Slashdot Mirror

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you're going to resort to a poll to try and prove your point, don't go trying to defend the poll itself with maybes.

PEW 2007, "are attacks on civilians ever justified" NO, NEVER 46%

Gallup 2005, "do you approve of nuking Hiroshima?" YES 57% (fallen from 85% in 1945)

No Price Too High, By J. T. Copp, Richard Nielsen, p.209, Gallup poll, 1944 - "is bombing German civilians justified?" YES 60-70%

24% said it's sometimes justified. I fail to see how that's contradicted by half of those saying attacks on Israeli civvies by Palestinians were not justified. There's nothing contradictory there.

I didn't say there was a contradiction, I was just pointing out that the specifics of a question affect the answer.

You are right in that there seems to be a contradiction between the 80%/41% figures. 39% responded differently to the Palestine-Israel scenario. Either they failed to consider the Palestine-Israel scenario in answering the first question, or they don't consider the Israeli population to be "civilian". Another possibility is given by the text on page 10 - "Respondents were then asked to think in the context of war and other forms of military conflict... ... judge violence in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". This suggests that the first question may have been posed in a non-war-conflict scenario. There is no way to tell for sure since the paper doesn't go in to that much detail. Maybe you should email the primary author and point out the discrepancy and see what his response is.

Sorry, no. Most American Christians believe that way.

Just because you keep saying something does not make it true.
It is also indicative of your extremism how you've tried to narrow your definitions down from "most christians" to "most american christians" - which is still false:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx

You're right. Gallup has Obama at +2 for traditional "likely" voters (factors in current intention and previous action).

Then again, it also has Obama at +7 on their other "likely" voters poll, which only takes into account current intentions.

However, with Nov 4 closing in, what's more important is that people are registered. Amongst registered voters, Obama is at +7.

You also have to take into account that people without landlines do not get polled. A large portion of 20-somethings have eschewed having a personal land line, and carry only a cell phone instead. This demographic tends to lean left, so adjust your sights for wind accordingly.

I spent time on slashdot, I can tell you...

See how that does not work?

You pulled some scare lines from thin air and are backing them up with thin air.

Or should I say hot air.

Based on the polls of eligible voters in most states, McCain would be wary to have full voter turn out. He would lose. So guess what his campaign tactic is now?

Gallup Daily: Obama Leads 50% to 42%

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters across the country by a 50% to 42% margin in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Oct. 3-5, the 10th straight day in which Obama has held a statistically significant lead.

This 10-day stretch of a significant Obama lead is the longest since he became the presumptive nominee back in early June, and the longest for either candidate at any point in the campaign. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.) Today's result includes interviewing conducted Friday through Sunday, after the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate between Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden, and after Friday's passage of a revised economic rescue plan to help alleviate the Wall Street financial crisis.

McCain has been push polling and voter caging for months now. He does not want people to turn out to vote. His best bet is suppression.

And, sadly, he has sunk that low.

A November 2007 Gallup poll reveals that Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents.

As we observe in nature, only the paranoids survive. The others are just nuts. LOL.

Fundamentalists are actually a minority. They are just a very vocal minority.

Gallup Poll: Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago

If that's not fundamentalism, I don't know what is. That is just a quick example. If I cared to, I could find more supporting evidence. Are you seriously claiming that politics in the US are not strongly influenced by fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

You might have missed it, but there was a monumental court case heard as recently as 2005. The crux of the case was whether or not a creationist-based explanation for life as we know it could be taught in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution. In 2005!

Fundamentalists are a minority? Maybe, but they're frighteningly influential. If they'd keep their nonsense out of my tax-funded schools, I wouldn't be so "militant." Yes, I'm threatened by them. I fear for my child's future as a free-thinking individual in this "one nation under God."

I'm sorry, but your whole post seems pretty ridiculous to me, and I'll take the time to respond since you're modded as Interesting.

First, I don't know where you heard that Palin has difficulties with mainstream conservatives because the opposite is true. Without a doubt she will serve to coax the conservative base of the Republican party who would otherwise stay home or vote independent or Obama. She has a solid conservative record, so I think your facts are just wrong.

