Analyzing the Iowa Vote

Discussion in 'Politics' started by InTheLight, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    CNN has a site where they compiled entrance poll data.

    Who did the candidates attract?

    Romney: Aged 40 and older, from cities and suburbs, college and postgraduate, wealthy, non-Tea Party, non-evangelical, somewhat conservative people concerned about the economy who believe that Romney has the best shot at beating Obama. Interesting data: 29% of Romney voters have reservations about him.

    Santorum: Attracted all ages, from all areas of state, college and postgraduate, middle class, Tea Partiers, evangelical, very conservative people whose most important issue was abortion. Interesting data: 32% decided to vote for him in the last month.

    Paul: Young--40 and under, and esp. 17-24 yrs., city dwellers, income of less than $50K, non-evangelical, are neutral or oppose the Tea Party, most important issue was budget deficit. Interesting data: 37% said the most important quality in voting for Ron Paul was that he was a true conservative, yet 40% describe themselves as moderate or liberal.

    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia
     
  2. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, no. Brother, you are misreading the data. In your defense, it is confusing.

    The percentages in the field are percentages OF the percentages. Thus, of the 67 percent of voters who identify as Evangelical/Born again, Paul got 19 percent. 19 percent of 67 percent, is more than 21 percent of 33 percent. Thus, more than half of Paul's supporters were evangelical/born again.


    Again, misreading the results. The majority of Paul's supporters, by far, were conservatives, and favorably to the Tea Party. However, of the 17 percent of total voters who were independants, Paul got the most of them...40 percent. But still, more 80 percent of his supporters said they were at least somewhat conservative.

    And in regards to the Tea party, since only 6 percent of all voters were unfavorable to the Tea Party, and Paul got only 21 percent of those (while Romney got HALF of them!), this means that less than 8 percent of Paul''s supporters were unfavorable to the tea party, while around 80 to 90 percent were favorable, or neutral.

    What does it show? It shows that establishment RHINO Republicans like Romney, and dislike Paul and Santorum. It shows that even considering this, the Independants (the ones we need to win in November) are overwhelmingly in favor of Dr. Paul...
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    I think you are making it more complicated than need be. First off the evangelical/non-evangelical split was 57%/43%, not 67%/33%.

    Of those 57% of voters that identified themselves as Born Again or Evangelicals, Paul received 18% of them.

    Of those 43% of voters that say they are not Born Again or Evangelicals, Paul received 26% of them.

    It really doesn't matter what the raw numbers are but let's run them anyway.

    Born Agains or Evangelicals were 57% of the voters
    Not Born Again or non-Evangelicals were 43% of the voters.

    For ease of computations, let's say there were 100,000 voters--so 57,000 evangelicals, and 43,000 non-evangelicals.

    Paul got 18% of these 57,000 voters, or 10,260 evangelical voters.
    Paul got 26% of the 43,000 non-evangelicals or 11,180 votes.
    So Paul gets more non-evangelicals than evangelicals, ergo, it can be said that his voters are mostly non-evangelical voters.

    The majority of Paul's supporters were conservatives, yes, but he got the most liberal voters of any candidate. 17% of total voters were moderate and/or liberal, and Paul got 40% of them.

    Using the gross number of 100,000 voters, then:
    Paul received 15% of the 47,000 voters who were "very conservative" or 7,050 voters.

    Paul received 21% of the 37,000 "somewhat conservative voters" or 7,770 voters.

    Paul received 40% of the 17,000 voters who were moderate/liberal, or 6,800 voters.

    Paul, the so-called 'true conservative' received 31.4% of his vote total from moderate/liberals.

    In contrast Santorum received 5.5% of his vote total from moderate/liberals. Romney received 24.4% from moderate/liberals.

    So yes, it can be said that Paul attracts moderate and liberal voters despite the perception that he is the most "true conservative."
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm. Thats weird.

    No, it can't. That is a virtual 50/50 split. It can be said that the non-evangelicals are slightly more...not that his constituency is "mostly" none evangelicals.

    So? Santorum even got some votes from liberals/moderates. I think it can be said that Paul appeals to independent/moderates in a way that the others don't.

    However, when you look at the number one reason most of his voters voted for him, it was because they were looking for a "true conservative". 37 percent of those whose most important issue was to find a "true conservative" voted for Paul...he was #1 in the category.

    And Yes, its just like I said. The idea that Ron Paul's desire to end the continuous police actions overseas, to bring our troops home, and stop the excessive spending overseas, can reach across the aisle to blue dog democrats and independents, has absolutely been vindicated.
     
  5. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    No doubt Paul definitely appeals to liberals. And true conservatives do not have a need to go around claiming to be a true conservative.
     
  6. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    They do when idiots like Mark Levine and Dick Morris go around saying their not, cause they don't want to blow up kids overseas...

    Again, small government, pro-life, pro-tradition, and strong defense without a bunch of meddling overseas. This has been the classic conservative stance.

    > And it shows. According to the polls, for those whose main issue was to have a conservative candidate, Paul took the top spot.
     
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    Yes, which is why it is ironic that he got almost 32% of his votes from moderate/liberals. I'm pretty sure that self-identified liberals and moderates typically do not vote for 'true conservatives.'
     
  8. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    They do when bringing the troops home, and regaining fiscal sanity is their number one issue.

    I am a constitutional conservative. My number one issue is abortion. If there was an otherwise fairly liberal candidate, who had a proven track record for attacking abortion at every turn, who talked a LOT about "as soon as I get in office, I am going to shut down the abortion mills", and had never, ever broken a campaign promise, or shifted their stance for convenience, I would vote for them. Because not letting children be murdered is top on my list.

