"Misunderestimated" Bush?

[Augustus]

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.

Say black and white all you want but...

Did they skew their sample - yes.
Did they over generalize the issues people where voting for - yes.
Did the exit poll results conflict with the election results - yes.

The pollster is engaging in CYA on PBS - bottom line the exit polls were flawed. Before I jumped to a conclusion about the motives of those that were voting I would want an 'accurate' sample.

[SirNitram]

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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you understand the following terms:

Confidence(In the context of a statistical prediction), Margin Of Error?

Let's see... All the exit polls by anyone worth talking about used the usual 95% Confidence, 3% Margin Of Error. For those of you who are mature enough to admit you don't know what those are, it roughly boils down to: 19 out of 20 times, the true answer will be within 3%, up or down, of the stated results.

For the Exit Polls to actually be wrong, they would have to have predicted the final numbers as 6% more for one candidate than another. 'Cept, the only State that had a margin that big for Bush was West Virginia.. Which the pollsters were already giving to Bush.

'No-faith'. Bullshit. You just have no fucking clue what's being discussed, that's all.

[RedImperator]

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?

You could say the exact same thing for terrorism. Take out 9/11, leave everything else in place, and Bush gets crushed (not unreasonable, since we know now the administration was antsy to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, so an alternate timeline where we still blunder into Iraq without Al Quaeda is plausible). You could say the war was almost the deciding factor--take it away and Bush wins in a landslide; things go a little worse, maybe Allawi gets assasinated on October 30 or something, Kerry squeaks through for the win.

Trying to boil this election down to "The stupid fundies ruined everything", or, worse, "60 million people are idiots" is counterproductive, and, frankly, wrong. It might be emotionally satisfying, but that's the extent of its virtues. I explained on the first page of this thread how I think Bush won and nobody's addressed it, let alone come up with any ideas how to change it. Nobody's denying that without the evangelical vote, Bush goes down in flames, but he goes down in flames without the small business vote, the white suburban middle class vote, the Wall Street vote and the security vote, too. The Democrats need to figure out how to get at least one of those groups to abandon the Republican coalition, which Kerry utterly failed to do, and Republicans interested in weakening the evangelicals need to figure out how to steal someone from the Democratic coalition who can slide the balance of power back to the center. Calling everyone in the red states uneducated idiots and daydreaming about extending the Canadian border to the Potomac River won't do it, and it all plays right into Karl Rove's hands. Liberals want to win in the 2006 mid-terms, the 2008 election? They'd better try to figure out how to fix this.

Or, you know, we can all keep doing what we're doing right now and look forward to President DeMint's inauguration in 2009.

[Joe]

Incidentally, calling anyone who disputes the significance of the exit poll figure a right-wing knee-jerker is flat-out wrong, because all the really right-wing people in the Republican party aren't disputing this figure, they're embracing it. They fucking LOVE it; despite being more the product of flawed polling than anything else, it gives them a perceived mandate to be even more socially conservative than they are now.

[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?

You could say the exact same thing for terrorism. Take out 9/11, leave everything else in place, and Bush gets crushed (not unreasonable, since we know now the administration was antsy to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, so an alternate timeline where we still blunder into Iraq without Al Quaeda is plausible). You could say the war was almost the deciding factor--take it away and Bush wins in a landslide; things go a little worse, maybe Allawi gets assasinated on October 30 or something, Kerry squeaks through for the win.

Yes, you could say that 9/11 was a huge factor. But Bush did not deliberately cause 9/11 to happen, unlike his deliberate stoking of the fires of homophobia. He was able to play their vote like a piano, because they're as predictable as shit. Hell, 9/11 could have sunk Bush instead of floating him if the American people reacted differently. So I suppose that you could say that flag-wavers were as big a cause of Bush's victory as fundies, and if that was your argument, I would agree with it.

Nobody's denying that without the evangelical vote, Bush goes down in flames, but he goes down in flames without the small business vote, the white suburban middle class vote, the Wall Street vote and the security vote, too.