Second, I take exception to your claim (which you state as fact) that McCain has almost no chance of winning this election. Or haven't you heard that McCain has been rising in the polls for several months? He surpassed Obama in several polls right before the Democratic National Convention. If anything, it looks like a dead heat like it usually is. See the Gallup Poll which tends to lean toward Obama more than others, and you may change your mind that the GOP has almost no chance.

No. Other way 'round. These days, if you do profess membership in some faith, you're a cold-hearted bastard.

Well, 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president regardless of qualifications.

Reference

At first I thought this was a rebuttal but maybe American's want a cold hearted bastard for president.

Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

So, obviously not enough Americans understand science.

I'll bet that you don't belong to a union, have no experience as a union employee, and are just shooting your mouth off. The folks that I know who do belong to unions are quite proud of their unions and the benefits they receive. Polls consistently show that over 90% of union members regard their union positively.

And the Democrats have had 18 months to call President Bush out for the Iraq war that he started on largely false pretenses and the house of cards called the subprime and Alt-A mortgage crisis that he allowed to fester to the point where major firms (e.g. IndyMac, Bear Stearns) have collapsed and many larger ones across the economy are threatened. What have they done to address what they call the evils of Bush's first 6 years in office? Virtually nothing. Speaker Pelosi very easily could have pushed for an impeachment trial, or at least a special investigation of the president's claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What happened? Nothing other than some vapid sound bites.

On the energy front, I've heard little serious talk of alternatives to drilling in ANWR proposed by Bush. I can understand the opposition to drilling there, especially since that would be a stopgap measure at best. But simply voting that procedure down isn't going to fix our energy problem. Without a counterproposal, anti-ANWR advocates are just compounding the problem. The reason why we're where we are is because all we've let Congress do is say "No, no, no!" on anything related to energy. Nuclear plants? Those will cause Chernobyls to become a monthly occurrence in the US! CAFE standards with teeth? Only the Japanese know how to build cars that get more than 20 MPG, and we can't risk American manufacturing jobs! Wind farms? Putting 380-foot turbines 10 miles off the coast will destroy our beautiful coastal scenery and damage our tourism industry!

So I suppose you think there's no reason whatsoever that the now-Democratic led Congress has an approval rating that's about 15 points lower than a president who's considered by many to be among the worst in US history?

Any high-ground advantage the Democrats may have had when reclaiming Congress has disappeared. Yeah, the Republicans were on a witch-hunt to try to derail a very popular president with a sex scandal, and wasted time and breath on various other pittances. They had a golden opportunity to advance their agenda against a weakened Republican party, but descended to the same level. Both the Capitol and the White House are covered in the same mud, and Bush and Pelosi are but two of the slimeballs slithering in it. If you think either party is righteous, then you've got a lot of learning to do.

I think all 535 members of Congress have sowed the seeds for a boot up their behinds, and I hope a good portion of them taste the electorate's shoelaces beginning this November. I say: a pox on both their houses.

And the Democrats have had 18 months to call President Bush out for the Iraq war that he started on largely false pretenses and the house of cards called the subprime and Alt-A mortgage crisis that he allowed to fester to the point where major firms (e.g. IndyMac, Bear Stearns) have collapsed and many larger ones across the economy are threatened. What have they done to address what they call the evils of Bush's first 6 years in office? Virtually nothing. Speaker Pelosi very easily could have pushed for an impeachment trial, or at least a special investigation of the president's claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What happened? Nothing other than some vapid sound bites.

On the energy front, I've heard little serious talk of alternatives to drilling in ANWR proposed by Bush. I can understand the opposition to drilling there, especially since that would be a stopgap measure at best. But simply voting that procedure down isn't going to fix our energy problem. Without a counterproposal, anti-ANWR advocates are just compounding the problem. The reason why we're where we are is because all we've let Congress do is say "No, no, no!" on anything related to energy. Nuclear plants? Those will cause Chernobyls to become a monthly occurrence in the US! CAFE standards with teeth? Only the Japanese know how to build cars that get more than 20 MPG, and we can't risk American manufacturing jobs! Wind farms? Putting 380-foot turbines 10 miles off the coast will destroy our beautiful coastal scenery and damage our tourism industry!

