A few hours after Nate argued earlier today that:
Put differently, if you oppose Obama, it becomes much more likely that you do so for reasons related to his race, or because you believe one of the smears about his character, if we also learn that you're a Democrat.By coincidence a brand new Pew poll confirms exactly that insight. The title of the article explaining the poll results says it all: "Belief that Obama is Muslim is Durable, Bipartisan - but Most Likely to Sway Democratic Votes."
That's called prescient good timing.
59 comments
New Flash! Nate's a genius.
He's the man. I know it. You know it. The American people should know it (gosh... if only he could get Wolf Blitzer's time on CNN).
I hope Nate knows it (you rock, dude!).
Nate Silver para presidente! :-D
Or maybe because Anderson Cooper did a segment on this last night.
FINALLY SurveyUSA released new polls. Jeez, it's been like 2 weeks.
I think it's funny that this surprises anyone. Haven't people been saying for months that die-hard Republicans wouldn't vote for him anyway? So of course his being Muslim or not Muslim is going to be more likely to sway somebody who would actually vote for him.
Oh, forgot to add...
Only 57% of Americans know that he's Christian? That is really, really infuriating.
Following up on anon...
SUSA NC
McCain 50
Obama 45
An improvement for Obama, since their previous poll had been McCain +8.
To flog a dead horse a bit further:
the African-American vote splits, quite plausibly, 93-6 in this poll.
OTOH, SUSA's poll is 19% Af-Am, when the 2004 exit polls were 26% Af-Am.
How do we know which way the arrows run in cause: do people say he is a Muslim I won't vote for him, or that they don't want to vote for him, and look for reason and settle on the Muslim identification as a justification, as the reason they give to themselves as well as to pollsters. But is that reason independent of other variables that could influence their choice.
Any good ideas on how to figure this out?
Peter
ajb:
The SurveyUSA NC poll is encouraging! They consistently underestimated the black vote in Southern states in the primaries, and it looks like they may be doing it again.
I would expect the share of the black vote in NC to be at least 22%, and if that's the case, the race is tied.
My blogad down the left side is for "beautiful Muslim singles... for Matrimony!"
How exciting...
Seriously, Peter asks "Any good ideas on how to figure this out?"
I don't think you can, not through polling. I think it would require too much detail about how voters would feel about other potential Muslim presidents, who of course don't currently exist. Which way the arrow of causation points on stuff like this will have to remain a mystery for now.
"To flog a dead horse a bit further:
the African-American vote splits, quite plausibly, 93-6 in this poll.
OTOH, SUSA's poll is 19% Af-Am, when the 2004 exit polls were 26% Af-Am."
For the one millionth time, the exit polls were wrong. The NC Board of elections actually keeps track of who votes in NC and they found that 18.5% of voters were AA. Which makes sense since 19% of people in NC are AA. This has been discussed extensively.
"I would expect the share of the black vote in NC to be at least 22%, and if that's the case, the race is tied."
No, that's not correct. The crosstabs on the SUSA NC-Pres poll show whites breaking 64-31 McCain and blacks 93-6 Obama. In order for Obama to catch McCain using such numbers, the electorate would need to be 27.5% black.
There is really no excuse to not correct for racial, gender, and age imbalances in poll samples. Party affiliation may change, so that is more complicated; but the others are pretty cut and dried.
I find it startling that so many people have not heard enough about the candidates. They must really avoid all news sources. But apparently a lot of people fall into that category.
I wonder how many of the people who claim he's Muslim or have heard "mixed things about his religion" really mean they don't want to vote for him because of race. If they are on the level and it really is about religion, that would be pretty simple to correct, except of course these people don't listen do news sources and only get their information from wild rumors. Go figure.
In addition, I would point out that the proportion of undecideds is, of course, higher among whites.
White men are just killing Sen. Obama in NC, just as in a lot of other potential (but R-leaning) swing states. The only thing preventing Obama from achieving a landslide in this election, in my view, is reaching white men.
The strategies chosen to do that will be interesting.
I'm a conservative and hate John McCain because he's an idiot. Am I more susceptible to thinking McCain's an idiot because I'm conservative?
Tybalt:
I haven't done the exact calculations, but that doesn't sound right. Obama would need to increase the share of the black vote by 8.5% (which would subsequently decrease the share of the white vote by a similar amount) just to catch up 5 points?
