Redstate

You cannot add data on "War on Terrorism" and the "War in Iraq" together this way.  If you look at the voter preferences associated with those who chose one or the other of these as their most important issue, you'll see that those who thought "War on Terrorism" was important voted in favor of Bush, while those who thought the "War in Iraq" was important favored Kerry.

"War and Terrorism" and "Moral Values" were both important to Bush supporters, with "Moral Values" being more important.  The "War in Iraq" and other issues like "Jobs" were more important ot Kerry supporters.  Since Bush won, I think the all the post election analysis focusing on the role of "Moral Values" is quite on point.

I agree with you baz, that although terrorism and moral values were both important, moral values were the most important, however politically incorrect that may be. I am concerned though that the MSM will try to spin these polls to make it seem like we are Talibani fanatics. We have to make sure people know that what we mean by moral values is not at all threatening even though it is concrete.

While moral values may be the correct single issue they don't represent the simplistic definition viewed by the liberal press.  To the liberals "moral values" represent a believe in God, a faith that they are affraid of.

Moral values is plural and includes all ten of the commandments and the belief that Freedom is God's gift to man. Consequencially moral values  means that the freedom of 50 million Iraq and Afgan people are worth fighting for.  Moral values mean that it is the right thing to fight for long term solutions to retirement issues.  Moral values mean that it is right to fight for the unborn. Moral values mean that your hand shake or your promise is as strong as a notarized written contract.

Yes it is about moral values but not exactly what the liberal press understands.

You are right when you say moral values are plural and include the whole sermon on the Mount. However, for evangelical Christians and also more and more for Catholics, there are two main non-negotiable moral issues: abortion and and same-zex marriage.

The media is treating these categories as if they were mutually exclusive. They make the assumption that if moral issues like gay marriage were not on the ballot, those same people for whom morality is important would have stayed home. There is lots of crossover here, I think. For example, if the WOT is a close second in importance, a voter might still vote for Bush even if the moral issues were reduced to mere abortion.

It is wrong to assume that these voters would have not shown up or voted differently if moral issues were taken off the table. In fact, I'd say that people voting on moral grounds are also likely to view the WOT as the war against Islamofascism, that being a war of values and the great cultural war of our day.

My Firm which does political research, but on a  very private level for marketing research has this morning's figures rolling into my office. We don't ask the same questions in the same way as political pollers, but data just as or more valuable.

Clearly I cannot reveal eveything, but I can let some things go.

(2) two teams stationed in both Oklahoma & South Carolina because that is where clients have the most interest revealed this. Stats have come in for 18 states, I will use these two, (2,662 in SC) and (3,244 in Oklahoma). Not registered voters, but all people represented.

"No party line figures can be given, Sorry."

Margin of error is 5 -7 %

SCQuestion: Do you believe morally in a constitutional ammendment inacted against Gay marriage?

(62%) Yes (34%) No (4%) don't know

SCQuestion: Do you believe morally in overturning Roe vs. Wade?

(77%) Yes (17%) No (6%) don't know

SCQuestion: Do you believe morally that White's should able to marry Blacks and other races?

(59%) No (33%) Yes (5%) do not want to answer   (3) don't know

SCQuestion: Do you use the word "Niger" in the privacy of your home to discribe blacks?

(42%) Yes (17%) No (38%) do not want to answer (3%) don't remember

SCQuestion: Do you use the term "Faggot" in the privacy of your home to discribe homosexuals?

(61%) Yes (9%) No (27%) do not want to answer (3%) don't remember

SCQuestion: If a Contitutional ammendment against Gay marriage considerably weaked the constitution itself would you still supoport it?

(54%) Yes (16%) No (30%) Don't know anymore

SCQuestion: If in overturning Roe vs. Wade, the price to do so was to stack the surpreme court that will serverely limit all forms of civil liberty not just abortion, including provisions in the Patriot Act where American's can now be arrested with no charges even at homes without a warrent, would you still want the supremem court to be stacked?

(59%) Yes (17%) No (21%) don't know (2%) cannot understand question (1%) don't know.