So I suppose you think there's no reason whatsoever that the now-Democratic led Congress has an approval rating that's about 15 points lower than a president who's considered by many to be among the worst in US history?

Any high-ground advantage the Democrats may have had when reclaiming Congress has disappeared. Yeah, the Republicans were on a witch-hunt to try to derail a very popular president with a sex scandal, and wasted time and breath on various other pittances. They had a golden opportunity to advance their agenda against a weakened Republican party, but descended to the same level. Both the Capitol and the White House are covered in the same mud, and Bush and Pelosi are but two of the slimeballs slithering in it. If you think either party is righteous, then you've got a lot of learning to do.

I think all 535 members of Congress have sowed the seeds for a boot up their behinds, and I hope a good portion of them taste the electorate's shoelaces beginning this November. I say: a pox on both their houses.

The only group that holds 'evolution can't happen because the bible says' is a very small minority of Christians. Specifically biblical literalists.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but this "very small minority" is actually pretty large, at least in the US. Gallup polls estimate that something like 45% of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". A similar percentage believes evolution is "probably" or "definitely" false.

I should point out the parties in power have such low approval ratings. Last I checked the Democrat controlled congress has a much lower approval rating (~18%) than president Bush does (~29%). http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx

"the republican party is headed for serious trouble if they don't win the next presidential election, which there is every indication that they will not?"

Oh you must be referring to Bush's 28% approval rating. Of course, Congress' approval rating is even lower at 16%. Which party runs Congress now?

Maybe you're referring to Obama's overwhelming popularity. Of course, he just lost 8 of the last 15 primary states, including the big ones of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Or maybe you're referring to Independent voters supporting Obama. Of course, those numbers have dropped the past two months to be even with McCain.

I know what you must mean, the racial unity of everyone voting for him. Of course, 90+% of blacks voted for Obama, and more whites voted for Clinton. It's shocking to see the same racial divide among democrats that democrats accuse republicans of having. Maybe they'll stop taking the black vote for granted now. Probably not.

Every indication? Take a second look beyond the media headlines.

FYI it's a very tiny number of believers that think the creation is literal.

• If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

This is what their divisive campaigning has wrought.

The Republicans used to have a Commandment that served them very well in general elections: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of A Fellow Republican". Perhaps it's time for the Democratic Party to adopt a corresponding Commandment.

I'm an Obama supporter, and was myself considering that I might vote for McCain if Clinton were nominated. What changed my mind was reading McCain's take on the housing crisis in the paper today, in which the best he could come up with was to have some accountants and bankers to have some kind of conference. He specifically said he wouldn't bail out anyone who made unwise investments.

So if Clinton is the nominee, I'll be voting for Nader.

Yeah, I know this is a second reply to yours and probably no one will read it, but I just found something that stopped me in my tracks. Having multiple parties in a democratic society has a point of diminishing returns. My initial thinking on this is that the returns begin to diminish once you have more than three sides or parties. If each is capable of taking roughly 30% of the vote, you have a reasonable chance at finding reason and logic in society. Beyond that, the returns begin to get 'squirrely' and unpredictable. In recent months, Ron Paul has shown he has a strong message but is only getting upwards of 15% of the votes. This can be blamed on a number of reasons, but that demonstrates that in the popularity contest that elections become, there is not room for more than about 3 campaigns. The reason can be gleaned from this poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx which shows that more people don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun than voted for Ron Paul. When you pull the votes in 4 or 5 directions, it is simply becoming a popularity contest where someone with 30% of the vote becomes the ruling party. With even more divide in the votes, you get a ruling party built on the votes of even less people.

I don't care how you feel about that analysis, it's a scary situation. Just as alarming as a ruling elite, because the 25% that voted for the ruling party might just be the same 25% that don't know the earth is not flat!!!

Are their any sociological statisticians in the house?

Does anyone have another take on this?

