Religion
Related: About this forumNew Gallup Poll on Religion in Election Has Problems
Last edited Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5915/new_gallup_poll_on_religion_in_election_has_problems/April 25, 2012 8:01am
She does a great job in showing how these polls are faulty and why *lumping* can give a very distorted impression.
Sarah Posner
April 25, 2012 8:01am
I don't want to get too swept up in general election poll-mania, but I would just point out a few problems in the new Gallup poll out today on religiosity and voter preferences in the general election.
The poll finds that Mitt Romney is performing better among the "very religious," by a 54-37% margin, while President Obama has a significant edge among the "moderately religious" and "non-religious," by a 54-40% and 61-30% margin, respectively. The "very religious" made up 41% of the registered voters polled, while the "moderately religious" made up 27% and the "non-religious" 32%. That's a lot of "non-religious" voters, at nearly a third of the respondents. "Faith outreach" proponents, take note.
The respondents, notably, did not place themselves in these categories. Rather, Gallup did so based on their responses to questions about frequency of church/synagogue/mosque attendance and the importance of religion in one's life. This only serves to reinforce the notion that church attendance and public professions of devotion are correlated with religiosity, which in turn serves to compel politicians in the hunt for the "faith" vote to do the same. (Although, in fairness to Romney, he's never made a big display of where he goes to church.)
When probing the preferences of the religious voters, though, the Gallup pollsters made some odd decisions. For example, the pollsters conclude that "Romney does better among Protestants," as if they are a monolithic group. (I can hear you laughing.) The poll doesn't distinguish between mainline Protestants and evangelicals, instead lumping them together in the "Protestant" category. Because evangelicals make up such a significant chunk both of the "very religious" and of "Protestants" it would of course be helpful to know more about their presence in this overly broad category. But Gallup doesn't tell us. Instead, the analysis breaks down Protestants by "very religious," "moderately religious" and "non-religious," and guess what? Obama outperforms Romney with the latter two demographics. Gallup concludes that the group it calls "very religious" white Protestants, the majority of whom support Romney, "is the functional equivalent of the group of voters often called evangelicals." The poor mainline Protestants who say they go to church weekly or more and that religion plays a big role in their lives are made invisible.
more at link
link to gallup poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154097/Religiousness-Key-Factor-Romney-Obama-Support.aspx
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Those figures wil change radically. IMHO.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Romney? Stay home? Switch to Obama?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't think they are dumb enough to run a third candidate, but I wouldn't rule that out. I just don't see them voting for a Mormon. But I also thought I'd never live to see a black president and thought we'd have a white female president before a black male one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I also thought we would have a female before a black male and would have put my money on Hillary.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)When the fundamentalists get a good long look at Mormon doctrines, they're just not going to be able to pull that lever for Bishop Romney.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So you predict Paul will run independent.
Works for me.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Go Ron Paul! You can win it all this time!
TrogL
(32,818 posts)We just had provincial elections here in Alberta Canada. The pollsters were calling for a Wild Rose majority. In fact the competing Progressive Conservative party won a majority instead. In the last couple of days the Wild Rose pulled some bozo moves and opinion swung overnight
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Nice to see you!
oilpro2
(80 posts)If Romney says some of the foolish things in debates that he's saying day-to-day, people will see right through his fake facade.
And his lies, all Obama has to do is pull out the old Reagan line whenever Romney lies about Obama's record.
"There you go again!" Worked every time for Ronny!
longship
(40,416 posts)That is just so wrong, although I don't know how else to phrase the question. Polling is a bit of an art, one of which I am ignorant.
But I was raised a Protestant and apparently so was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Nevertheless there is a tremendous theological difference between the beliefs of a Congregational (my upbringing) and Robertson's or Falwell's, for example.
Hell, Congregationals are closer to Catholics -- at least we both are allowed to dance and drink.