The most revealing, (the importance of some stats can be missed) is the last stat. Why do you think that is? Let me know your answers.

I'll post more soon.

If real, those responses are disturbing to me, and will simply reinforce liberal perceptions of what conservatives mean by "moral values."  Like some of the other respondents to this thread, I think "moral values" meant more than just "pro-life" or "against gay marriage" to the people who responded to the exit polls.  The term can be broadly perceived.  Certainly, those who are strongly pro-life or against gay marriage would see "moral values" largely in those terms, but others may have seen the term meaning more than that.

I'm very pro-life, against gay marriage, and am one who would have selected "moral values" as the most important issue to me if asked why I voted for Bush.  But...

...I do not oppose interracial marriage as such

...I don't use words like "nigger" or "faggot"

...am not so stupid as to favor accepting erosions to the Bill of Rights merely to overturn Roe v. Wade

...do not favor a constitional admendment against gay marriage (didn't Tuesday night show the wisdom of leaving such issues up to the states?)

...overturning Roe v. Wade is not so much a moral issue (though I do oppose the immoral purposes of it) but a legal issue (there is no substantive "right to privacy" in the Constitution or Bill of Rights)

Those results, if true, will simply reinforce the liberal view that people on the right are simply bigots.

I hope the OK results were not as bad.  IAC, if the margin of error was 5-7 percent, those were some pretty small sample sizes.  Probably taken up in the hills someplace.  (I know how that sounds.)

Many are doing post election analysis on why President Bush won a second term. Some, the Democrat, spin is that he won on the homosexual marriage ban...but to the best of my memory that was only 13 states! Some are saying it was The War on Terror, The War in Iraq...which to me are one in the same. Some have other ideas. For what it is worth here is my two cents...

After all is said and done I believe it comes down to a very simple reason...TRUST! More voters simply trust President Bush than trust Senator Kerry on any and all issues of the election. without a basic trust in a person no confidence in him or her can evolve.

From the foundation of trust came all the reasons to vote for President Bush...The War, The Economy, The Schools, The Constitution, The...on and on.

TRUST ME

Results are all counted for SC and OK so far. Doing TX, AL, & FL right now. The samples are random from around the state and sorry, again although party affiliation was asked, that is the part I am being paid for, so I can't make that public, sorry. Although I cannot ever reveal who is paying for this, I can tell you it favors one side, so make up your own mind.

Additionally, the margin of error may go up or down abit because the sociologist have to evaluate the other parts of the study to make sure post election emotion wasn't running too high then making the current results more bias than they really are.

All the same, they are revealing and they most likely will be exploited very, very soon to spin it in whomever's way benefits them.

However, I'll give you some insight. If it can be proven to the America people in general that these results prove that the nation has not progressed very far as far as race relations go, and in fact compaired to the study of 4 years ago has gotten worse, then this could be rather damaging, but most likely will be an even deeper polarizing stat rather than anythings else.

My take, if you haven't fix race relationship to this point, your not going to fix it anytime soon.

The study is also revealing very similar stats concerning Hispanics, especially Mexican's in these regions as well. I think you have your political taret from that, but what do I know?

LOLOL, Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

Your very close sir, at least according to stats. On questionaires (TRUST) was the "key term" used for the question. Although a key term, it was intended that the respondent not know what the interpretation might be. If they do, they many times lie, and that's difficult to margin out.

That being said, it seems that it was trust in "Personality" rather than "Action" that was the main motivating factor. Accordingly, it does seem that "personality" played the strongest roll, but neither side likes to hear that or have that knows publically it seems from my 25 years of experience, no matter what side of the poll statistically they are.

But it's just info, it could all be just whoooweee.

It would be in the Demodractes best interest to make this thing into a religous dividing line between the people of the country more than anything else publically. Anyone who has studied these things in the past knows very distinctly one extrememly powerful statistic is that if the general public get's the idea that certain religious groups are extreme and want to control government and are regressing race relation as well as all other things conneted to religion, then they have the tool they seek most. They seem to be moving very quickly to that end, so obviously they know what most do and are already starting to act on it.