Every one of those groups has a real (even if venal or mistaken) self-interest motivation for supporting Bush's pandering to them. Only the fundies have a motivation which is based not on tangible self-interest but outright bigotry, prejudice, and hate, so while you can legitimately say that those groups are also responsible, they cannot be faulted in the same manner as the homophobes.

[Beowulf]

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.

So asking for numbers is sophistry? I'm asking you to provide numerical proof, and it's just sophistry.

[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.

So asking for numbers is sophistry? I'm asking you to provide numerical proof, and it's just sophistry.

Numbers were already given, they were shown to be imperfect because they're just exit polls, and dismissed on that fallacious basis with no countervailing evidence whatsoever.

[RedImperator]

Yes, you could say that 9/11 was a huge factor. But Bush did not deliberately cause 9/11 to happen, unlike his deliberate stoking of the fires of homophobia. He was able to play their vote like a piano, because they're as predictable as shit. Hell, 9/11 could have sunk Bush instead of floating him if the American people reacted differently. So I suppose that you could say that flag-wavers were as big a cause of Bush's victory as fundies, and if that was your argument, I would agree with it.

That is, basically, the argument. I don't deny that the fundies were a major player, and I'm as repulsed by their agenda as everyone else here, but I've been getting more and more annoyed over the last week by the people claiming everything that happened is because of them, or that everyone who voted Bush is a fundie or fundie sympathizer.

And Bush might not have caused 9/11, but he certainly played it for all it was worth in this election.

Every one of those groups has a real (even if venal or mistaken) self-interest motivation for supporting Bush's pandering to them. Only the fundies have a motivation which is based not on tangible self-interest but outright bigotry, prejudice, and hate, so while you can legitimately say that those groups are also responsible, they cannot be faulted in the same manner as the homophobes.

Fair enough. Now all that needs to be done is to convince one or more of those groups their self-interests lie with the Democratic party, or convince some element of the Democratic party to come to the Republican side so the homophobe vote doesn't matter. I think the former is more likely for a number of reasons, though since despite everything I'm still a Republican, I'd prefer the latter.

[Axis Kast]

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

For fundamentalists, dipshit, but not for all other members of society.

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

I am evading nothing. You’re the one who’s turning this into a value judgment when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

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.

Protectionism hurts the nation as a whole. Kerry’s pandering would have cost people their livelihoods, fucktard.

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.

Even others agree with my analysis, dipshit. You lose. Thanks for playing.

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?

The irony here is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Somehow, it’s possible for you to construct your own individual morality without reference to religion, but none of the people who hold views contradictory to your own could possibly have developed them using only the same conceptual tools as yourself? I think not.

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.

Being afraid that a conservative society will stigmatize homosexuals and thus not wanting to confront the issue is not a sign of fundamentalism, but of social side-lining. Some voters were brow-beaten into their moral stance, not indoctrinated.

[White Cat]

the exit polling data showed 80% of Bush voters supporting him on the basis of "moral values".

No, no, no! How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Of the people who said that "moral values" was their most important issue, 80% of them voted for Bush. That isn't even close to the same thing as "80% of people who voted for Bush did so because of 'moral values.'"

As I calculated in my last post, based on the exit polls the number of people who voted for Bush based primarily on his "moral values" is 34.5%, not 80%. Obviously, that's still a major factor, but please stop exaggerating it.

[Patrick Degan]

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

For fundamentalists, dipshit, but not for all other members of society.

Cthulhu but you are dense —follow this closely, moron: PREJUDICE. AGAINST. GAYS. DERIVES. FROM. THE. BIBLE. Further, this was the basis for Bush supporters' backing of his "moral values" campaign. This has been reported so definitively as to leave no doubt.

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

I am evading nothing. You’re the one who’s turning this into a value judgment when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

On the contrary, it is precisely what you are doing. Further, fact is not subject to value judgement. Eighty percent of Bush's voters cited "moral values" as their chief concern above all issues.

