Michael Hoover wrote:
in any event, assertion (hesitate to call it conclusion) that vote choice was largely 'moral' one based on one question from last november exit polls - 22% of respondents indicated that 'moral values' was most important issue, 80% of such voters did so bush...
no other issues matched 'moral vualues' in percentage, mix that with success of 'anti-gay' amendments in 11 states, voila - conventional wisdom: 'morality' determined election out come, exactly what karl rove, et al. want people to believe...
problems with assertion include
Yup, I know that. I spend a lot of time reading polls. But there's no doubt that the Republicans succeeded in turning out their base, and the religious appeal was an enormous part of that. Protestants increased their vote for Bush by 3 percentage points over 2000, and Catholics by 5 (and that was led by churchgoing, theologically conservative Catholics).
Doug
- Re: another reason to cut social spending -- more church influence, (continued)
- Re: another reason to cut social spending -- more church influence, Eugene Coyle Wed 15 Jun 2005, 02:24 GMT
- Re: another reason to cut social spending -- more church influence, Robert Scott Gassler Wed 15 Jun 2005, 09:50 GMT
- Re: another reason to cut social spending -- more church influence, Doug Henwood Wed 15 Jun 2005, 14:08 GMT
- Re: Weird, Michael Hoover Tue 14 Jun 2005, 18:31 GMT
- Re: Weird, Doug Henwood Tue 14 Jun 2005, 18:41 GMT
- NYT readers blast columnist Tierney, Carl Remick Tue 14 Jun 2005, 17:38 GMT