Massive numbers of children in rural Africa are dying from malaria because their parents heard rumors that mosquito nets are bad. Many lives could be saved if we work to fight the disinformation and rumors and just get people to use mosquito nets. http://www.gallup.com/poll/25849/Rural-Africans-Least-Likely-Malaria-Protection.aspx/

By the logic that many are advocating here, we should be happy that so many people (both in Africa and the rest of the world) are dying because their parents are so stupid for believing rumors from questionable sources. Instead, shouldn't we be saddened that so many are negatively impacted and do everything we can to help people get the right information, and save lives? I'm not saying I want the government regulating youtube or anything... but come on, "good, they deserve it" can't be the right response either. People probably didn't say "I have a health problem" and turn to youtube. But if they happened to see the video because someone sent it to them, it can still have an impact by spreading false rumors that harm public health.

Just to put things in perspective:

Bush just this week set a new record in Presidential approval ratings: his approval rating is the lowest Presidential approval rating in Gallup's history, lower even than Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. 50% "strongly disapprove" of President Bush. Only 31% approve.

In two separate articles, I've seen Cheney's approval rating mentioned as 9% and 11%. I could not find a good recent article citing it, surprisingly.

Congress has an approval rating of 23%. It is important to note though, that historically Congress's approval rating is usually between 20-40%.

I agree, though, that we should throw out both those who have abused their positions, as well as those that stood by and let it happen.

And I am not aware of any government mandate regarding last mile buildout. By policy the FCC encourages better access for everyone, but can you cite any Order that requires specific actions? I don't even recall a NPRM along those lines.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html.

'Nuff said.

The real question is: when did you stop working in the telco regulatory environment? I'd say things have changed significantly with respect to the telcos in the last 5 to 10 years. It's only within that period of time, after all, that the telcos have become effective monopolies on a nationwide scale again.

As for your incredulity at the notion that corporations now own the government, do you really think the general population wants the telcos to be let off the hook with respect to the domestic spying issues? That's just one of many issues where the government's stance is sharply aligned with that of the corporations and against that of the general population. There's a reason the approval rating of the president is some 30% and the approval rating of congress is even lower than that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/101764/Congressional-Job-Approval-Public-Mood-Still-20-Range.aspx.

Governments which listen to their people don't have approval ratings that low.

You can keep your head in the sand as long as you like. Just don't be surprised to find yourself living in a fascist "paradise" when you pull your head out.

According to a 2001 Gallup poll on the origins of humans, they estimate that 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism (as defined above). They also estimate that about 45% of Americans concurred with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Supporting link, link, and right from the horse's mouth link.

According to this Gallup poll, it's well over a hundred million of them.

• "Only 35% [of Americans] are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States; 65% are dissatisfied. This is consistent with Americans' generally dour mood on this measure for the past year."
  
• "[N]early two-thirds of Americans say things have gotten worse. Only 28% say they have improved."
  

Sorry I can't get the full Gallup Article link, their damn registration kills me. BugMeNot for those who want to read it.

When I originally read that Gallup Poll Headline I thought to myself "What the hell, 30% of this country is borderline retarded." I then read the article and realized that it is not 30% but 60%. Actually 66.6(repeating of course) percent.

This is really about employee engagement, something every employer should be working towards. Gallup has done research on this and they've found that organizations that have some of the best employee management practices also have some of the worst practices. It really boils down to individual supervisors.

And as a union member, I want myself and my fellow employees to have the best supervisors out there. I'm all for measuring employee engagement using Gallup's 12 questions to identify supervisors that could use some training on how to be a good supervisor. Of course, if this happened, then we wouldn't need unions:-)

http://consulting.gallup.com/content/?CI=52

Actually, about 45% of Americans believe in creation as-described-by-Biblical literalism, since Christians are only about 77% of Americans, while I am playing a bit fast and loose, it is in fact quote possible that most American Christians are evolution-deniers. If you have facts to support your contention that evolution-denial is a minority of US Christians, I would greatly appreciate a cite.

* A substantial majority of Americans (about 7 in 10) believe the scientific Theory of Evolution is compatible with a belief in God - one does not preclude the other. linky

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. linky

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy that comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense -- and sampling theory -- tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20. Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains that come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples. If Gallup were to -- quite expensively -- use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost.

I'm not applying my opinion to the rest of America. I'm deferring to The Gallup Organization.

I'll readily grant that polls aren't perfect--I used to work for a pollster, and I'm well aware of the pitfalls involved in this kind of thing--but I invite you to direct me towards a better metric of American popular opinion. I also invite you to refute the notion that the war in Iraq is losing, not gaining, support.

