see you didn't even bother to actually read the extract from the myth, or did you not notice both Horus and Set engaged in a homosexual act, just as you decided to ignore the other articles which disproves your contention that homosexuality was disapproved of. That the Egyptians did weave it into their central mythology indicates that their attitude was other than declaring it anathema. Try again.

Your Strawman actually, and a ridiculous one at that. This year's entire debate on moral values came down to two issues: abortion and gay marriage. This has been so comprehensively reported as to end any dispute over the matter except for a pinhead like yourself.

Which MAKES NO DIFFERENCE ON WHETHER THE VOTERS WERE EVANGELICALS OR AVERAGE JOES WHO SHARED THE BIGOTED VIEWS OF THE FIRST GROUP WITHOUT APPEALING TO THE BIBLE AS THEIR KEY SOURCE OF ENCOURAGEMENT. But do go right on muddying up the waters.

That's you trying to muddy the waters despite the reported facts of the matter, but do go right on denying reality as always. "Moral values" was the bedrock of the opposition to gay marriage and the basis for bans against it appearing on the ballot in eleven states coincident with the presidential election in which Bush campaigned as the moral values candidate and in opposition to gay marriage. It was made very clear that the GOP equated moral values with banning gay marriage, and the exit polling data showed 80% of Bush voters supporting him on the basis of "moral values". Exactly how much clearer does this have to be made to you, or should I attempt using simpler words for your benefit?

Not only a pointless non-answer but a Stolen Concept Fallacy to boot. The prejudice doesn't exist in a vacuum; it simply didn't come from nothing.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard. Concession accepted.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies —and you've just given us another non-answer. So take your "concession accepted" pronouncement and shove it up your ass.

[Patrick Degan]

Thank you for demonstrating your inability to do basic arithmetic. 80% of 52% is 41%. 41% is not equal to 22%. Thank you, come again.

Oh really:

Bush carried white men, voters with family income over $50,000 and weekly churchgoers. Three-fourths of white voters who described themselves as born-again Christians or evangelicals supported Bush. Those white evangelicals — a crucial voting bloc for the president — represented about a fifth of all voters. Their top issue was moral values.

One-fifth of all voters is around 20%.

So far gone you can't even think properly.

That's you actually, but do rave on:

You just claimed that 80% of Bush voters were evangelicals blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah...

I claimed no such thing. I claimed that 80% of Bush's voters cited "moral values" as their most important issue, and the nationwide exit polling data cited in the MSNBC and CNN articles indicated that this constituted ~20% of all voters. Try actually reading before you blow your mouth off in an argument about something.

[McC]

I see you didn't even bother to actually read the extract from the myth, or did you not notice both Horus and Set engaged in a homosexual act, just as you decided to ignore the other articles which disproves your contention that homosexuality was disapproved of. That the Egyptians did weave it into their central mythology indicates that their attitude was other than declaring it anathema. Try again.

Actually, Patrick, he is correct and you are not (well, you're not entirely wrong, but you aren't right either).

According to the Contendings of Horus and Seth the Egyptian attitude towards homosexuality may have been similar to that of the Greeks who considered the man performing the part of submissive to be inferior but did not attach opprobrium to homosexuality per se.

The story relates that Seth caused his phallus to become stiff and inserted it between Horus's thighs. Then Horus placed his hands between his thighs and received Seth's semen. Isis, when Horus told her about what Seth had done let out a loud shriek, seized the copper (knife), cut off his hand(s) with which he had received Seth's semen. Seth clearly considered Horus to be unworthy to rule, as did the other gods:

Said Seth: "Let me be awarded the office of Ruler, l.p.h., for as to Horus, the one who is standing (trial), I have performed the labor of a male against him." The Ennead let out a [loud] cry. They spewed and spat at Horus's face.

It was only thanks to the trickery of Isis that the gods came to believe that Seth and not Horus was the effeminate one, unfit to rule.

Itallic emphasis original, bold emphasis mine. Word substitution load -> loud also mine.

The full story itself is linked from that page, but doesn't add any more insight than what you see there. The indication is not so much that homosexuality is an "abomination" as it is (incorrectly) interpreted to be in the Bible, but rather that it reduces the receiver in status. It's a different taboo, but it's still pretty clearly taboo.