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.

Protectionism hurts the nation as a whole. Kerry’s pandering would have cost people their livelihoods, fucktard.

WHICH IS STILL A FUCKING RED HERRING AS FAR AS ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT BUSH'S PANDERING TO THE "MORAL VALUES" CROWD IS CONCERNED. I tire of your bullshit on this.

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.

Even others agree with my analysis, dipshit. You lose. Thanks for playing.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy —as well as one ignoring the evidence contradicting your argument.

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?

The irony here is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Somehow, it’s possible for you to construct your own individual morality without reference to religion, but none of the people who hold views contradictory to your own could possibly have developed them using only the same conceptual tools as yourself? I think not.

Which has fuck-all to do with the basis for Bush voters' going for "moral values" as their most important issue by 80% and a key wedge issue on this front being the fight against gay marriage. I'm sorry you are too dense to understand what the results of the surveys actually said.

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.

Being afraid that a conservative society will stigmatize homosexuals and thus not wanting to confront the issue is not a sign of fundamentalism, but of social side-lining. Some voters were brow-beaten into their moral stance, not indoctrinated.

And you pulled this from where? Oh yeah —out of your ass as always. Pity it ignores THE FACT THAT 80% OF BUSH'S VOTERS CITED "MORAL VALUES" AS THEIR CHIEF CONCERN AND THE OPPOSITION TO GAY MARRIAGE AS KEY TO THAT CONCERN.

[Patrick Degan]

the exit polling data showed 80% of Bush voters supporting him on the basis of "moral values".

No, no, no! How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Of the people who said that "moral values" was their most important issue, 80% of them voted for Bush. That isn't even close to the same thing as "80% of people who voted for Bush did so because of 'moral values.'"

As I calculated in my last post, based on the exit polls the number of people who voted for Bush based primarily on his "moral values" is 34.5%, not 80%. Obviously, that's still a major factor, but please stop exaggerating it.

Wrong.

The total voter turnout for the past election was 59.1% of all eligible voters (chart provided here ). 52% of that electorate voted Bush. 80% of his voters (I did not say "80% of all voters") cited "moral values" as their top issue. By those numbers, 80% of 52% of 59.1% works out to about 24% of all voters.

This isn't too difficult to follow, actually.

[McC]

Cthulhu but you are dense —follow this closely, moron: PREJUDICE. AGAINST. GAYS. DERIVES. FROM. THE. BIBLE. Further, this was the basis for Bush supporters' backing of his "moral values" campaign. This has been reported so definitively as to leave no doubt.

Degan, I don't know how you can continue to state this when pre-Biblical references have already been brought up to suggest otherwise. Your indication suggests that there is no history before the Bible, which is obviously patently false. There is evidence that homosexuality was at least regarded as making an individual "lesser" in Egyptian society, and I'm sure scrounging would scare up some more data on this point.

Further, prejudice against gays can come, as Kast is trying to explain to you, from anywhere. It can come from a "rational analysis" (probably flawed in its rationality). It can come from gut instinct ("That gay shit feels wrong..."). Whatever. I've sort of lost what the point of the argument is, but it looks like the argument is over either "fundamentalists/evangelicals are homophobic," to which I can only say "no shit," or the argument is over whether or not fundamentalists/evangelics won Bush the election, to which I can only point to the percentages of people who voted for other things too. You could say the war or 9/11 won Bush the election as much as those people did, as Red is pointing out.

Honestly, though what are you guys arguing about?

[Edi]

Cthulhu but you are dense —follow this closely, moron: PREJUDICE. AGAINST. GAYS. DERIVES. FROM. THE. BIBLE. Further, this was the basis for Bush supporters' backing of his "moral values" campaign. This has been reported so definitively as to leave no doubt.

Degan, I don't know how you can continue to state this when pre-Biblical references have already been brought up to suggest otherwise. Your indication suggests that there is no history before the Bible, which is obviously patently false. There is evidence that homosexuality was at least regarded as making an individual "lesser" in Egyptian society, and I'm sure scrounging would scare up some more data on this point.