I also would like the pollsters to specifically include non-believers. The wording here must be very carefully phrased. You do not want to do it by asking people if they are atheists due to the baggage that word carries.
on edit: interesting post, regardless. R&K
cbayer
(146,218 posts)are very hard to interpret.
longship
(40,416 posts)How many Protestant sects are there? I kind of don't blame Gallup. But I think we all agree that the data isn't very meaningful when you combine e. g., Congregationals with evangelical Protestants. There are decidedly different political demographics at work.
Another problem is characterizing the non-believers... To attempt such a thing in a non-believer forum is bound to bring on some serious chair throwing and a defenestration or two.
Alas, we all have our crosses to bear... so to speak.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Im pretty sure that the the vast majority of them are Protestant.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)One pet peeve of mine is using the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" interchangeably. I mean let's put things in perspective, according to the CNN exit poll, Obama got 25% of the white evangelical vote. Now that doesn't sound like a lot, but imagine if one out of every four people in evangelical churches disappeared, that's a lot of people, and that's not even considering the large minority populations. Now also consider that Obama got hammered in this category in the south, meaning he no doubt did better elsewhere, in my home state he got 33% of the evangelical vote, which is better than he got in the entire state of Wyoming. Now when you consider that there are many evangelical churches that basically are just mouthpieces for the right wing, it's obvious they don't attract many Democrats in attendance. This means that 33% becomes even higher in the evangelical churches that are not like that, and is even a majority in some and that's not even counting black churches. Yes there are liberal-leaning evangelical churches, I currently attend one in fact.
I agree though that at least an evangelical vs. mainline separation in these type of polls are needed.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and admit that I tend to lump them.
I think this is an important article, because the lumping is hurting us (dems). People are throwing around statistics that do not meaningfully differentiate between different kinds of christians.
Remember when christians were the good guys? Things have really changed over my lifetime.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Fundamentalists tend to be Biblical literalists, who believe that only those who adhere to doctrinal purity are "saved." the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God tend to be fundamentalists.
In most of the world "evangelical" is another word for "Protestant." In the US it refers to fairly conservative Christians who are interested in the proclamation of the evangel--which is from a Greek word meaning "good news" or "gospel". They would not be called "liberals" but neither are they fundamentalists.
These are really separate designations and should not be lumped together.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Fundamentalists on the other hand are those who put a big emphasis on biblical literalism, and thus things like Young Earth Creationism, subjugation of women, etc. Not all evangelicals adhere to this, far from it. Another standard that can be used is that evangelicals see it as their duty to as the name implies evangelize and preach to others to recruit others to follow Jesus rather than view religion as just a traditional thing that is part of one's culture, a friend of mine is a good example of this who actually started his own church...which is also a self-described progressive and LGBT-affirming church at where he has given sermons actually attacking the idea of being "saved" and that this is the whole message of the gospel. Yet the church's mission statement is all about "awakening and empowering people" to "spread the love of Jesus through the world" which is a pretty unquestionably evangelical statement. And the church services are very evangelical in nature, just preaching and songs with no complex liturgy, the clergy don't wear ceremonial robes or stoles (and in fact usually just a normal shirt and jeans), worship is pretty charismatic in nature (think of people swaying and raising hands), they see communion as just a symbolic ritual and believe in baptizing only people who can understand the purpose and not infants (not to the exclusion of those baptized only as infants though, many not only attend but have been invited to preach). Yet it's about as non-fundamentalist as churches get (he's shared some amusing hate emails they've received from actual fundies.)
oilpro2
(80 posts)There are many varieties of Catholics and Protestants and Jewish folks out there.
How about the ones that go to "progressive" or "liberal" congregations?
I would be willing to bet that they would score higher than 50% across the board as in favor of Obama.
This would apply to evangelical (and perhaps more socially conservative) black protestant churches as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and the definitions they use to categorize are often faulty.
PEW has done a few which have been good, but most of them are just sloppy or lazy.