Decius wrote:
] noteworthy wrote:
] ] There was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote
] ] this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the
] ] electorate this year as they did in 2000.
]
] WRONG. The following story was linked from Pew's website:
]
] ... the Bush coalition ... included a much
] larger group of more traditional religious people, many of
] them outside of the evangelical tradition."
]
] Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or
] evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year.
] Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president -
] clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear
] by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals
] in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently
] four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible).
] Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the
] evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to
] 76 percent this year.

You may be misreading the two. Brooks and Pew (as quoted above) are talking about different metrics. Brooks was talking about the electorate overall. Pew is referring to "the Bush coalition."

The point is that the ballot questions on gay marriage did NOT cause a bunch of religious people who normally don't vote to show up at the polls this year. Brooks was saying that with regard to the overall electorate, the percentages on the goes-to-church / does-not-go-to-church question are the basically same as in 2000.

It is true that Bush gained strength among evangelicals in particular and those self-identifying as religious in general. But this is a different question.

] ] If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
]
] I agree, but problems with the data so far are not a license
] to fill in the blanks with your own favorite explanation.

If you looked at the other articles accompanying this column, it's clear Brooks is not alone here. There were strong disagreements over the "moral values" item before the election among the members of the committee who design the exit poll.

] On the Terrorism side, again, by and large the people who
] indicated that Terrorism is a major issue for them are not
] people who live in places that are likely to be hit by
] Terrorist attacks, and they know it!

Okay, this explanation -- which was popping up on the Daily Show recently -- is kind of bogus. Concern about terrorism cannot be viewed strictly as a personal safety issue. An attack in Manhattan has worldwide economic repercussions. If Manhattan ceases to function normally, the effects are seen immediately in Toyko, Beijing, London, Frankfurt, Paris, and beyond. Citizens of the world, both urban and rural, should be broadly concerned about attacks on any of these cities.

] I see an election that was about jingoism and hate.
] And it pisses me off.

Hrm. Anger begets anger.

This summary view of things seems to have popped up only after election day, and only after Kerry lost. If 150,000 voters in Ohio had chosen differently, Kerry would be President despite having lost the popular vote, and we'd probably be concerned about the electoral college.

It's also a case of selective interpretation of the facts. It excludes other things from the field of view. For example, California passed an amendment to authorize $3 billion in funding for stem cell research. Mel Gibson was on TV lobbying against this proposition, but it still won.

I'm not saying these concerns are invalid, but with a few weeks' time, some perspective might do a lot to soften the tone.

RE: The Values-Vote Myth