Are you sure you did the calculations right? Unfortunately, SurveyUSA doesn't provide the Hispanic/Other breakdown because it's such a small percentage of the total.
At some point in time is someone going to address the real prejudice that has raised its head in this election cycle? It's not racism or sexism or ageism, but Islamaphobia. Certainly just 7 years after 9/11 it's understandable that fear of Muslims is prevalent, but the fact that the mere insinuation that Obama is a Muslim can taint this race so completely underscores just how much of an education in comparative religion this country needs. The silver lining is that less than 50 years ago some considered Catholicism an unelectable quality.
My back-of-the-envelope figuring on white men in NC has McCain beating Obama by 43 points among white men (69-26) using just about the most pessimistic assumptions I can.
White men are keeping McCain in this election - he has to defend them for all he's worth. If he can't hold white men nearly 3-1 in places like NC, he is going to get steamrollered.
Sean -- I think that was Poblano not Nate
Obama would need to increase the share of the black vote by 8.5% (which would subsequently decrease the share of the white vote by a similar amount) just to catch up 5 points?
May have overestimated by a half-point or so because Hispanics and "Other" aren't likely to split 50-50. But yes, for Obama to catch McCain on demographic shift alone, he needs to increase by 8.5. Because a good chunk of those white voters being drowned out by that demographic shift are themselves Obama voters.
the fact that the mere insinuation that Obama is a Muslim can taint this race so completely underscores just how much of an education in comparative religion this country needs
Remember when we were all talking endlessly about the role that the MITTSTER's Mormonism was going to play in the campaign? That seems like ages ago.
I don't think that a comprehensive education on the topic of comparative religion is going to do the trick, mate. The large numbers of people who suspect that Muslims have a fundamentally alien worldview to theirs aren't going to be swayed by Religious Studies 101.
The new national polls are showing that Obama's lead is not going away.
The CBS News/NY Times poll has Obama up 6%, no difference from their June poll.
The Quinnipiac poll has Obama up 9%. They had Obama up 7% in their May poll.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll has Obama up 8% among registered voters and up 3% among likely voters. They had Obama up 4% among registered voters in June.
The newest Gallup tracking poll has Obama up 4%, which is in line with what they've had for a while.
The newest Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama up 4% without leaners and up 2% with leaners.
It looks like the McCain comeback was all hype.
Tybalt -- you're forgetting that increasing the black percentage reduces the white percentage. So you've doubled the amount really needed, plus some rounding errors.
The real math: changing a percent of the sample from white to black changes the margin from +33% McCain to +87% Obama, a shift of 1.2 in the margin (shifting a guaranteed McCain percent to a guaranteed Obama percent would shift by 2.0). So going from 19% to 22% would decrease McCain's margin from 5 to 1.4, pretty close to a tie. An exact tie would be at 23.2% AA, not 27.2%
Of course, these numbers assume everyone that is not black is white, so if the weighted nonblack split is much different from 64-31 McCain my numbers are off a little.
Geez Louise.
Let's make this as simple as possible, ignore Hispanics and Others, and figure out what percentage of the (white + black) vote needs to be black for Obama to equal McCain.
Assumptions given SUSA data :
64w + 6b = 31w + 93b (for McC to = O)
w + b = 100
So, me doing HS algebra gives us:
w = 100-b
6400 - 64b + 6b = 3100 - 31b + 93b
6400 - 58b = 3100 + 62b
6400 = 3100 + 120b
3500 = 120b
29.17 = b
Blacks need to be 29.17% of the (white + black) vote to get Obama's votes equal to McCain. Now whites + blacks were actually only 94% of that poll IIRC, which is why my number above was 27.5.
Obama would have to raise black participation to 27.5% of the total number to get that poll coming out even,
I meant to post the previous comment in the other thread.
Except I made a number error up there (dumb dumb dumb) and so got 3500 instead of 3300. Mr. Waldman would give me zero for that problem.
3300/120 = 27.5 of course.
Just to think of this another way, if we have two pools of voters, b and w, and one splits 64-31 and the other splits 6-93, what does the ratio need to be for them to come out even? It turns out to be 72.5-27.5.
Okay, you're right that blacks would need to compromise of the 27.5% of *just* the black and white vote.
But 7% of the sample is not white, and you have to account for that when considering what share of the total vote blacks would need to comprise. It seems in that case, the ~23% number is about right.
Oops, I meant to say that 7% is neither white nor black.