Biblical passages might have been brought up, that in and of itself means fuck-all, because the Evangelicals interpret them as a blanket ban and condemnation of homosexuality instead of as an injunction only against priests, which is what a Bible scholar would say. And the Bible is what they use as justification, they aren't interested in how it was in ancient Egypt. Kast is just using that issue to obfuscate as per his usual full-of-shit MO.

Edi

[Patrick Degan]

Cthulhu but you are dense —follow this closely, moron: PREJUDICE. AGAINST. GAYS. DERIVES. FROM. THE. BIBLE. Further, this was the basis for Bush supporters' backing of his "moral values" campaign. This has been reported so definitively as to leave no doubt.

Degan, I don't know how you can continue to state this when pre-Biblical references have already been brought up to suggest otherwise. Your indication suggests that there is no history before the Bible, which is obviously patently false. There is evidence that homosexuality was at least regarded as making an individual "lesser" in Egyptian society, and I'm sure scrounging would scare up some more data on this point.

Regarding homosexuality as making a person "lesser" in Egyptian society is still light-years from pronouncing it an abomination requring death-by-stoning, as laid down in Leviticus. We're also talking about a culture which made its sexual distinctions not upon male/female or straight/gay but penetrator/penetrated —a more nebulous and polymorphos standard than provided by contemporary definitions.

Further, prejudice against gays can come, as Kast is trying to explain to you, from anywhere. It can come from a "rational analysis" (probably flawed in its rationality). It can come from gut instinct ("That gay shit feels wrong...").

A rational analysis makes it impossible to consider homosexuality a threat to any one individual because the facts simply do not support such a conclusion. And the "gut instinct" (a raw emotional reaction having nothing to do with rational analysis by any definition) is the product of a culture demonising homosexual conduct for centuries —said demonisation arising entirely out of the Biblical condemnations against the practise. In any case, Kast's idiotic argument is moot because it was made very clear that "moral values" meant opposing gay marriage (as well as abortion) in the campaign for the White House and for the banning initiatives on eleven state ballots. It was patently impossible to be unconscious of this connection.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that homophobia is not necessarily exclusive to Christianity does not change the fact that it is primarily due to Christianity in present-day America, particularly when it is found in sufficient intensity to make someone an activist for something as absurd as a constitutional amendment.

[McC]

The fact that homophobia is not necessarily exclusive to Christianity does not change the fact that it is primarily due to Christianity in present-day America, particularly when it is found in sufficient intensity to make someone an activist for something as absurd as a constitutional amendment.

This might be seen as splitting hairs, but fuck it. Homophobia is not exclusive to Christianity at all. You are probably correct that certain sects of the "Christian faith" (and I use that term loosely, given that homophobia is about as opposed to Christ's message as one can get...) are the root source for anti-homosexual sentiment, though. Particularly Baptists. But saying it's Christianity in general is patently false. A lot of my friends here at school are Catholic and very much in favor of gay rights.

[SirNitram]

Cthulhu but you are dense —follow this closely, moron: PREJUDICE. AGAINST. GAYS. DERIVES. FROM. THE. BIBLE. Further, this was the basis for Bush supporters' backing of his "moral values" campaign. This has been reported so definitively as to leave no doubt.

Degan, I don't know how you can continue to state this when pre-Biblical references have already been brought up to suggest otherwise.

What? The lie that Egyptians didn't like gays when, in fact, they didn't give a fuck, or the large list of cultures I gave of places which were totally accepting of it before the rise of Christianity? The only pre-Biblical reference I've seen was Ancient Egypt, which was smacked down. Please show me any others that exist.

[White Cat]

the exit polling data showed 80% of Bush voters supporting him on the basis of "moral values".

