AmericanPapist Comments
This study was poorly done. The sample size (N) is too small and I saw no listing of the actual questions asked. The Methodology Appendix tells all.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Make sure you get to see the original questions and the offered answer options. Some of them are amazingly biased.
Younger people usually are liberal. Then they grow up and hopefully grow their brains. Churchill said it best.
Granted, her book is a little outdated (2004), but Colleen Carroll would disagree:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Faithf...23585851&sr=8-
8
The gap between orthodox-practicing Christians and everyone else is getting wider, certainly. But I'm pretty sure that (as stated above) the articles claiming that the young are more liberal is pretty inaccurate.
fh:
You nailed it.
He who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart. He who is not a conservative in his adulthood has no brain.
Obama leads McCain most strongly among those who attend religious services once a month (or less). Speaking for Catholics who have a weekly obligation to attend Mass under pain of mortal sin, I cannot see how these young voters are the "young and faithful".
One might think these infrequent attenders have learned just enough of their faith to dangerously misinterpret it, and to miss the fine distinctions (ie, intrinsic evils v. other issues).
I wish they had interviewed a few of my friends and I as we are young faithful Catholics. Guess we might have swayed the poll in the wrong way. ;)
He who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart.
I was always a little insulted by that. :-7
Anyway, I think 'liberal' meant something different then versus today's definition of a 'liberal.'
I think young practicing Catholics are more conservative then their parents were/are.
Be very careful with interpreting this survey. As other comments have suggested above, it may be impossible to derive much credible analysis from this survey for a number of reasons.
First, the report does not provide you with the text of the questions. As Dr. Peters observes, questions can be worded in a biased fashion to obtain the desired response. I would be particularly interested in reading the questions relative to homosexual marriage and civil unions. Publishing survey results without publishing the survey questions is a "red flag."
Second, how does the survey define the terms "Catholic," and "Evangelical?" We all know that many individuals self-identify as Catholic under certain circumstances but do not actively participate in their faith. Without an understanding of how respondents were screened, it's impossible to make much of the results. The reader of the poll is entitled to have these terms defined.
Also, the general screen for the survey was "American adults," which are sorted into age groups.
Whatever such a poll might tell us about the general population, it is completely useless in the electoral context.
Voter polls generally report results for likely voters (LV), registered voters (RV), and eligible voters (EV)(over 18). Competent pollsters have methods for identifying respondents as "likely" to vote (they may bury a question inside the survey, for example that asks the voter to identify his or her polling place).
The LV polls are the most likely to be accurate, RV next, and EV is the least credible.
yeah, i did a word count and the document mentions obama 45 times, mccain 25 times. kerry 8 times, bush twice.
guess who they're trying to convince?
LVs, RVs, and EVs.
For those who care about such things here's a link to a countervailing view to the one that I posted above.
The suggestion is that this year Registered Voter screens may be more accurate than Likely Voter screens.
This is one of those things that you can't assess until after the fact, but I put it out there for your consideration . . .
Commenting by HaloScan