Just to add my two cents in.......
McCain and Obama are not splitting the Latino Vote 50/50.
MSM is trying to make it sound close and make it seem like the latinos can be courted, but polling indicates a 60/30 split, Obama, with 10% undecided.
It actually turns out it matters what how the nonblack nonwhite vote ends up. If you take only whites away and make them blacks, the black percentage only needs to go to 23%. If you take only Hispanics away, it has to go a lot higher. If you take both away proportionately, it's in between. So the information given above is insufficient to solve the problem.
Smart people would realize what this indicates in re how people will perceive the New Yorker cover, but they have to be able to see the world through the eyes of others rather than their own -- which the editors at the New Yorker, and the artist himself, are apparently not capable of.
@ Andrew Tyndall
>Sean -- I think that was Poblano not Nate
Poblano is Nate. It's his pre WSJ expose nom de guerre.
How do we know which way the arrows run in cause: do people say he is a Muslim I won't vote for him, or that they don't want to vote for him, and look for reason and settle on the Muslim identification as a justification, as the reason they give to themselves as well as to pollsters. But is that reason independent of other variables that could influence their choice.
That makes no sense. People who "don't want to vote for him" don't have to "look for reason", they already have plenty, and their belief that he's a Muslim is one of the bunch.
That makes no sense. People who "don't want to vote for him" don't have to "look for reason", they already have plenty, and their belief that he's a Muslim is one of the bunch.
It's one of a bunch but it also is a good aspect in trying to convince other voters in their proximity if not only by spreading the rumor.
Gee, I wonder why so many Democrats believe ridiculous rumors about Obama. Who could have been pumping them to Democrats? It's almost like he had a totally amoral adversary inside of his own party that was able to reach many overly credulous Democrats! I just keep wondering what Democrat would be low enough to do such a thing.
This does raise a question.
What is the breakdown of Democrats who are not planning to vote for Obama?
The asumption has always been that they are white 60 year old females who realy realy wanted Hillary. The sort that think calling a woman "sweetie" is an offence against femanism.
This assumption may be wrong. Hillary "femanist" fanatics might just be a very vocal minority.
I have always discounted the idea that Racism is significant. Who hates Colin Powel?
My guess is that Obama has a culural problem. He is a city slicker, an open supporter of education, of change. He benifits the young, the tallented & the adaptable.
Those who lost out on education due to lack of oportunity or lack of interest or are to old to adapt see him as an enemy, and in some ways he is.
He might offer their children a better future, but only at the price of loosing respect for their parent's way of life.
So how to justify their choice?
Obama is pro education? (and say they are against)
Obama is Black? (and say they are racists)
Obama is pro change (and say that the county is doing ok the way it is?)
No wonder they are going for "Obama is a Muslim". It might not be true, and it might not even be fair to hate Muslims in general, but at least ther are some Muslims that it is socialy acceptable to hate.
Well a 10-minute search has not turned up much that would help me figure out what I'd like to know: how many Americans don't know any Muslims? (Or perhaps know them only as Osama bin Laden and "haji" that their family members are supposed to shoot at?)
I mean, I live in a prosperous suburb that (because of high-tech jobs?) is more diverse than the city. We have halal butchers, Russian delis, Korean and Vietnamese and Thai restaurants and markets. I look out my window and I see African American kids playing with white and Hispanic kids, and South Asian families. The proprietors of the Supercuts are Persian and run a Persian restaurant next door. How many people still live in entrenched enclaves of white people? (I'm assuming we don't have a lot of non-white people worrying about this Muslim thing, but maybe that's not right.) Odessa Texas maybe? Bay Ridge?
If anyone knows where this information could be found, I think it would be helpful. I can't be the only one who is scratching my head over this kerfluffle and wanting to better understand it.
I do not know how Sean can credibly claim that opposition to Obama is based on racial bias or belief in smears. His sentence is hard to parse: "if you oppose Obama, it becomes much more likely that you do so for reasons related to his race, or because you believe one of the smears about his character, if we also learn that you're a Democrat"
Much more likely than what? His liberal voting record? His defeatist position on Iraq? His flip flop on FISA, guns or the death penalty.
The PEW poll suggested that Republican opposition is based on more rational ground: "Republican voters in the survey overwhelmingly support McCain irrespective of their belief about Obama's religious faith."