[Darth Wong]

Only a true knee-jerk right-winger would look at an election won by just 2% and conclude that when an issue swayed at least 20% of all voters, that issue did not decide the election. Math is not your strong suit, eh guys?

[Augustus]

On a side note:

I think we are putting far too much faith in the results of the exit polls. They are demonstrably wrong even according to the people that conducted them....

Exit pollster Mitofsky: Too many assertive Democrats were polled

WARREN MITOFSKY: Well, we interviewed almost 150,000 people nationwide on Election Day. We interviewed in every state but Oregon, since they don't have any people at the polling places, and we also interviewed a national sample of polling places.

TERENCE SMITH: Why did the early numbers show Senator Kerry ahead?

WARREN MITOFSKY: Well, Kerry was ahead in a number of the -- in a number of the states by margins that looked unreasonable to us. And we suspect that the reason, the main reason, was that the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters. That wasn't the case in every state. We had a few states that overstated the Republican margin. But for the most part, it was Democratic overstatement for the reason I just gave you.

TERENCE SMITH: So you're saying that some Bush voters would come out of the polling places and simply decline to participate; if so, why?

WARREN MITOFSKY: Well, in an exit poll, everybody doesn't agree to be interviewed. It's voluntary, and the people refuse usually at about the same rate, regardless of who they support. When you have a very energized electorate, which contributed to the big turnout, sometimes the supporters of one candidate refuse at a greater rate than the supporters of the other candidate.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, if you thought those numbers were suspiciously high for Senator Kerry, couldn't you correct the sample, as you say in your business?

WARREN MITOFSKY: Well, we recognized the overstatement in the exit polls in mid-afternoon, and we told the members of NEP about the suspicions we had, which they chose to ignore. The correction, in this case, is to wait for the vote returns in those same sample precincts and use that for projections. There were no mistakes in the projections. We were very cautious with them, and none were wrong, even though the exit polls did overstate Kerry in a number of states.

Also the "Moral Values" item that 20% responded to could be a polling question that was too generally worded. Also consider - if you add the "Iraq War" and "Terrosim" items on the exit poll question percentages together you get a higher values than anything else in the poll.

[Beowulf]

Only a true knee-jerk right-winger would look at an election won by just 2% and conclude that when an issue swayed at least 20% of all voters, that issue did not decide the election. Math is not your strong suit, eh guys?

Here's an idea. Instead of assuming that the 4 million vote lead is exclusively due to evangelicals, why don't you compare the exit polls from 2000 and 2004? As it stands, all you can say is that a given block of voters which has historically voted in a certain way, voted that way this time.

[fgalkin]

Only a true knee-jerk right-winger would look at an election won by just 2% and conclude that when an issue swayed at least 20% of all voters, that issue did not decide the election. Math is not your strong suit, eh guys?

Here's an idea. Instead of assuming that the 4 million vote lead is exclusively due to evangelicals, why don't you compare the exit polls from 2000 and 2004? As it stands, all you can say is that a given block of voters which has historically voted in a certain way, voted that way this time.

Well, duh. Except this time, there were more of them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

On a side note:

I think we are putting far too much faith in the results of the exit polls. They are demonstrably wrong even according to the people that conducted them....

<snip>

You're trying to use suspicion of a pro-Democrat bias in order to show that there was a pro-homophobe bias in the exit polling?

Also the "Moral Values" item that 20% responded to could be a polling question that was too generally worded. Also consider - if you add the "Iraq War" and "Terrosim" items on the exit poll question percentages together you get a higher values than anything else in the poll.

Apples and oranges. When it comes to the economy, the Iraq War, and Terrorism, there are people who will use them as justification to vote for either Kerry or Bush. But anyone who describes gay marriage as a "moral values" issue is pretty clearly a fundie and there's not much question which way he's voting.

[Beowulf]

Only a true knee-jerk right-winger would look at an election won by just 2% and conclude that when an issue swayed at least 20% of all voters, that issue did not decide the election. Math is not your strong suit, eh guys?