    Same thing here. If you look at the comments that follow Ron Paul, there are a slew of anti-war Democrats and Independents, who are mad at Obama for breaking his promise to bring the troops home, and have endorsed, and are campaigning for, Paul.
     
  9. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last election most of the Paul backers that I know down here voted for BHO, and look at the amount of the BB who did like wise. Makes one think!
     
  10. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    My thoughts exactly... The young crowd is just getting on the Paul bandwagon, and that largely because of the libertarian freedoms he promises. Evidently the promise of legalizing dope and other things is enticing to them. :laugh:
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    272
    That is such a lie and deceitful tactic on your part. Drug laws should be at the State level.

    I'd love to see the farmers here in KY to be able to grow industrial hemp.
     
  12. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me too, but we all know that the issues behind "industrial hemp" are in fact those of marijuana. Ever see those who loudly support the hemp product? :laugh:

    Drug laws can be federal or state, but why burden states when many of the illegal drugs coming into this nation are from sources outside our borders? Should we penalize those states that just happen to have harbors or a border crossing? Sounds rather silly on the face of it.

    About my "lie and deceit" I wonder... Perhaps not so much. :wavey:
     
  13. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have apparently never seen a Ron Paul rally. The great majority of the young people are Constitution loving, even conservative, kids who love our heritage. The knowledge most of these young people have of the Constitution and the founders is often staggering.

    You besmirching them with such a comment, is below the respect that they deserve. These young people are the ones that have their heads firmly attached to their shoulders. No other candidate has been able to bring in the young people, not by changing their message, but by simply preaching the Constitution and tradition. The young people like him because it is clear he is authentic; a true patriotic American, who loves and is fighting for his country. Not some political hack that just wants more power (Like Romney and Santorum, for instance).
     
  14. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why do displaced liberals always support Paul?

    BTW, I'm not completely disagreeing with you about some (SOME) of Paul's young supporters. I know some of them. But I still find that they are VERY attracted by his libertarian stance. One thing that seems to be very cultural right now is a view toward nihilism and libertarian free will, and even in those who support a constitutional view, especially as they see the Constitution giving them that liberty to do as they please without ramification or restriction.

    That, in the end, will not be really good for society.
     
  15. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, they don't ALWAYS support Paul. I think the whole Liberal/Conservative labeling system, is wholly unhelpful.

    Most of them support him, simply because he is authentic. I have heard them say, "I don't agree with him on" ,X, Y, or Z, but agree with him on one point (usually the wars/ police actions overseas), and join up. Anyone with brain cells can see that Obama and Bush have governed largely identically. The only difference is in what they SAY, not what they DO. I mean, before Obama got elected, he criticized Bush's methods of interrogating terrorists, criticized the endless wars, criticized the raising of the debt ceiling and the enormous amount of debt that Bush had incurred...

    but then what happened? He got into office, and continued all of those SAME policies!

    I think when an otherwise moderate or liberal candidate sees this, and they see for instance, Paul's more moderate stance in regards to overseas conflict, and the danger the country is in from its debt, they put the other issues aside, and jump behind Paul, cause they KNOW he won't change his position to the "accepted" one as soon as he gets elected, like everyone else will.

    What's not good for society is a police state that micro manages peoples lives. The thing that is DESTROYING the moral fabric of our country right now, is not that we don't have enough governmental moral restraints. Its that we think that moral restraint of our personal lives, is the job of the government.

    BECAUSE OF THIS, the Christ's church has been subverted. We have people, instead of spreading the Gospel of Christ (which is the only thing that will bring about moral reform in society), laboring instead in trying to get the government to enforce Christian behavior through the barrel of a gun. "Well" they said in early 1900's, "We cannot have black people and white people getting married. We need to make it so that you have to get a license to get married" (which was horrific in and of itself, but it was unfortunately where Southern churches were at the time). Now whats happened? Because we have established the principle that government controls marriage (instead of the church), we have this huge battle that, listen, NEVER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE. We created our own problem. Because now, marriage is not a private affair anymore. NOW it is an endorsement by the government. And so you have people, rightly, getting angry that their tax dollars (through deductions and such), are going to subsidize these so called "marriages."

    SO whats our answer? Get government out of marriage, like should have been done in the first place? NO. We want to now say that it is the role of government to DEFINE marriage. Well, I can read statistics. I don't want that vote. We would lose it. And then, since we have established the precedent that government defines marriage, we are then forced to recognize it, under penalty of law.

    No thanks. I am sorry, but I understand why the founders put the limits on government that they did. They understood the tyranny that would inevitably come about if government stepped out of those limits. We are experiencing them now (prayer and the Bible getting yanked out of schools, are also a result of us making "big government" laws...).

    Give me Liberty. If those folks sin, its between them and God. I want my right to stand on the street corner, and warn them of the coming judgement. But I don't want to enforce Christianity through the barrel of a gun. I think this is the standard Jesus gave, when He lifted the woman caught in adultery up, after stopping the law from being enforced, and commanded her to make the personal decision to "go and sin no more."
     
  16. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    IF humans have a sin nature THEN every form of human government will result in evil. How can we mitigate the sin problem. First, how about a national anthem and oath of office which recognizes our sin nature?

    Second, if the US was a confederation of 50 competing political and economic systems which included the freedom of travel and commerce then the better of the 50 economic and political systems would rise to the top.

    The defense argument is a humbug. Evidence? The US is afraid to attack North Korea but doesn't hesitate to attack various Central, South American, and African nations. What is special about North Korea? They have nukes and rockets as well as 10,000 cannon pointed at S. Korea.

    The US would be safer from an international attack if each of the 50 states had nukes, bombers, and rockets under local control. All 50 control centers would have to be taken out at the same time.
     

Share This Page

Loading...