Look at this entrance poll chart from CNN. No, really, look at it, especially if you are tempted to rack Huck's victory up to a "Christianist" surge. He won just about every Republican demographic -- especially, please note, the middle-income voters and below. He was especially strong among younger voters. The only caucusgoers Romney dominated were the well-off ($100K+) secular urban moderates.
If you think Huckabee's only a phenomenon of the religious right, explain those numbers, willya?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The only caucusgoers Romney dominated were the well-off ($100K+) secular urban moderates.
So everyone who isn't a born-again or evangelical Christian is secular? As in "worldy, not spiritual?" Do Orthodox people self-identify as born-agains or evangelicals in entrance polls?
Mrs. Pringle
1. Without seeing the exact wording of the entrance poll question about "born again/evangelical" it's useless to comment on it.
2. Even if we have the exact wording, keep in mind that entrance/exit polls are notoriously unreliable and consistently misused by the chattering classes (since they are the only explanatory data available, everyone jumps to comment on them, nevermind the fact that they are usually wrong).
Recall that in 2004 the exit polls "informed" us that Bush had benefitted from an otherwise unnoticed surge of "values voters", when any sentient being could tell that the election had turned on national security issues. Those same exit polls, of course, had predicted a Kerry landslide.
Ha. Remember when I said only Ron Paul, out of the Republicans, could win the general election? (And that he couldn't win the primary, which everyone agrees with.)
Look at the 'Feelings About Bush Administration' and tell me how well that bodes for Huckabee. Or 'Vote by Party ID'.
There is a very angry subsection of society that is voting against Bush or anything vaguely Bush-shaped. Huckabee is Bush-shaped.
rr,
"Christianists," speaking of slurs..."
I don't view that term as a slur, any more than Rod views "secular" as a slur. It is a descriptive, and an accurate one at that.
'isms' are ideologies held by people that believe their ideology is better than others'.
After all, Romney wasn't "Christian enough" to satisfy the RRRers. ONLY "Chistians" are good enough to run for public ofice. "Do you believe every word in The Holy bible (TM)?" has now become a 'legitimate' question for the media to ask (despite the promise that there shall be NO religious tests to hold public office). Can you imagine how that question would go over if asked of the Buddhist candidates? Oops, I forgot, there aren't any. Or of the Sikh candidates? Oops, I temporarily forgot, there aren't any of THOSE either. Ditto for Jains, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, Wiccans, pagans, atheists. Gotta be "Christian" to run in Ameurrrica anymore.
THAT is why "ChristianIST" IS a valid, descriptive term. Nothing else will do, it seems.
Here's something interesting:
Compare the maps here and here . Obama or Clinton and Huckabee mostly won in opposite areas.
Or, to put it better, everywhere that Huckabee won, the middle of the state, was fought over by all Democrats, with all of them winning sections. Whereas where he lost on the right side of the state Obama got it all, and where he lost on the right Clinton did.
Does anyone who knows something about Iowa geography tell us about the left and right sides of the state? I did a quick check on the population density but that's not it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.