No, no, no! How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Of the people who said that "moral values" was their most important issue, 80% of them voted for Bush. That isn't even close to the same thing as "80% of people who voted for Bush did so because of 'moral values.'"

As I calculated in my last post, based on the exit polls the number of people who voted for Bush based primarily on his "moral values" is 34.5%, not 80%. Obviously, that's still a major factor, but please stop exaggerating it.

Wrong.

The total voter turnout for the past election was 59.1% of all eligible voters (chart provided here ). 52% of that electorate voted Bush. 80% of his voters (I did not say "80% of all voters") cited "moral values" as their top issue. By those numbers, 80% of 52% of 59.1% works out to about 24% of all voters.

This isn't too difficult to follow, actually.

Okay, I'll try this again, using a pretty picture from the CNN exit poll, complete with hand-holding step-by-step explanations...

[Patrick Degan]

No, no, no! How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Of the people who said that "moral values" was their most important issue, 80% of them voted for Bush. That isn't even close to the same thing as "80% of people who voted for Bush did so because of 'moral values.'"

As I calculated in my last post, based on the exit polls the number of people who voted for Bush based primarily on his "moral values" is 34.5%, not 80%. Obviously, that's still a major factor, but please stop exaggerating it.

Wrong.

The total voter turnout for the past election was 59.1% of all eligible voters (chart provided here ). 52% of that electorate voted Bush. 80% of his voters (I did not say "80% of all voters") cited "moral values" as their top issue. By those numbers, 80% of 52% of 59.1% works out to about 24% of all voters.

This isn't too difficult to follow, actually.

Okay, I'll try this again, using a pretty picture from the CNN exit poll, complete with hand-holding step-by-step explanations...

No no no, dear boy, it's patently obvious that it's you who needs the step-by-step here. So let's see if you can follow along, shall we:

• The voter turnout for election 2004 was 59.1% of ALL eligible voters in the United States (this is the important bit) as per this graphic:



• Pay attention now: the 2004 turnout is the bar on the far right end of the table and has the number "59.1" printed right above. See it?

• This data shows the following:

Exit poll results from all 50 states. Percentages below reflect how exit poll data skewed toward one candidate or another.

Which one issue mattered most? (Bush-Kerry)

Taxes (56-44%)

Terrorism (86-14%)

Moral values (79-18%)

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.

• That was MSNBC reporting 79% of Bush's voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern. YOU are the one factoring in an extra step in this process (and doing it totally wrong, BTW: it would be ".22 x .8" which yields a figure of .176 or 17.6% —not "22 x .8/.51" which would yield a figure of 34.5 or 3450%)

• We'll work the numbers: 59% voter turnout, 52% of that figure voting Bush, 79% of that figure claiming "moral values" as their chief issue. That works out to ~24% of ALL eligible voters —which includes those who did and did not vote. And if you wish to consider only those who did vote: the numbers work out to 22% of all voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern, with 80% of those voting Bush —which works out to 17.6% of all voters supporting Bush on the basis of "moral values", which again falls approximately within the range of A FIFTH OF ALL VOTERS as per the MSNBC article.

In conclusion, before you presume to correct other people on their figures, it might help if you be certain you've checked your own sums first, and also if you could take your head out of your ass long enough to think it through.

[Axis Kast]

And you pulled this from where? Oh yeah —out of your ass as always. Pity it ignores THE FACT THAT 80% OF BUSH'S VOTERS CITED "MORAL VALUES" AS THEIR CHIEF CONCERN AND THE OPPOSITION TO GAY MARRIAGE AS KEY TO THAT CONCERN.

Those who voted for “moral values” may not have done so for religious reasons, fucktard. There’s a huge logical break in your argument – at exactly the point where you construe “moral values” voters to mean Bible-thumping fundamentalists.