These attempts to demonize and objectify those who would oppose Obama as racists and kooks mask the broader trends running through the electorate and return the debate squarely to where the Obama camp should not want it: His heritage and his race.
The NYTs poll today on race is very instructive. It shows how racially divided as a nation we remain and how there is yearning among whites for a post-racial consciousness that Senator Obama and his candidacy is not bringing to them.
All this constant race talk will take its toll on Obama and he will badly lose moderate/independent white voters of both genders if it keeps up.
It may be why he has clumsily tried to appeal to white sensibilities by pulling a Bill Cosby routine of late. It remains to be been seen how persuasive that appeal is to blacks or whites.
Jesse Jackson seems to represent one segment of the black community that rejects Obama's lecturing most likely b/c a half white boy from Kansas ultimately lacks street cred.
This is a developing theme in the campaign. It is not about racism but about a true desire to be a post-racial nation.
Obama tired to do that -- so he said --but all he has done is picked a scab and engendered a hyper racial sensitivity, that, if the NYTs poll is to be believed, has done little to heal our wounds.
Like Moses he may lead us to the promised land, but he will not cross the River Jordan.
JC Watts '16
If you want to know why a large percentage of Americans believe incredibly stupid things like "I hear Obama is a muslim, and he's related to Osama" (actual no kidding quote to me from a dissatisfied Bush voter), it's because Americans are incredibly ignorant.
Too bad if that treads on sensitive toes, but it's just objectively true that we're dumb as rocks when it comes to politics:
"The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.
"Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About The American Voter: http://www.amazon.com/
dp/0465077714/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
"Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)"
". . . .Even if people do not closely follow the news, one would expect them to be able to answer basic civics questions, but only a small minority can.
In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%."
In a nation where 60% can't name the three branches of government, it's no surprise that an amazing number of Americans think Obama is a Muslim or that he was educated in a Madrassa, or that he wasn't born in the U.S., or that he's not an American at all. They hear these rumors spread by hate-mongers and racists over the internet and believe them because they don't know anything.
As Phil Ochs sang 40 years ago:
"But ignorance is everywhere and people have their way. And success is an enemy to the losers of the day. In the shadows of the churches who knows what they pray? And blood is the language of the band."
Ding! Smart vs. dumb. If the electorate is ignorant, appealing to their ignorance is a great way to get elected. Fortunately, the center is more intelligent and moderate each day.
In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%."
None of this matters, though. OK, knowing the three branches of government matters a little bit, sure. But politics isn't about trivia, it's about real-world issues. Who cares if there are 50 senators, or 100, or 300? What matters is whether people are able to make decisions about voting and other participation in politics, based on true information and related to issues that are important to them.
I have conversations every day with people about the political issues they care about, and many if not most of them display a remarkable level of subtlety on matters related to issues. Yes, it's true that the factual information to make good decisions is very often lacking, though. But the length of the term of a senator isn't important for any of that.
There are other important points to be found in this recent PEW poll. Independents are also influenced by the question of religion with an -8% among Independents who think Obama is a Muslim or hold a mixed viewpoint.
The issue of political information is very important here too since strong partisans of both parties are always the most knowledgeable on questions about current events, policies, candidates, civics, etc. and independents and weak partisans much less so.
If faulty information about Obama's faith is depressing his numbers now, the the general election campaign this the Fall is likely help the Democrat because the least informed voters will be increasingly exposed to more correct information.
"None of this matters, though. OK, knowing the three branches of government matters a little bit, sure. But politics isn't about trivia, it's about real-world issues. Who cares if there are 50 senators, or 100, or 300? What matters is whether people are able to make decisions about voting and other participation in politics, based on true information and related to issues that are important to them.
I have conversations every day with people about the political issues they care about, and many if not most of them display a remarkable level of subtlety on matters related to issues. Yes, it's true that the factual information to make good decisions is very often lacking, though. But the length of the term of a senator isn't important for any of that."
This is just profoundly wrong. Forget accurate information about candidates, most voters don't even know who their senators are or who their Representative in Congress is. If they don't know what the three branches of government are and have never learned that Congress was granted the exclusive power to declare wars under our constitution, is it any wonder that they aren't shocked and horrified by the usurpations of power by Bush?
They don't even know how Democracy is SUPPOSED to work, so how can they be surprised when it breaks down?
To pretend that because you talk to some infinitesimal percentage of the electorate that the average American voter knows much at all is just wrong. It's contradicted by scientific studies that show that 40% of the people know absolutely nothing, and a tiny percentage, less than 10% know a lot and the rest in the middle know just enough to be dangerous.
