Weird

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

By this analysis, it seems there has to be some group of people who were not
"going to vote for Bush (or Kerry) anyway". Of this category of people in
Ohio, how many who ended up voting for Bush were influenced , at all, to do
so by "moral values" ? Was that amount of voters ( minus those who ended up
voting for Kerry) the margin of victory in Ohio ?

Doesn't Christian right ideology in the form of "moral values" influence
many people's attitudes toward the war on Iraq, socalled terrorism and
class, race and gender ( beyond abortion and gay rights) issues ? In other
words, Christian ideology deals with all political issues in terms of "moral
values" , not just abortion ( by the way, the Michigan legislature just
negated Roe v Wade) and gay rights.

Doesn't it, CI, persuade many working class people to accept tax cuts for
the rich, not to get angry at Bush for tax cuts for the rich, for example ?
The poor will always be with you, and you are it. The more suffering you do
on earth , the better it will be for you in heaven. Afterall, Jesus suffered
and was sacrificed. Be like him. Don't worry, it is easier for a camel to
get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. So they'll get their come uppance in due course.

Then one could ask, of those who were going to vote for Bush "anyway", how
many were going to do so because of the influence of Christian right
ideology/moral values on them "in the past" ?

Charles



From: Michael Hoover


carrol overstates, perhaps to make point, but suggesting that  'moral
values' had no impact on 2004 election does not make for simultaneous claim
that christian right has no influence in u.s. politics or bush
administration...

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 1) validity of poll question itself: 'moral
values' not comparable to 'economy/jobs', 'terrorism', 'iraq' options among
those on list, 'moral values' can be defined in various ways; 2) 'moral
values' as modal response not statistically different from percentage that
choose economy (20%, 80% of which voted kerry), not much greater than
terrorism (19%, 86% of which voted bush) or iraq (15%, 73% of which voted
kerry)...

interestingly, despite state "anti-gay" victories, exit polls indicated that
3/5ths of voters favored either civil union or legal marriage, moreover,
turnout among religious voters no greater in 2004 than 2000, nor in turnout
in bible belt and midwest, as for vote choice, only in south did 'moral
values' (defined as anti-gay marriage/anti-abortion) independent impact, and
bush was going to win region anyway...

party identification remained strong indicator of vote choice although
partisan loyaly remains bit of problem for dems as only 87% of them voted
for kerry, whereas 93% of reps voted for bush, similar situation with
respect to ideology where once again, dems have problem as larger percentage
of cons vote than does libs...

'moral values' may well have buttressed support for bush among those who
were going to vote for him anyway, 'moral values' did not come into play for
others, which means that 'moral values' mattered most in places where bush
was already strong...   michael hoover