Didn't think it would happen this fast, but it seems the race for the offices of 2006 and 2008 election are already being contested.

REMARKABLE.

You said:

"Moral values is plural and includes all ten of the commandments and the belief that Freedom is God's gift to man".

Freedom of religion means all religions in Constitutional terms. (Remember the Consitution?) "The text of the Old Testiment" which include The Ten Commandments (A Christain Based Religion)does not reflect, nor represent what American Hindu's, American Muslim's, Native American Indian's, American Jew's, American Buddhist's nor any other person believing in a valid religion in America believe in. And their "moral values" are not Christian based. In fact, in a society where religion is suppose to be free, it's a completely disrespectfull view, clearly designed to exclude them, and is an attempt to make their religion less than yours in the minds of American's. The fact that you did not mention this and only mentioned your own religion clearly indicates a prejudice toward other religions.

I am half American Indian, I know for sure in my heart the Christian God did not give me, my family nor my ancestors any freedom. If anything those who have represented Christianity in America have cost the lives of over 110,000,000 Indians in the America's since it's discovery by Europeans. If you have read the scripture even somewhat by the way, you would know the God advocates doing it yourself. Life is the gift (The Bible) explains. There are no references to freedom being God's gift anywhere in the entire document, nor in those scrolls which were not included in the Bible when it was first translated in Spain in the 1,100's.

In fact many concepts that had been known to those in the middle-East during the time of Christ could not be understood by the Spanish European's when they first began the translation.

i.e. The concept of Zero. Spanish couldn't figure out what "ZERO" could be. "How could there be nothing" was the question of the day back then during the translation because Europe simply didn't have that type of mathimatical understanding yet. It's obvious to scholars how many times in those scriptures the translation got misinterpreted, but that's another story.

Find me some direct evidence that say's God (The Christian one of course since no others are legit. to you) gave man "Freedom" and I'll change my mind.

As the forefathers foresaw; When religion starts to interfer with governmental desicion making, you get things like (Christain Groups) that have decided that it is them that know what "moral values" are, and that no others are legitimate. But, then again this has been going on for so long, it's nothing new now, and it wasn't anything new back then either when the Constitution was drafted.

Their wisedom is obvious from your statement.

This victory may not need all this disection. I believe most folks in this country allow for lots of flexibity, and can live with a certain amount of change. It leads to a vibrant country. You know; live, and let live. We accept, and like change. In fact we are the black hole of everyones revolution; until it truly threatens our country. As it turns out, enough of the people, that just let life go by, did see the terorists, and the democrats, as an assault on our country. They wanted a president who thinks of his country first, and not second; as kerry, and his ilk do. For whatever reason; religious, economic, moral, values, enough people saw the external and internal assault on our country as a reason to put W back in office. George W Bush is the right man for these times.

I'll be honest.  I'm from Oklahoma.  I know how conservative it is.  But these numbers are made up.  Unless you can provide a link or copy of the actual report, I am discarding them out of hand.

Yeah, I'm also very suspicious of that data. I'm strongly pro-life and pro-marriage and for the federal marriage amendment and bans on civil unions, but I have nothing against racially mixed marriages and would never talk about blacks or homosexuals in a disrespectful way. I don't know anyone who would either. I have a feeling these numbers have been made up.

And do not reflect the same obvious prejudices to that degree, although somewhat. (Which is NOT posted above)

I too have lived in Oklahoma, Stillwater to be exact (OSU) Go Cowboy's, and often visited Fittstown, 40 miles east of Ada where my grandparents live, population 58. Anyone can and should question everything,and make up your won mind. I wll indeed give you a chance to (buy) the stats as they are private and are intended for marketing usage, not political when and after the primary receipiant pays and recieves it.

The price is or so $68,000.00 for Oklahoma, depending on which stats you want and what I think you want. The complete study is $113,006.22. Let me know if your interested.

For example: South Carolina

SCQuestion: Do you use the term "Faggot" in the privacy of your home to discribe homosexuals?

(61%) Yes (9%) No (27%) do not want to answer (3%) don't remember

Follow Up Question:

SCQuestion: Do you use the term "Faggot" in public or with friends?