Here's an idea. Instead of assuming that the 4 million vote lead is exclusively due to evangelicals, why don't you compare the exit polls from 2000 and 2004? As it stands, all you can say is that a given block of voters which has historically voted in a certain way, voted that way this time.

Well, duh. Except this time, there were more of them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well... more people did vote. And proof that they made up more of the electorate than last election?

[Augustus]

You're trying to use suspicion of a pro-Democrat bias in order to show that there was a pro-homophobe bias in the exit polling?

Nope. Just pointing out that if the actuall pollsters have no-faith in the results of their work, then we shouldn't be obliged to either. The fact that there was a pro-democratic bais to the exit polls just makes the results more non-sensical.

Apples and oranges. When it comes to the economy, the Iraq War, and Terrorism, there are people who will use them as justification to vote for either Kerry or Bush. But anyone who describes gay marriage as a "moral values" issue is pretty clearly a fundie and there's not much question which way he's voting.

See thats the problem. The exit poll does not list "Gay Marriage" on it. We are jumping to the conclusion (not without justification) that the result for "moral values" means "Gay marriage". Thats a shakey limb comsidering the exit polls were flawed to begin with.

[Darth Wong]

Well... more people did vote. And proof that they made up more of the electorate than last election?

Now you're just resorting to sophistry. Since it was a far more prominent issue in this election than the last one, it stands to reason that it probably had greater influence on voting. Not to mention the fact that in 2000, Gore actively courted the fundie idiot vote by running a Jewish religionist whackjob as his VP.

[fgalkin]

Here's an idea. Instead of assuming that the 4 million vote lead is exclusively due to evangelicals, why don't you compare the exit polls from 2000 and 2004? As it stands, all you can say is that a given block of voters which has historically voted in a certain way, voted that way this time.

Well, duh. Except this time, there were more of them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well... more people did vote. And proof that they made up more of the electorate than last election?

2000: Religious Right is 14% of the electorate. 2004: 23% are Born Again.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

Now you're just resorting to sophistry. Since it was a far more prominent issue in this election than the last one, it stands to reason that it probably had greater influence on voting.

In the states with gay marriage bans on the ballots - presumbably the states where the issue would have been the most important - it did not. Bush had an average margin of 7.3 percent of the vote in these states in 2000, and in 2004 his average margin shrunk to 7.0 percent (a statistically insignificant difference).

[Darth Wong]

Nope. Just pointing out that if the actuall pollsters have no-faith in the results of their work, then we shouldn't be obliged to either. The fact that there was a pro-democratic bais to the exit polls just makes the results more non-sensical.

They only felt that they polled aggressive Democrats too much, not that their work was suddenly nonsensical. You are engaging in a black/white fallacy. Their numbers could be off by a factor of two (a huge error) and the point would still remain that the issue was easily enough to turn the election.

See thats the problem. The exit poll does not list "Gay Marriage" on it. We are jumping to the conclusion (not without justification) that the result for "moral values" means "Gay marriage". Thats a shakey limb comsidering the exit polls were flawed to begin with.

Oh puh-lease, you're just looking for excuses. You know as well as I do that the people who cited "moral values" were talking about Biblical ones, particularly the looming gay-marriage issue. And trying to completely dismiss the exit polls based on the fact that they might not be as accurate as hoped is absurd; they could be off by a factor of 200% and the point would still remain.

[Darth Wong]

Now you're just resorting to sophistry. Since it was a far more prominent issue in this election than the last one, it stands to reason that it probably had greater influence on voting.

In the states with gay marriage bans on the ballots - presumbably the states where the issue would have been the most important - it did not. Bush had an average margin of 7.3 percent of the vote in these states in 2000, and in 2004 his average margin shrunk to 7.0 percent (a statistically insignificant difference).

Which only means that his disastrous handling of the economy and other issues was offset in these peoples' minds by this issue. Oh wait, were you basing your "analysis" on the assumption that no other factor changed between 2000 and 2004?

[Joe]

Which only means that his disastrous handling of the economy and other issues was offset in these peoples' minds by this issue.

Proof? Besides, that only explains how things stayed the same. It doesn't explain how his vote share is actually bigger.