The internet is filled with information. It's never been easier to learn what's going on in the world, you can read the foreign press so we aren't limited to the propaganda of the MSM here in America, but most people just are taking advantage of it. They get most of what little news they receive from TV.
That means for instance, that back in 2006 most Americans could tell you roughly how many Americans had died in Iraq (although almost nobody then or now can tell you how many wounded or how many Iraqis have been killed because the government actively tries to cover-up those statistics).
Today far fewer Americans know that there have been 4,443 American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 and as a minimum of 23,000 and probably as many as 100,000 wounded (the Pentagon conceals the true numbers by "not including" many brain-trauma and other injuries that are only discovered after soldiers return home, etc., etc., lots of weasel wording and manipulating the statistics to hide the truth).
Why? Because the media have stopped covering the Iraq war -- the average MSM coverage is less than 10 minutes a month, or vastly less than the coverage given to Brittany Spear's sister's pregnancy.
So, Americans are ignorant and it "doesn't matter?" In what dream world are you living? It matters a lot. It impacts our lives every day.
@ Ben way back at 7:08 PM ...
I'm a conservative and hate John McCain because he's an idiot. Am I more susceptible to thinking McCain's an idiot because I'm conservative?
No, but your vote is more likely to be affected by your perception of his idiocy than that of a liberal who disagrees with him on everything anyway. Or, put differently, your more likely to care whether he's an idiot or not, and thus mention it to a pollster.
If Cugel had his way, African Americans would not even be allowed to vote in the South. These sort of intelligence tests were the very way in which Jim Crow kept blacks from voting. Whites would be asked easy questions like How many states there are in the Union. And blacks would be asked to explain the Establishment Clause.
As another poster noted, it it does not take a great technical mind (look at me!) to understand the broad sweep of issues and decide which candidate would lead in the right direction -- at least by your own lights.
It amazes me how the new Fascists (liberals) are so willing to chuck long standing democratic principles overboard so long as it accomplishes their goals. The Democratic party is the ultimate oxymoron!
It is all about impostion of their will on you and the nation.
Wake up, people!
"If Cugel had his way, African Americans would not even be allowed to vote in the South. These sort of intelligence tests were the very way in which Jim Crow kept blacks from voting. Whites would be asked easy questions like How many states there are in the Union. And blacks would be asked to explain the Establishment Clause."
What a fascinating bit of slander! Kudos for snide lying! Well done! You've really learned well at the Karl Rove school of mud-slinging innuendo!
Because you will search my posts in vain for any argument that voters ought to be blocked from voting because they are ignorant. But, you knew that anyway before you started putting words in my mouth! It was just a typical right-wing smear job.
Rove School of Politics Repeated Endlessly In The Right-Wing Echo Chamber and Then Spread Over the Internet By Wing-Nuts:
Step 1: Jump to a ridiculous conclusion about what an opponent has said. Insist that he actually said what he never said or implied what is a part of your own delusion.
Step 2: Denounce your opponent for saying what he never said and implying what he never implied.
Step 3: When challenged, reiterate the lies and escalate the innuendo. Violently insist that the ridiculous and never implied is true and denounce again, calling on others to also denounce the "statements made by. . . ."
Step 4: Repeat the entire smear job endlessly until people start to accept it through repetition in the good old Goebbels fashion.
Step 5: Rinse and Repeat starting from step 1 with a new lie. "Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet."
Another perfect example of this: the attacks on Gen. Clark for "impugning John McCain's honorable service" when he never stated or implied any such thing. Take things out of context.
I would ACTUALLY advocate using the power of the FCC licensing provisions to mandate a lot more community programming on our nationally owned airwaves to provide more civic education for voters. These would include FACT BASED newsprograms, not celebrity gossip and other trivia.
But, ultimately, YES the American people are to blame for allowing ourselves to be so ignorant. Being conservative used to involve some degree of personal responsibility -- no longer part of the conservative credo except in rhetoric these days.
So, no! Disenfranchising voters is not what I'm about.
That's the thing about reality. It doesn't care whether you like it or not. The American people are profoundly ignorant. That's a flat fact.
Is that why they believe lies about Obama being a Muslim or that he was raised in a Madrassa or that he wasn't born in America or isn't even an American citizen?