(71%) No (12%) Yes (14%) do not want to answer

(3) don't remember

Marketers know as do many in this field, that most won't tell the truth on issues like this unless in a very specific atmosphere with leading question.

It's called (Public Perception vs. Private Morays)in the field and marketers are interested in both. The numbers are very telling, but the margin of error can be wide. This is why efforts are made to detail the thinking process at the time vs at another time which are in the questions themselves. Most of those questioned were questioned twice on different days. There's are adjustments, some dramatic, but not in South Carolina's case, that's why I used it.

However, please do dismiss it, if it makes you uncomfortable, that's not the intention. I think, if anyone here has taken a Sociology Course of any type, they would know that this type of thing is very normal.

more or less, to the first two parent responses here.  That is, I think if "moral values" were not among the categories to choose from, that conservatives would have bumped up other categories like the WoT, or would have chosen "trust" as an important category, if available.

That said, since "moral values" was offered along with the WonT, it must have meant something else to those who chose it over WonT.  While I think the term "moral values" is vague enough to mean a lot of things, and not necessarily pro-life or anti-gay marriage sentiments, I think that's the category people with those sentiments are likely to have chosen.

What it all boils down to is that pro-life and anti-gay marriage sentiments made a difference in this election, and may well have been a decisive difference.

After all, we have private lynchings once a month, kill any colored folk our wimmin so much as look at, regularly flog and execute gays, and generally feel every Amendment after 12 was a bad idea.

WardenHallis: The Ten Commandments did not originate in Christianity.  They come from the Old Testament, which is the Jewish Bible, and is known to Jews as the Hebrew Bible or "Tanakh."  If you thought that Jews do not accept the Ten Commandments or the Old Testament, you might want to learn some more about religions before lecturing the rest of us.

Furthermore, the person you responded to (UW Magic) did not mention Christianity in this thread, as you suggested.  UW Magic did say that moral values include the freedom of 50 million Iraqis and Afghans being worth fighting for.  Since most of those people are Muslims, I don't know why you are suggesting that UW Magic is prejudiced against other religions.

WardenHallis, if your firm is really selling its poll results for a specified price, presumably you would be willing to reveal the name, address and phone number of your firm.  This way, we could call and find out whether they are actually selling the results of a poll about the racial and other views of residents of various states.  Perhaps we might even be able to find a portion of the poll that they are distributing at a lower cost than the amounts you have quoted.

Those stats are so made up. Where's a link? What's your methodology? You can't post something like that without proof.

I'm from the backwater of Virginia and although most people there are pro-life and against gay marriage they aren't the hateful people embodied in your stats. I know Virginia isn't on your list but where I'm from is pretty much the same as SC or OK.

I personally would have chosen "moral values" as my top issue too and I'm far from socially conservative, I'm pro gay marriage, and being a minority myself I would never use a racist or bigoted term.

Yeah I thought the statement in the first

paragraph pretty much cleared it up. And, by the way the "Ten Commandments" since you are so interested sir not only DID NOT come from the Tanakh, but rather far before that within the references of  the Torah, from the Prophets and the Writings.

Infact should you really be interested in actually knowing this, it was in the late 1920's when a Syrian farmer plowing a field discovered the most distinct and direct source of the original scrolls and writtings.

Whereas previously knowledge of the Pagan religions of the region was limited to a few untrustworthy references in Greek and Roman writing, and moreso, the highly biased accounts in the Torah/ Bible and the negative writings of early religious writers of Judaism and Christianity.

It is clear from these clay tablets that Judaisms' roots began as a Polytheistic religion with many God's most notably and importantly; El, Athirat/ Asherah, Ba'al, and Anat.

The origins of biblical monotheism came later to effect Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic texts it was written in proves it.

The Ten Commandments began approximately as the 124 Commandments, when Polythestic religion ruled the religious sect and this particular society. Much, much, much later they evolved into a Monotheism where the final ten were agreed upon. Jesus' challenged to the Jewish Church (He was Jewish) and High Priest at the time came from him walking through the gates of the religious square where the jewish priest had power and influence.

