Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
In dissecting what went wrong for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, some attention needs to be given to the issue of time. Exit polls show that Clinton’s greatest segment of support came from people who had made up their minds over one month ago.
That means that it’s likely that something happened in the last month that made undecided voters choose to not vote for Clinton. What was it that happened? It’s hard to say for sure. It might have been Barack Obama’s come-from-behind victory in the Iowa caucuses.
On the other hand, it might have been the attacks that went back and forth between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over the last couple of weeks. The same exit polls show that while 70 percent of voting South Carolina Democrats thought that Clinton’s attacks against Obama were unfair, only 57 percent of voting South Carolina Democrats thought that Obama’s attacks against Clinton were unfair.
Whatever the reality of which attacks were accurate and fair, it seems that Clinton came out of the squabbles looking the worse.
(139 votes, average: 2.94 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
70 queries. 1.371 seconds
Top Article Last Week
January 27th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
A lot of “exit polls” being bandied about, along with questions about race. Don’t forget though about the “Bradley effect”–the discovery that people being asked questions in exit polls do not always say who they really voted for. This has resulted in typically 10-point inaccuracies with issues that touch race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
January 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I agree in general with your skepticism - and some skepticism is always a good idea. However, it’s important to look back at the information that we have and see the patterns - especially in the differences between candidates. The exit polls I’m referring to, referenced by CNN, seem to show results that are consistent with the actual ballots in terms of the general population (we’ll never know about how the breakdowns compare).
I can’t think of any reason for people to lie about when they made up their mind - but that doesn’t mean there can’t be one.
This isn’t perfect information, but I still think it’s important to analyze, for strong patterns - though, we don’t always really know what those patterns suggest. I’m certainly more comfortable with doing this than with having an obsession about what polls supposedly predict for elections that have not even taken place yet.
What I want to do in the next day or so is go back through the exit polls for all the primaries so far, and look at if there are any candidates who stand out as getting more votes from secular Americans - those who self-identify as not going to church (remember that people who regard themselves as believers in some religion can still be secular - secular is more about behavior than belief).
January 28th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I’ve seen polls that address the issue of those who identify as born-again or evangelical, but I haven’t seen anything about atheists. You already know what kind of a person in general is an atheist–white, male, and educated, in other words people who have the most social autonomy. There is certainly a body of research about that, but hard to determine their political characteristics.
I’m not sure if you could identify unique political characteristics for someone who, for instance, believes in God but doesn’t go to church as opposed to those with very flexible ideas about God (Bishop Sprague types) who do go to church. That whole area is very grass-roots and probably in flux. I don’t think church attendence by itself means anything politically. The mainstream Protestant churches (like Clinton, Edwards and Obama’s) would be mostly what you would refer to as “secular” politically, although they would consider working for social justice to be a religious imperative. The new phenomenon of mega-churches I couldn’t tell you. There’s all kinds, mostly based on a charismatic leader. The ones I know about are biblical ‘literalists’ but the people who attend are “seekers” who are looking to give their children a religious background (and maybe social connections for themselves that are not based on hanging out in a bar), but don’t necessarily have hardened dogma.
You will probably end up being limited by the format of the polls.
I tell you what I would like to see before the big primary. 1)Where do they get their money. There’s all kinds of claims about not being beholden to anyone. Are the claims true. 2)The Rezco connection. Who has been photographed with who, who has purchased property next door to who, what claims have been made (five billable hours as a junior lawyer is Obama’s only connection?).This Rezco stuff came out the day before the senate election, is there more to be revealed after the nomination, for example? 3)Comparison and ranking of real issues. And I’m talking here about stuff like economy, foreign policy, healthcare, not hope, baseball, Chevrolet, change, and apple pie. What do the candidates see as important issues and how are they different. I would like to read the positions myself, as articles with links–so much time is wasted just trying to locate and navigate the different websites.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I’m not talking about atheists. I’m talking about secular Americans - those who choose not to live an active religious life. Atheists are just one kind of secular American.
If church attendance didn’t mean anything politically, then Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards wouldn’t spend each Sunday going to a different church. What they’re NOT doing is having any appeal to people who choose not to go to church. I’m interested to see how that’s played out for them politically. I’m not sure if I’ll find even a hint of anything interesting.
Four years ago, I would have done more on the money, but this year, it’s really an impossible story to tell. That’s because the Supreme Court overturned an aspect of campaign finance law. Now, secret, unlimited amounts of money can be given by anybody to organizations that, while not a presidential campaign itself, can advertise and do other activities in the interests of the campaign.
Yes, we’ll know how much money and from whom is donated to the campaign itself, but to these shadow organizations, we’ll never know, and I think that a lot of the dirty politics is going to be coming from these organizations. So, money is a story that cannot be fully told.
Thank the right wing Supreme Court Justices for that.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Maybe church attendance in this campaign is nothing more than a place indoors where there are a lot of people gathered together–I mean, constituents gathered together. If you want to touch voters on Sunday that’s where you have to go.
