More Polling of the American Voter

The NYTimes has an overview of a new voter poll:

Among the disputed results of the Election Day survey of voters was the finding that moral issues were critical in determining the outcome.

That survey found that 22 percent of respondents called it the most critical issue in making their decision. Some pollsters criticized the way the question was asked because it was presented as a general category, without any kind of explanation, along with a list of six other specific issues, including Iraq and health care.

In this poll, when allowed freely to name the issue that was most important in their vote, 6 percent chose moral values, although smaller numbers named issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. On a separate question in which voters were given a choice of nine issues, 5 percent chose abortion, 4 percent chose stem cell research and 2 percent chose same-sex marriage.

And, yes, I realize that polls, “stuh-tistics,” and all that can be inaccurate, off base, and occasionally correct. We could probably pick this apart like a frog until the only thing left was that nasty death-smell and bunch on pink flesh.

If the numbers can be trusted, from looking at the raw data, it’s still safe to say that us Americans are pretty well split: we’re an indecisive lot in aggregate. There’s some other interesting questions, and answers, in the poll results:

If people who chose to invest their Social Security taxes in the stock market lost their money, should it be the government’s responsibility to make up the losses, or should this not be the government’s responsibility?

To which (if I’m reading it right), 81% said, “no, we’re fine leaving them fucked.” Nice folks, those polled-folks. Real nice. You have to have someone to give your spare change to on the street corner…how else would your windshield get washed at every intersection? It’s just simple eco-o-nomics, bub.

Meanwhile, here’s the number I was looking for (which the article omits):

Do you think defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman is an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution for, or isn’t it that kind of issue?

Important Enough: 40. Not that kind of issue: 56

While people don’t want Constitutional amendments, those 11 anti-homosexual referendums that passed show that people sure want something. And why not? Gosh, those folks are scary. I’m not even sure they’re people, so why should we give them the same rights as everyone else? Oh, that’s right, because it’s “a man and woman,” and if it were otherwise, America would suddely explode. I mean, blow-up real good like. KAA-FUCKIN-BOOM all up in your face!

Well, I mean, it used to be man and many women. And now it’s many different men and women if you can afford the divorce. Oh, and why wait? You could go get married right away at a drive-thru in Las Vegas! Yay! The holy sanctuary of marriage! It’s so Holy and Good! Only $19.95 at The Marriage Barn! (Inquire about our $59.95 DIY divorce kit.)

Woo-doggy, it’s enough to make you long for those Old Timey days when you could just go give a few pure-white sheep to a woman’s father and get her hand in marriage. Since when was a woman worth more than a few head of mutton? Hell, a couple of pork-chops should do in most cases, right? And if you don’t like that, pops, how’s about I get my people and my God here to smite down your whole outfit? How ’bout them grits? You want those chops with the mint-jelly? Good times, great traditions! Let’s celebrate ’em all! Why leave that whole first volume out?

Also,

What does the phrase “moral values” mean to you?

Ethics 20
Beliefs/Belief in God 18
Being good 15
Ten Commandments 6
Traditional family structure (man,woman,kids) 6
Acting in moral/Christian way 4
Honesty 3
Attend religious services 1
Kindness 1
Tolerance 1
Availability of birth control 1
Other 6

Shocker there about “tolerance” and “kindness” being so low. Yeah, big fucking shocker. “Being good” is an “interesting” one because it’s just a rephrasing of the question: “OK, wise-guy, then let’s do it again. What does the phrase ‘being good’ mean to you?”

Tell you what though, except for honesty (which I’d put near the top), that list is about exactly the opposite for me. But, as I’ve said before, I’m a Godless-nihilist, so when it comes to so Jesus-values I’m lame-legged before the gates even open. I’ll never catch that robe’it jack-rabbit.

4 Replies to “More Polling of the American Voter”

  1. The whole tone of this post is such an un-Cote rant that, given the proximity to your Vodka post, I can only conclude you must have written it while drunk.

    Is intolerance always bad? Is it right to tolerate child porn? To tolerate incest? To tolerate rape? To tolerate murder?

    Tolerance is a loaded word that in modern discourse has become quite meaningless. “Tolerance” only begs the question: where do you draw the line? And what side of that line are you on?

    Is tolerance only for those that agree with you? Your post seems to have no tolerance for Christians. If you persist in such intolerant diatribes worthy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion I shall have no choice but to cease visiting your blog. Your intolerance is no kinder, nor less bigoted, than that of the Klan. Given the opportunity, I doubt you would be any less likely than them to resort to the same kind of violence.

    –arley

    Like

  2. Perhaps changing the name of your blog to either just “Drunk” or maybe “Drunk and Retarded” would be a good idea until you figure out how to keep your political mind droppings from appearing on Java blogs.

    FYI: I voted for Bush for the simple fact that democrats treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than acts of war. Such behavior only strenghtens the resolve of those who wish to harm us. Case in point the 1993 world trade attack.

    As far as gay marriage it’s very low on the list of things I care about, though I do think it will open the door for every goof ball out there that wants to merry his pet. I expect Peta will be lobbying for this any day now. Hill Billies will also be standing in line to marry their cousins and childeren. In short, stating clearly what marriage is needs to be done. If that definition includes homosexuality, then so be it.

    Like

  3. Indeed, it’s not too easy to sort out what tolerance means, exactly is it? I don’t really know, but I know it’s not what I see when Bush wins.

    And, really, being tolerant doesn’t preclude making fun, even in a cruel way, of people’s thinking I despise. We all know the Voltaire ideal of not supporting what you say, but supporting your right to say it. The same applies to thinking.

    If you think I’d even fancy the notion of being prescriptive via the law about how people think and live their lives, then obviously, I need to start putting a long list of disclaimers in vitriolic posts like this one.

    There’s a canyon of difference between someone despising, even being vocally so, about “immoral” activities (like same sex marriage), and someone supporting a constitutional amendment, state laws, or any other legal construct.

    The real argument, of course, always comes down to if the thing you want to outlaw is “naturally” illegal, and/or “harmful.” Murder, stealing: a large percentage of people seem to agree about these. Even in those categories, the definitions of those things are contentious, and it’s usually the best lawyer who wins.

    The jury’s still out on making bitter-fun of people (like I do when I’m feeling fiesty).

    When it comes to life-style decisions that aren’t based on killing, or otherwise harming, people, though, good luck with figuring out natural law. Esp. when the effect of the act aren’t immediate and apparent, e.g., with murder, you’ve got a dead body. The definition (as I was pointing out with the shit about sheep and mint jelly) changes over time.

    If we have anything positive (or negative for many) to give to the last century or so of philosophy, it’s realizing that we can “all” just decide to change what’s “natural”, whether consciously or through great efforts of mind-shifting. It’s always the tension between people who want to change and folks who don’t want to change that causes the divide.

    Are we in a deadlock yet? Time to Ctrl-C and re-compile?

    Like

  4. Funny you should mention it, there is a Drunk and Retarded weblog. So, I’d gladly change my name, but it’s sadly taken.

    I think PETA would be upset about humans marrying animals ’cause there’d be no one to tell if the animal was consenting, so you might be forcing the animals to do something they didn’t want to. Tough luck for animal lovers out there, you have no acronym-allies.

    And that’s a good idea to delete this from javablogs. It’s been suggested a few times before. I don’t really post about Java much more. Until blogger gets categories in, I’ll remove Drunk and Retarted…I mean Retired from it. Anything for a Bush voter, they got it all figured out.

    Like

Comments are closed.