That walk to many was the sign he was the prophet because it was written in the text at the time that The Prophet will walk through the front gates on a donkey. We'll, Jesus knew those text and that's extacly what he did. From that exact moment, you have the beginning of Christianity, because it was Jesus' intent to split the church, and so he did.

No dear sir, Christianity, nor the Ten Commandements (Actually the Over 100 Commandments Originally) represent the Jewish community. Most of the important writtings never made the New or Old Testiment.

And lastly, I'm sorry I don't remember 50 million Iraqi's or Afghans making any public call as one large unitifed people to the U.S. to come invade and help tehm establish "freedom" (Another term you use very losely). I'm finding little success in actually finding that story, Perhaps you could show me where it exist?

If your really going to take me on, make absolutely sure your correct, becasue I'm not like the idiots your use to dealing with.

You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, as do I.  You also have the right to participate in the political process, as do I.  You have the right to have your personal political and religious beliefs influence how you vote, as do I.  If 22% of the voting electorate on Tuesday designated "moral values" their top issue, however nebulous the term might be, they have that right.  For you to so arrogantly dismiss that right of theirs troubles me.

As far as not hearing the cry for freedom of those in Afghanistan and Iraq, I ask you: do you think they would prefer to live in oppression?  Do you think they had the ability while those to express that opinion freely while the Taliban and Hussein were in power?  No, they did not.    

I think this region has been at religious and secular war since the beginning of recorded history, or about 5000 years or so. Certainly my religion points that out as historical fact. I think that it most likely is.

And here's the big point you just help me make. There are many more places on earth that are far worse or equally as bad as in Iraq or Afghanistan for it's people. (i.e. North Korea, Iran and many more). I want to see Bush do the same thing in North Korea and these other place with this type of invasion and help those people too. Guess why he won't, they'll nuke the troops, and China ain't gonna be too happy either, and they might send a nuke or two themselves. Or go into Iran, let's see how that plays out, of course it's for the "sake of the people" or at least that is the public opinion vail that is used by not only you, but the administration as well.

Then where does it stop? Hey, Russia has many that are brutalizng the people because of huge amounts of corruption, I think it be in their best interest that you and Bush go save them, don't ya think?

The only reason to be there at all is Oil, It's the one thing that this place has that the other places that Bush doesn't attack doesn't have. Hmmm?

Using your philosophy, all places that do not agree with "your moral" values and that have been oppressed in your particular definition need to be attacked for the sake of the people of these places. Yes, You Need To Save Them From Themselves!!!.

And indeed, you will try I am sure. Your particular religion has a long history of doing just that.

First, you don't even know what religion I practice, so don't make assumptions about it.  Second, I never knew Afghanisan has oil.  That's the reason we liberated it?  Third, why would Bush, who, according to the Michael Moores of the world, is in the pocket of the Saudis, develop a competing source of oil against them by liberating Iraq?  Fourth, I have no problem having morals that include freeing political prisoners from torture, rape, and execution.  

Where going to need some good men like you on the front lines, good to hear your going to sign up to go fight.

I have already fought in my wars.

WardenHallis, if you really are Jewish (as your subject line indicates), then I have to say that your religious education was seriously deficient.  You don't know that the Tanakh is the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.  The word "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym for Torah, Neviim (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings).

To non-Jewish readers: This would be like if someone said, "How dare you call me a member of the ACLU!  I am a member of the American Civil Liberties Union!"

This guy is full of sh*t!!!  I was born in Texas, have lived in South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Illinois, Alabama, and now Washington.

I grew up hearing about faggots and niggers my whole life from old family members, etc...He is insinuating that only Republicans use those terms.  What a crock of bull.  All of them are democrats and voted for John Kerry!  Go figure!

Most of my friends are republican and NONE of us refer to gays as faggots or African Americans as niggers.   Nor would we accept that characterization by anyone in front of our children.  Get a grip Warden!  

I clearly stated,

the "Ten Commandments" since you are so interested sir not only DID NOT come from the Tanakh, but rather far before that within the references of  the Torah, from the Prophets and the Writings.