I’m having a hard time trying to figure out where you’re trying to go with this “church attendance” thing. A lot of Christians would find it amusing you think someone can’t be a practicing Christian without going to church. Many cite the hypocrisy and unChristian behavior of churchgoers as a reason not to go. You yourself certainly live an active religious life, presumably without going to church, what with all your social justice rants.
And what about the elderly or disabled who can’t get out but watch all those TV preachers like that Crystal Cathedral guy, or send checks to all those missionaries? The Crystal Cathedral guy is pretty straight up, but there’s some real loony tunes in that bunch. I know someone else who never set foot in a church after her husband died. The minister would come visit her, but she said she met her husband at that church and was married there, and could not bear to go through those doors again after seeing his casket on the church steps. Would she qualify as “secular”?
If you are looking for someone who supports separation of church and state, there are more than a few organized denominations that do that. They don’t want government messing with their church or telling them what to believe, and are more than satisfied to have their children learn about evolution. They have a “secular” side and also a religious side, that is, their lives are compartmentalized, and they don’t talk about religion except on Sunday, even if they try to behave ethically during the week.
If you want to know about atheists, why not just say atheists.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Iroquois, I think you’re totally misunderstanding me and the meaning of the word secular. A person can be secular and be a Christian, or be secular and be a member of another religion. Being secular has to do with the role of religion in one’s life.
When I write, “I’m not talking about atheists.” Why do you respond with the statement, “If you want to know about atheists, why not just say atheists.” ?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
What? You’re not making any sense. If this helps, here are the first three dictionary.com definitions of secular
You are saying religion has no role in a person’s life? No, faith and works are supposed to go together. For example, how could someone call themselves religious and own slaves? (Yes, I understand historically the Southern Baptists would not agree with me, but you get the drift.)
I don’t think there is any focus to the question you are asking. For example, you might observe political candidates shaking hands and kissing babies in a shopping center, then wonder about the political characteristics of people who don’t go to shopping centers. You would find yourself studying people who are farmers and have their own food, people who only believe in organic farming, shutins who use grocery delivery services, and people like children and disabled whose families go to the shopping centers in their place. What I am trying to say is you are not looking at a group that is homogeneous or even significant in any way. You need to rephrase your question to make it meaningful. You also need to proofread your latest diary post as there are several parts of it I can’t parse at all and it is an important point you are making about FISA.
I still think you are trying to make some question about atheist. Maybe you are trying to figure out what type of religion person has similar political characteristics to atheist. Then trying to say that type of person can’t be “religious” and can’t go to church? Which still doesn’t make any sense.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Iroquois, are you searching for lack of clarity? Your Dictionary.com definitions don’t include the most commonly used sense of the word “secular”, which is this, from the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy:
“Not concerned with religion or religious matters.”
Not concerned with religion would aptly describe many people who don’t go to church, even if they describe themselves as Christians in some general sense. A crowd of secular Americans might include some atheists, some Christians, some Buddhists, some Muslims, and a whole lot of people who just don’t think about religion.
Yes, some people have very active personal religious lives, but don’t engage in religious activities with others. That’s another way of being secular: How people behave out in public. If someone leaves their religion private, then in a social sense, they operate in a secular sphere, and can be categorized as secular even if they’ve got a great big altar at home with candles burning 24 hours a day in worship to whatever they believe in.
Consider the second definition of “secular” in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: “Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.”
Your metaphor of the shopping center and people who don’t like to go shopping is not at all apt. Shopping centers are by definition dedicated to shopping. Public elections are, on the other hand, by definition not at all related to religion. People’s choices to vote in an election (or to go shopping, for that matter), may or may not be related to a religious motivation. Your metaphor falls apart.
Government is referred to as secular, whether the actual people who constitute it are religious or not, when the people in the government do not claim civic authority on the basis of their religion. So, again, in this sense, the word “secular” refers to how one goes out into the public world, not to what beliefs one holds privately.
I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I’m not talking about atheists. I’m not talking about atheists. I’m not talking about atheists. If I say it three times, does that make it more clear?
In examining the exit poll results, I’m looking to see whether there’s any candidate who appeals to the secular portion of Americans - people who are not religious in the social sphere, whether or not they’re religious in public.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
First you get vague, then you get snippy. What you’re talking about then is when I described in the fourth paragraph of post #5. That’s probably the type of person you’re looking for. Those people would indeed consider themselves to be religious in the social sphere in the sense of social justice issues, which they would see as a normal outgrowth of their religion.
Some polls have been asking a question about born-again or evangelical type Christians. That would give you the info you are looking for–about the closest you could come to identifying someone with a religious basis for opposing something like abortion or evolution or separation of church and state.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Iroquois, you’re really not pay attention to what I’m writing.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
If you fish for information then scratch and hiss at the people who are willing to respond to you, what do you think might happen next?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Another thought, after looking at the numbers in your piece today, I wonder if the church thing you document isn’t as least partly influenced by race. Traditionally movements among blacks (like civil rights) have focused in the churches–you might be measuring race as much as religiosity.