Study Finds Religious Polarization in U.S. Voters

[Verve]

New from Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Voters in last year's presidential election showed a new polarization within some religious faiths, a fact that may make it all the harder for Democrats to recapture the White House, according to a report released on Thursday.



President Bush (news - web sites) "depended heavily on traditionalist Christians, while (Democratic opponent John) Kerry had a more diverse coalition characterized by minority faiths, the unaffiliated and modernist (more liberal) Christians," said the report.


-snip-

Mainline Protestants, who traditionally lean Republican, divided their votes between Bush and Kerry, giving the Democrat the highest level of support from that area in recent times, the report said.


Once a bedrock of Democratic support, non-Latino Catholics last year gave more than half of their vote to Bush. Green also found more support than four years earlier from black Protestants and Latino Catholics.


He said Bush captured votes from middle-of-the-road Christians, especially Catholics, people the Democrats need to court in the future.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050203/pl_nm/religion_vote_dc

[mopinko]

1. "a fact that may make it all the harder for Democrats"

unless they make a point of reminding people of their flippin history, and the dangers of theocracy. pandering to the center with their profeesions of faith sure as shit cannot win. :puke:

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. O.M.G.!!!

Take a survey on something we already knew to tell us something we experience every day. :eyes:

I'm always suspicious type of these polls. Just like the "moral values" voters. There were just as many who voted for Kerry and against Bush based on their "moral values". Still, the Wrongs claim, "See? I told you so! It's a mandate!"

[NationalEnquirer]

3. I dont like these polls either.

Seems to me you can read them any way you want, to push whatever agenda or idea that you want to.
The "morals" thing was BS, and was debunked even in Repunk circles.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

4. Why should we believe Reuters?

Suspicious ownership=suspicious motives

[Verve]

5. "The strong support from the traditionalists (conservative) gives the GOP

a leg up in 2008. They can't just depend upon them because TRADITIONALISTS ARE NOT NUMEROUS ENOUGH."

AND

"Bush's biggest gain in terms of religious affiliation came among Protestant Latinos, A RELATIVELY SMALL SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, who moved from the Democratic to the Republican camp in 2004 compared to 2000"

WHERE DID CHIMPY GET HIS VOTES?
It seems to me this article is running around in circles trying to make sense of how Bush won. The problem is, they didn't find anything conclusive based on religious viewpoints that would have given Chimpy the lead that he got.

When is the MSM gonna wake up and think "Hey, the election was fixed!"
Until they do this, all these polls are B.S.

[marions ghost]

6. what is

the Bliss Institute
http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/
--this guy John Green they quote represents the Bliss Institute

they teach
"applied politics"-- a lot of analysis about elections and stuff
Seems to be trying to find reasons for B* victory

Wonder if any of those OHIO students studying at the Bliss Institute might suggest they consider some other factors to explain the "win."