Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's another question: what difference does it make how "religious" a given state is? The Constitution of the United States mandates a separation of church and state. Whatever religion anyone chooses to practice, or how many people in a particular state describe themselves as religious, has no bearing on the affairs of state.
true^^^ but this can be a issue in politics in terms of higher office. as we all know we americans knit pick the most stupidest 5h!t and turn it into warfare(political).
On the contrary. There are a lot of religious people in Alaska, just like other States. All depends on where the poll was conducted. For example, if conducted in the tree and bunny hugger liberal neighborhoods of Anchorage and Juneau, that's the kind of result you get. But if you conduct the poll in the rural areas, the outcome is the opposite. Palin is religious like a lot of other people, but as far as I remember has never talked about religion in her daily political life, nor at her job as a governor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestViewdrive
Oh this is just a liberal skewed poll trying to hurt Palin more.
There are ways to do polls that take all of that into account. That said, I don't know this group, so don't know if they are reliable pollsters.
I notice that so many people are absolutely enamored with quoting polls. What you almost never hear anyone doing, however, is asking how many respondents there were. For example, in the poll that kicked off this thread, the article says quite clearly that there were 350,000 interviews. In a nation with a population of more than 270 million, I don't see how anyone can be serious about drawing conclusions from a sample that small (even though most of these polls go right ahead and make conclusions from much smaller samplings!)
I notice that so many people are absolutely enamored with quoting polls. What you almost never hear anyone doing, however, is asking how many respondents there were. For example, in the poll that kicked off this thread, the article says quite clearly that there were 350,000 interviews. In a nation with a population of more than 270 million, I don't see how anyone can be serious about drawing conclusions from a sample that small (even though most of these polls go right ahead and make conclusions from much smaller samplings!)
You need to study how polling is done, random selction, etc. Yes you can draw conclusions from such a sample size.
the article says quite clearly that there were 350,000 interviews. In a nation with a population of more than 270 million, I don't see how anyone can be serious about drawing conclusions from a sample that small (even though most of these polls go right ahead and make conclusions from much smaller samplings!)
Polling is based on statistical calculations that overwhelmingly reflect the population as a whole (unless there is a last minute change, as happened in the New Hampshire primary). 350,000 respondents is HUGE and way more than enough to draw a viable conclusion.
This is a fascinating poll - all the stereotypes of the Northeast and the deep South proved true.
Makes one consider for a moment, is God really that much of a regional booster? Are people closer to the answer simply because they live in a region that is still emerging economically and socially (South America, Africa, the Middle East, the deep South of the U.S.)? Are those who live in older, more mature economies that have moved beyond the battles of religion (like Europe or the Northeast U.S.) really doomed by their socioeconomic station in life?
Perhaps we are missing a truth that transcends religion and science. Either way, interesting poll, and not because of anything to do with Palin.
I notice that so many people are absolutely enamored with quoting polls. What you almost never hear anyone doing, however, is asking how many respondents there were. For example, in the poll that kicked off this thread, the article says quite clearly that there were 350,000 interviews. In a nation with a population of more than 270 million, I don't see how anyone can be serious about drawing conclusions from a sample that small (even though most of these polls go right ahead and make conclusions from much smaller samplings!)
Look, man, it was a GALLUP POLL, one of the oldest and most experienced firms in the polling business. I linked to the page that identified that 350,000 persons were interviewed. By my arithmetic, that would be 7,000 persons interviewed PER STATE. How's that?
I think that Gallup has enough information about the relevant demographic parameters of their interviewees for the results to be a statistically representative sample for the purposes of the poll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