1) while I feel that some of the details of the original plan have become confused, the overall effort is good

"Some of the details"? We went to Iraq because we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that an attack on the United States was imminent. Which part of that reason turned out to be right?

The overall effort, while rooted in good intentions, has been abysmal. Can you point to a single pre-invasion document or plan for what we would do once we had deposed Hussein and defeated the Iraqi armed forces? What about the disbanding of the Iraqi army--was that a good move? What of the aggressive de-Baathification of Iraq--was that a good move? What of the fact that Iraqis still do not have reliable electricity--is that a good sign? What of the fact that our policy on detainees and interrogation became so muddled and laissez-faire that we ended up with hundreds of documented cases of prisoner abuse and torture at US detention facilities around the world--is that a good thing?

The overall effort is without direction. The overall effort is based on a nebulous concept of how the current administration would like to see American power exercised around the globe. The current plan is, as it has always been, rooted in the basic hope that things will magically right themselves with just a little more perseverance and muscle. While the overall effort is decidedly good--our troops are performing incredibly well under extremely difficult conditions--the actual planning and execution is utterly abysmal. That is what has my hackles up--our leaders sent our finest into a situation that they didn't have any real plan for, beyond "make it all better". That is what disgusts me.

2) I have friends in Iraq that are glad to be there, because they have a sense of national pride, and a commitment to something other more than themselves.

As well they should be proud--they're fighting a noble cause! Ask your friends, though, if they feel like the powers that be know what they're doing. Ask your friends if they know what the road to victory is. Ask your friends how one distinguises friend from foe. You may find that, while they are justifiably proud of what they're doing, they feel some very real trepidation as to where the war is going, and what needs to be done to actually win the war.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. The simple and infuriating fact is that we're in Iraq with a wonderful, noble goal in mind--but without a plan as to how to get there, because our leaders assumed that the wonderful, noble goal would simply achieve itself once we removed Saddam. It could have worked, if only our leaders had planned for the day after. Now, we'll be genuinely lucky if Iraq doesn't sink into a protracted civil war and the rest of the region doesn't sink further into instability.

How does this not infuriate you?

That is, until the republicans do away with the filibuster: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=16195

My wife was asking me this morning, having seen this news item in the paper, whether any developed nation other than the U.S. has a significant proportion of the population not believing in evolution (according to Gallup[http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.as px?ci=14107], 2/3 of Americans do not believe evolution is well supported by the evidence!).

I wasn't aware of any. Can anyone offer other countries with similar situations.

Note, this isn't stray America-bashing. Both my wife and I are American citizens (in the 1/3 minority), although we don't currently reside in the US. It's a sincere question.

I just wrote a college report about the effect of "moral values" on the recent election. I'm not going to inundate you with data, but two Reuters poll questions seem extremely interesting:

When asked if government should promote traditional values in our society, 75% of all Bush voters were in favor. However, 66% of all Bush voters indicated that "Government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses," while only 23% indicated that "Government should do more to solve our country's problems." If we assume the 23% who think that government should do more also support the "moral values" initiative, this means that 52% of Bush voters appear to hold the conflicting beliefs that government should both promote traditional values and stay out of people's lives.

Prime conjecture: conservatives don't mind big government when it's their agenda which is being promoted. Not surprising, really.

Source: Bush Voters Support Active Government Role in Values Arena (registration req'd)

Here's the report. You can be proud that your anti-evolutionist views are shared by 80% of people with a high school education or less.

Yes, especially since 58% of college graduates voted for Bush and 54% of high school drop outs voted for Kerry.

And the same site shows that 53% of people with a post graduate education voted for Kerry. So smarter people did vote for Kerry, then.

Note: If you combine the 2 statictics, then 53% of the people who graduated college voted for Bush. (Postgrads were 20% of the sample, plain college grads 15%. Feel free to insult my math.)

Yes, especially since 58% of college graduates voted for Bush and 54% of high school drop outs voted for Kerry.

See or yourself.

Also, despite Bush's attempt at a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage, 23% of homosexuals still voted for Bush. I guess that means 23% of gays are stupid hicks too eh?