Let me point to the proper terminology, and not out of content.

Firstly , direct your attention to the phrase:

"within the references of", making note that the "Ten Commandments" were not a stem or result of the Tanakh, but rather someting that occured before that time.

And, in and as far as your contention that I do not know that the Tanakh is not the same thing as (The definition of the collection) the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings ( The Hebrew Scriptures )then your jump to find something deficient in my statement has betrayed you as I clearly indicate than one is the other by confirming it in writing. All you have to do is read it and try not to take it out of content, but you from your post have a hard time doing that.

Nice try, but you'll actually have have a point next time.

You Said:

"I grew up hearing about faggots and niggers my whole life from old family members, etc..."

Thanks Again

Last time I heard the "n" word was from the very people whom it would apply to...and in public. I hope your survey accounts for that phenomenon too...

Need I remind you, they are OLD democrats and their great-grandchildren, who are YOUNG republicans saw the hypocrisy in their statements and have rejected the stereotypes the OLD people grew up with in the south.  To say that the younger generation in these states still talk like that is just crap.

If you have so much proof regarding party line, put it up.  If not, then shut up!

Let me reveal something to you folks you may or may not have caught onto by now. Let say I am hired to take a poll by a certain political party. That polls questions are going to be designed to expose someting that by the way really exist, except that it is overemphasized, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? It's targeted like all of them are for PROPAGANDA purposes. It's not that it's not accurate, it's that it's designed to expose something that is really there, except that it is not as rampant as it seems.

If someone says "nigger" to describe a black person in thier home, that doesn't really mean anything. Why, because motive, repitition and mindset have not been revealed. Let's say the question is;

"Have you used the term nigger to discribe a black person at your home even once in the past year, even if it was just between you and your spouse or friend." Don't you understand, that the way the question was given to me to ask, makes it obvious what the outcome will be. This is how most of it is done by the way. And, both party's I assure you do this. It's Propaganda and it is used like wildfire all the time. Sorry to break your bubble, but as a student of sociology, it's really nothing personal, just a lesson, and I've seen your response a thousand times over.

Thank you so much for enlightening all of us stupid red staters with your wealth of knowledge on polling and many other issues.  We really wouldn't be able to understand the world as it truly is if it weren't for intellectuals like you.

I want you to know that peronally I really like to feel I am in the middle of issues. I believe in so many Republican agenda's. I also believe in many Democrate based agenda's as well, about even, believe it or not, (And I'm not Ripley's).

I want to know, I am curious, I like to see what the enitre nation is thinking. I go everywhere on land. I go everywhere on the net, and I try to understand what I see and make my own opinnions about it without some party line telling me how to think, either way.

If I was totally Democratic I would not be here. If I was totally Republican I might.

I want to incite, excite and get conversation going. I want to see into the minds of people at the most primative levels, I want to understand things in the social view. I want to get reaction and watch it. And I want to interact and engage. If these are poor qualities to you then I am sorry, but I will stay all the same.

You think I am doing someting that is too challenging for you or perhaps even worse demeaning, if that is the case, if that is the impression , I am sorry and you have my full apology, but that in fact is not the case.

I have experience doing this, 25 years now, that might give me a perspective that is different, perhaps even valuable to those who may see something in it. I am middle America to me.

I see and respect both sides, and act in just that manner. I am a great believer in the founders of the Constitution and thier thoughts and that makes me a great believer in balance of power. I am not concerned like many Democrates, because there doesn't exist a imbalanced to me right now.

If it becomes that one side cannot be challenged, and laws cannot be reviewed in ways that preserve balance in government, which is the basis of the "Constitution" then I may sway to one side, but only to preserve balance, and not some political party's agenda because that is what I believe is what makes America. I am a free thinker that does not allow either party to make my decisions for me. But then again I could be totally wrong all of the things I am doing, who knows, my opinion really doesn't matter in the end anyways.

What are we going to do about the North Koreas and Irans and all the other dictatorships? And with what $$$$?

it wasn't a question that was asked.