?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Nov. 19th, 2004

Rasmussen...

For 11% of voters, the most important topics were Domestic Issues like Social Security and Health Care. Ten percent (10%) named cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, while 4% cite fiscal issues such as taxes and government spending.

The number saying National Security issues and Cultural issues increased from a survey conducted two weeks before Election Day.

Exit polls conducted by the networks created quite a stir by reporting that 22% of voters said "Moral Values" were most important. Our survey framed the question differently and drew attention specifically to same-sex marriage and abortion.

In the week leading up to the Election, we interviewed 652 Likely Voters who named cultural issues as most important to them. They were Bush voters by a 73% to 26% margin.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Cultural Issues Voters are under 40 and 61% are women. Those over 65 were least likely to name cultural issues as important.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Cultural Issues Voters are Investors and 83% are White.

Overall, on Election Day, 56% of Bush voters named National Security Issues most important. Fourteen percent (14%) said Cultural Issues, 13% Economic Issues, 6% Domestic Issues, and 3% Fiscal Issues.

Kerry voters had a different focus--40% named Economic Issues most important, 24% National Security Issues, 15% Domestic Issues, 6% Cultural Issues, and 4% Fiscal Issues.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Issue%20Clusters_Election%20Night.htm

Nyah.

qrsline_small

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
geckospot
Nov. 19th, 2004 10:30 pm (UTC)
Sadaam vs sodomy
No, I haven't been to the rasmussen site (so here goes my ignorance quotient!) but what exactly defines a cultural issue?

IMHO, I do think Kerry was the worst possible choice for the Dems; even the cheerleader had my vote b4 Kerry. That one soundbite killed his chance but, oh well.

Anyway, natl sec is BS, terrorists find ways to get inside (Fight Club is my fave fictional take on this). Even my 13-yr-old is let in the ofc regularly unless Bush ups the color scale, then we need my ID & mgr approval even though I am considered essential personnel for private banking of the ultra-wealthy (OK I'm roadkill or cannon fodder, whatever). The rules of war simply ARE NOT being followed and are not applicable in this battle (obtw, in the 10 yrs or so that Russia fought in Iraq, was there this much terrorism in Russia?).

Anyway - these are pretty pathetic statistics for any group. 22% for moral (read - gay/abortion) :-( ,11% soc sec & healthcare? (I personally expect to work til I die), 652 voters!?! WTF!?! 4% on fiscal!!??!! Shameful.

Specifically, abortion should be allowable (possibly 1 to 2 per person (shit happens) financed (perhaps 1 or 2 max w/ welfare assistance - hey, it decreases the # of dependents you're paying for in other taxes, or OOH, OOH how about the fewer the kids, the more welfare?), other than that, I believe in coughing up the $200 so you're not producing another govt leech.

What I found more interesting was that Bistet voted Rep., but seeing her reasons was very gratifying. I can respect that.

OBTW2, I don't see you & RK as the token elephants. T is quite the Rep & I am pleased to say that I inspired him (as the dark side of the force, Luke) to actually reregister and VOTE, dammit!

We know it's mostly white men that vote, no surprise there. The wonderful thing is how many minorities and women of any color actually turned out this year. I bow to your web leadership here, Bxiie! Can you/will you provide stats on that one?

I would like to be able to eat in my old age, but considering how many animals I keep, not to mention my gardening skills, I don't think I would starve. (Note to self, acquire good hunting dog or 2 by age 60 so that meat can be provided on regular basis (if SS is not available), names will be Ann and Dan {bonus pts for those that can correctly identify THOSE characters}).
readherring
Nov. 20th, 2004 11:29 am (UTC)
Our survey framed the question differently and drew attention specifically to same-sex marriage and abortion.

Yeah, they framed their questions differently. Search long enough online, and you'll find the results you want.

Bx, I feel your pain. I understand that, as an intellectual conservative, it would have been much more gratifying if the media announced that Bush had won an overwhelming and decisive victory based on the voters' intelligent analysis of the most important issues at hand. And maybe some people voted that way. But there was a sizable percentage that voted on morality, and it was big enough to swing the election.

I'm sure that there were a few loonies that voted for Kerry. And a few more that voted for Nader. But your loonies can beat up our loonies, and that's just what happened. Bush got a big chunk of votes based on his perceived morality. Again, I apologize for this not being a total scorched earth victory for the intelligent conservatives of the world. But it wasn't.

And I can't say this enough: You won.
You won.
You won.
You won.
You won.
So drop the 'nyah'. Try not to be so upset about your victory.
fr_defenestrato
Nov. 22nd, 2004 01:38 pm (UTC)
where are the data?
that's fine, bxiie, but it's all analysis. i don't like seeing "we framed the question differently" without seeing precisely how the questions WERE framed. as presented, there's no way of knowing what folks were responding to--i.e., what counts as "national security" (and this is important in that many far-right Federal mouthpieces have gone on record citing "protection of marriage" as a national security issue) and what counts as "cultural issues"--and here, tempering "gay marriage" with "funding for the arts" or "public television" (=Sesame Street in many folks' minds, and they're in favor thereof) may have toned down the importance of the category as a whole to many respondents.

i'm not defending the CNN polls as ideal or precise. however, CNN does at least post every question they asked, just as they asked it. see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html. the problem here is that the questions WERE very vague, leaving the definition of national security and moral values up to the individual--so analysis is de facto speculative. as has been noted here and elsewhere, the decision to go to war entails moral values; conversely, see above re protection of marriage being a matter of national security.

rasmussen surveyed 1,000 people on election night. CNN surveyed 13,660. perhaps 1,000 is a statistically significant sample, but it's certainly not as robust as CNN's.

i'm a little mistrustful of a source that posts its high-level responses FROM ELECTION NIGHT under the question, "When thinking of how you will vote this November, which type of issues will be most important?"

more troubling, rasmussen shows the totals of a survey from election night and one from October 19, two weeks previous. each sample was 1,000 respondents. on October 19, 8 percent (or 80 persons) cited "cultural issues" as most important to them; yet "In the week leading up to the Election, we interviewed *652* Likely Voters who named cultural issues as most important to them." (emphasis added.) where did the extra 572 interviewees come from? i'm not saying they made them up, but they DON'T TELL US, and i find that troubling.

in fact, the whole site's very vague, beginning with the fact that there's nothing on the rasmussen homepage identifying the organization that publishes the site, telling you anything about contributors, etc. "Learn more about RR" (on individual report pages, not on the home page) takes us to a sales pitch for premium membership. there's certainly no easily-found information about how their sampling is done... "1,000 likely voters" from where, exactly? granted, CNN doesn't provide their exit poll selection methodology either.

from a different rasmussen report:

"Monday November 08, 2004--Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters say that the same sex marriage issue was somewhat or very important in their voting decision last Tuesday. This includes 34% who deemed the issue 'very important.'

"Among those who said the issue was very important, 84% support the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."

the calculation of the second percentage (34) is wholly ambiguous: is it 34 percent of the 55 percent, or 34 percent of all respondents? we're talking about either 13.2 percent or 28.6 percent of total respondents, respectively, who support the "one man and one woman" definition--a big difference. i can't swear to either one, but the opening of the second paragraph shows that the author (not attributed *here or anywhere on the rasmussen site*) understands the necessity of being clear about percents of percents. so it's either sloppy or deceitful, and i can't tell which.

gourd
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

AFFF
bxiie
Bjamexza Q. Pyndejo / James O. Payne, Jr.
Bxiie Q. Pyndejo

Latest Month

May 2013
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031