Is it the reason that more people these days believe the lie that "the surge is working" when the "benchmarks" that Bush announced as the REASON for the "surge" have been abandoned because they weren't being met, are still not met and show no signs of being met in the future?
That's an almost certain inference. They don't know much about politics or politicians and almost nothing about how our system of government is supposed to work. So, they believe the lies. Especially when said lies are repeated endlessly as part of a whisper campaign over the internet or blatantly trumpeted over endless TV news shows.
Pete Kent has (apparently) less excuse. With him it's just malicious.
PK Said:
If Cugel had his way, African Americans would not even be allowed to vote in the South. These sort of intelligence tests were the very way in which Jim Crow kept blacks from voting. Whites would be asked easy questions like How many states there are in the Union. And blacks would be asked to explain the Establishment Clause.
It was much simpler than that, really, and can be summed up in three words: Seperate but Equal.
Cugel,
I beg your pardon. What was it that we wre to infer from your discourse then?
Mason, Your comment was too obtuse for my numb skull!
For the one that said it is infuriating that only 57% know that he is a christian. I know the presidential race and his politics and views fairly well, I do not know he is a Christian, not the way I would define the word. You dont grow your faith in a trinity ucc and end up a Christian. But hey thats a religious qualm not a political one. Whether he is christian, muslim, jewish, or even athiest does not affect me voting for him, as others have said, there are plenty of other reasons.
When provided with the following two options:
God existed first and created man.
Man existed first and created God.
If I were then asked to asses the probability of each being true, I would break down the individual probability of each event happening.
What are the odds that God existed first vs. Man existing first. Well, we can say with 100% certainty that man exists, so no matter how low the probability that he existed first, you have to at least admit that it's more likely that man exists than God exists (since even the most devote person of faith cannot be 100% sure, while we're all 100% sure man exists).
Could God create man? Clearly. He's omnipotent (at least as most religions would describe him).
Could man create God? Easily. In fact, I can't think of a better way to rule your people than through creating some power that cannot be seen, heard, or questioned, who channels his authority through you.
I'm not saying I know the answer, but if you're honest and had to assign a probability to things, it is so much more likely that man created God. The only leap of faith required there, since man 100% exists and 100% is capable of coming up with the idea of God, is that it caught on and stuck for millenia (some did, some didn't, some are still trying to catch on).
Anyway, if you look at religion throughout history and the role it's played in the evolution of humans, you can see that there is no overarching theme to the God or gods of any given time. Religion has always existed to better people when human kind needed it. When people were recklessly killing each other, endlessly worshipping gold idols, and the population of tribes was small enough that failure for healthy reproducers to produce children could be catastrophic, of course the main message of religion at those points in time was stop killing each other, stop worshipping gold idols, and stop having sex with people that you can't make babies with.
Why are so many people's lives consumed with teachings intended for a people that we've evolved past being? If you do still believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally word for word, then why are you voting anyway? It says God controls all political and religious leaders (conveniently, exacly what I would say if I were a religious leader making up what God says), so whoever wins is going to do God's will anyway.
The fact (and I hate to sound like Bill Maher here) that a person would base their vote on which made up stories you believe in is totally insane. Your set of stories used to explain life, the universe, and the whole thing is crazy. Mine are how it really is! Either way, can't we all agree it's a little pompous to say that you know for sure? Isn't it also a little ridiculous to base everything off that something we couldn't possibly know for sure? Someone agrees with your 1 in a million guess as to how the Universe came into existence and someone else might not (but says he does)? So you can't vote for him?
Myself, I'm a militant Bokononist. All your beliefs (or lack thereof) are nothing but foma.
And I should add... all of this in a nation founded on and famous for its collective belief that you do not persecute people based on their religious beliefs.
HT,
I don't know how you define a Christianity or that it matters much. Other than Catholic, Baptist and Methodist, no Christian denomination currently makes up as much as 5% of the voting population so no group has a claim to value universalism.
For 538, the only significance of religion should be in how it influences voting behavior.
Thus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and those with no religion continue to have a greater preference for the Democratic party. Evangelical or Born Again Christians and Mormons are the most apt to identify as Republicans. Buddhists tend to be independents and some denominations like the Jehovah's Witnesses disavow political involvement altogether. Catholics, once favored the Democratic Party, but now the largest single US religious group is split roughly 50/50 between the two parties.
Obama's religion is Obamaism isn't it?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
Post a Comment