• That was MSNBC reporting 79% of Bush's voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern. YOU are the one factoring in an extra step in this process (and doing it totally wrong, BTW: it would be ".22 x .8" which yields a figure of .176 or 17.6% —not "22 x .8/.51" which would yield a figure of 34.5 or 3450%)

• We'll work the numbers: 59% voter turnout, 52% of that figure voting Bush, 79% of that figure claiming "moral values" as their chief issue. That works out to ~24% of ALL eligible voters —which includes those who did and did not vote. And if you wish to consider only those who did vote: the numbers work out to 22% of all voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern, with 80% of those voting Bush —which works out to 17.6% of all voters supporting Bush on the basis of "moral values", which again falls approximately within the range of A FIFTH OF ALL VOTERS as per the MSNBC article.

In conclusion, before you presume to correct other people on their figures, it might help if you be certain you've checked your own sums first, and also if you could take your head out of your ass long enough to think it through.

I’m curious as to how 100% of voters could have selected their most important reason for voting three times.

[Patrick Degan]

Those who voted for “moral values” may not have done so for religious reasons, fucktard. There’s a huge logical break in your argument – at exactly the point where you construe “moral values” voters to mean Bible-thumping fundamentalists.

Riiight —it's merely a coincidence that the ideology of Bible-thumping fundies just happens to parallel the definitions of the "moral values" at stake in the election... Never mind that this was the underpinning of the entire moral-values campaign by the GOP and what the "moral values" voters were clearly buying into. And to reinforce tghe point:

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.

• That was MSNBC reporting 79% of Bush's voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern. YOU are the one factoring in an extra step in this process (and doing it totally wrong, BTW: it would be ".22 x .8" which yields a figure of .176 or 17.6% —not "22 x .8/.51" which would yield a figure of 34.5 or 3450%)

• We'll work the numbers: 59% voter turnout, 52% of that figure voting Bush, 79% of that figure claiming "moral values" as their chief issue. That works out to ~24% of ALL eligible voters —which includes those who did and did not vote. And if you wish to consider only those who did vote: the numbers work out to 22% of all voters citing "moral values" as their chief concern, with 80% of those voting Bush —which works out to 17.6% of all voters supporting Bush on the basis of "moral values", which again falls approximately within the range of A FIFTH OF ALL VOTERS as per the MSNBC article.

In conclusion, before you presume to correct other people on their figures, it might help if you be certain you've checked your own sums first, and also if you could take your head out of your ass long enough to think it through.

I’m curious as to how 100% of voters could have selected their most important reason for voting three times.

Which is not what neither the MSNBC or the CNN article even implies. I will concede an error of methodology on my part in one area, so that point goes to you. However, the fact remains that the "moral values" voters who went for Bush were white born-again Christians and evangelicals —in other words, Bible-fundamentalists. Your continuial denials of this do not erase the facts of the issue no matter how much you wish it did.

[Durandal]

The fact that homophobia is not necessarily exclusive to Christianity does not change the fact that it is primarily due to Christianity in present-day America, particularly when it is found in sufficient intensity to make someone an activist for something as absurd as a constitutional amendment.

This might be seen as splitting hairs, but fuck it. Homophobia is not exclusive to Christianity at all. You are probably correct that certain sects of the "Christian faith" (and I use that term loosely, given that homophobia is about as opposed to Christ's message as one can get...) are the root source for anti-homosexual sentiment, though. Particularly Baptists. But saying it's Christianity in general is patently false. A lot of my friends here at school are Catholic and very much in favor of gay rights.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy. The Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and Christ never said anything to repudiate that.

[Patrick Degan]

Of the people who said that "moral values" was their most important issue, 80% of them voted for Bush. That isn't even close to the same thing as "80% of people who voted for Bush did so because of 'moral values.'"

As I calculated in my last post, based on the exit polls the number of people who voted for Bush based primarily on his "moral values" is 34.5%, not 80%. Obviously, that's still a major factor, but please stop exaggerating it.

After rechecking my methodology, I see where we've been talking at cross-purposes.

[Beowulf]

Why would people who aren't voting be polled? This is an exit poll correct? So why would the people who didn't even show up, get polled?