More Christian Bashing

[aegsm76]

The below link points to an article that uses bogus statistics to produce an totally incorrect headline.
However, most people will only read the headline and not read the article and question.
link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e1ddf#comments

Now, if you read this poll and accept the results, you probably do not need to put any stock in polls.
If you read these results and go examine the methodology used, then you are probably a Republican...

[aegsm76]

Glad to see someone putting out a rebuttal.

link
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19308/...nk-ben-shapiro

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

The below link points to an article that uses bogus statistics to produce an totally incorrect headline.
However, most people will only read the headline and not read the article and question.
link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e1ddf#comments

Now, if you read this poll and accept the results, you probably do not need to put any stock in polls.
If you read these results and go examine the methodology used, then you are probably a Republican...

It's not just Christians ... but WHITE evangelical Christians.

smh

[n david]

This poll was deliberately and admittedly skewed to the rural community. The focus of the poll was to show the "cultural divide" between rural and urban communities. Now, I'm not a statistician, so I'm likely wrong, but if this was the goal, why only poll 303 people from urban areas but poll over a thousand from the rural areas?

While I do believe there's a huge difference of values between rural and urban communities, I don't see how this is a fair or accurate representation.

1070 rural
307 suburban
303 urban

More often than not, the rural community is about personal responsibility, right? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work. Also, at least while growing up, rural community was majority white.

Of those sampled:
62% white
11% black
15% Hispanic

So we have a deliberate oversampling of rural residents, and an oversampling of white respondents.

On the "poor" question:
"Lack of effort" 49 rural, 42 suburban, 37 urban
"Beyond control" 46 rural, 54 suburban, 56 urban

I'm a bit surprised there isn't more of a difference in the rural answers. 49-46 is much closer than what I thought it would be.

I understand adding the numbers to get the number of Christians v others who responded to the poll, but I am skeptical of how they turned this into who voted for what.
"""The poll showed that 46% of Christians said lack of effort was tied to poverty, compared to just 29% of non-Christians; 53% of white evangelicals tied poverty to lack of effort, with just 41% blaming circumstance."""

The poll did not ask this question from a Christian v non-Christian perspective. The question was divided only by rural v suburban v urban respondents.

Look at Queestion 17 using the link below:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...ica-poll/2217/

Lack of effort: total = 42 (Rural 49, Sub 42, Urban 37)
Beyond control: total = 53 (Rural 46, Sub 54, Urban 56)
Don't know: total = 4 (Rural 4, Sub 4, Urban 5)
Refused: total = 1 (Rural 1, Sub 1, Urban 2)

Could someone please explain how they translated this and made it into a White Evangelical thing?

[n david]

While the WaPo reporter wants to make this about mean, stingy, white evangelicals, I found some other interesting numbers in the poll.

Trump approval is higher than other polls: 43% approve, 51% disapprove.
Rural = 54% approve, 40% disapprove
Suburban = 44% approve, 49% disapprove
Urban = 32% approve, 62% disapprove

Most questions were only asked of rural respondents, again this was by design per the poll. Most Trump policies were only asked of rural respondents.

What the WaPo writer ignored and is not reported is that the overwhelming majority of respondents across the board don't believe the media respects them. The three groups are unified in their opinion of the media.

Her biased article against white evangelical Christians likely won't help her side.

[Esaias]

Are y'all still operating under the delusion that these media sites are something other than propaganda outlets?

"Facts" are not the point. You guys seem upset they don't report "facts", that they are "skewing and slanting" things? THAT'S THEIR FUNCTION, JOB, PURPOSE.

I mean, it's like expressing shock and outrage that a known mafia defendant, previously convicted for perjury, would lie on the witness stand.

The sooner you realize it's propaganda, created and spun for a very definite purpose, the sooner you can start answering the question "Why are they pushing this narrative?"

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Are y'all still operating under the delusion that these media sites are something other than propaganda outlets?

"Facts" are not the point. You guys seem upset they don't report "facts", that they are "skewing and slanting" things? THAT'S THEIR FUNCTION, JOB, PURPOSE.

I mean, it's like expressing shock and outrage that a known mafia defendant, previously convicted for perjury, would lie on the witness stand.

The sooner you realize it's propaganda, created and spun for a very definite purpose, the sooner you can start answering the question "Why are they pushing this narrative?"

I agree, Esaias.
My point is to try and get people to look beyond the headline and drill down to the facts.