"Do you know how much debt the average American is in"

2900$

According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

relevent links:

Salon War Room Report
Gallup Poll original data (I think this is the correct data set)
USA Today story

All news stories merely mention this in passing.....

According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

relevent links:

Salon War Room Report [salon.com]
Gallup Poll original data [gallup.com]
USA Today story [usatoday.com]

All news stories merely mention this in passing.....

According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

relevent links:

Salon War Room Report
Gallup Poll original data
USA Today story

All news stories merely mention this in passing.....

Clinton was easily re-elected and enjoyed high approval ratings until the end (the last was 65%). Though there was (and still is) a small group of people with an inexplicable hatred of both Clintons, there's no comparison between Bush and Clinton.
I mean, check out the latest Gallup report.

As a matter of fact, I do. 23 out of 48, or 47% of the country.

Math time! 47 and 66. Which one of those numbers is bigger? Good.

While the media's portrayal of Christians may be skewed, ask your Christian friends whether they consider themselves to be Republican or Democratic and whom they will vote for this year. After they tell you they are Republican, ask them what the Republican party would have to do to lose their vote, or what the Democratic party would have to do to gain it. Now weigh their answer against the probability of those reasons ever happening. This is the real point, and the politicians know it.

Of all the Christians I personally know, only one has already decided to cross the party line this year to vote non-Republican. He has decided that opposing Bush's policies on revitalizing US imperialism, ignoring UN entirely before invading Iraq, ignoring the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, reckless governmental spending, doing virtually everything possible to support big business (especially the oil industry), helping to screw the 40 hour work week, and countless others, are more important than supporting his Christian-based issues of anti-abortion, anti-gay/lesbian , anti-non-Christian religions, etc.

Granted, I haven't conducted a Gallup Poll, but I would certainly like to see the demographic breakdown. What do you think: 90% of people who identify themselves as Christian (not just religious, but Christian) vote Republican? More? Less? Anyone have access to this poll or this one?

While the media's portrayal of Christians may be skewed, ask your Christian friends whether they consider themselves to be Republican or Democratic and whom they will vote for this year. After they tell you they are Republican, ask them what the Republican party would have to do to lose their vote, or what the Democratic party would have to do to gain it. Now weigh their answer against the probability of those reasons ever happening. This is the real point, and the politicians know it.

Of all the Christians I personally know, only one has already decided to cross the party line this year to vote non-Republican. He has decided that opposing Bush's policies on revitalizing US imperialism, ignoring UN entirely before invading Iraq, ignoring the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, reckless governmental spending, doing virtually everything possible to support big business (especially the oil industry), helping to screw the 40 hour work week, and countless others, are more important than supporting his Christian-based issues of anti-abortion, anti-gay/lesbian , anti-non-Christian religions, etc.

Granted, I haven't conducted a Gallup Poll, but I would certainly like to see the demographic breakdown. What do you think: 90% of people who identify themselves as Christian (not just religious, but Christian) vote Republican? More? Less? Anyone have access to this poll or this one?

I've gotta disagree with you... there are I believe some organizations that aren't swayed by their fundings... I worked at the Gallup Organization for several years, and we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year paying people to make sure our questions were free from bias... yes, there is always the risk of the people delivering the survey having a bias, but, they're typically weeded out before they can make a difference, and they cancel each other out (people delivering opposite biases) Surveys paid for by "Bank of America" to find out who the best bank is are much more likely to be biased than surveys payed for by CNN to find out which bank is the best... sometimes all a particular party has to gain from is presenting the most accurate statistics, and sometimes the most to gain comes from lying... I see nothing wrong with paying close attention to who's paying for the survey, and deciding based on those factors, what they have to gain or lose...

Yeh you seem to be one of them. I support Bush and I'm not an ignorant fuck. Go watch Farenheit 911 again, and keep perpetuating your false beliefs. Get a clue and stop labeling people you don't know. When he has a has an Approval Rating http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm of 45% I don't think you can say that Bush is the most hated Administration you've seen. If you look at other presidents he is right in the middle with most of the others http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr040210.asp Next time try not to be an ignorant fuck and learn a little something about what your talking about.