57% of Republican Voters Would Officially Make America a Christian Nation

A new survey of Republican primary voters by Public Policy Polling contains a rather disturbing result. When asked if they would support or oppose “establishing Christianity as the national religion,” a staggering 57% said yes, 30% said no and 13% said they weren’t sure.

PPP1

Note also that the number varies depending on which potential presidential candidate they support. Huckabee supporters want America officially named a Christian nation by an incredible 94%. The only candidate whose supporters do not support it is Scott Walker. Two more interesting results:

PPP2

Again, not the difference. Supporters of Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are the most scientifically ignorant.

One word of caution: This survey has a very small sample size, only 316 people. That does raise the margin of error. I’d feel more comfortable citing this if the sample size were at least twice that much.

"COMMMUNISM=LIBERALS!Control of Elite From the TopTheir Government under ONE PARTY with a LEADER aka Fuehrer, ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"NO IDIOTS WILL CONTROL FREE PEOPLE!INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM vs SOCIALISM!"

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Nationalists!Republicans are a social and cultural American association that is of our national heritageOUR GOALDeconstruction ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Make YOUR OWN plans!SimpleJob of Government is threefold onlyProtectLifeLibertyPropertySO YOU CAN GET ON WITH YOUR ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Huckabee supporters want America officially named a Christian nation by an incredible 94%.

    Duh. They are Constitutional Conservatives.

     

    I’d feel more comfortable citing this if the sample size were at least twice that much.

    I’m the same way with pie.

  • my2cents

    While I am not in the least surprised that doesn’t mean I don’t find this horrifically disturbing.

    Theocracies don’t have a great track record.

  • John Pieret

    A lot of them must have been confused by the question … since they think Christianity is already the national religion.

  • Broken Things

    As you say the sample size is too small, and extrapolating from its is dangerous. I’ll do it anyway. The thing that bothers me about it the most is the number of ‘not sure’ respondents. Combined with those that want to establish a Christian nation, they are overwhelming. The ‘not sures’ would be the people that tend to follow the leaders. They would acquiesce in whatever the majority did, within their own group, even if they had doubts about it. I also think it’s that whoever the eventual winner in the clown car primary is, they will have to pander to the christofascists more then Bush the Lesser did.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Is anyone doing any polling of DEMOCRATIC primary voters? If not, why not? And if so, why is no one talking about those polls?

    I find it disgusting and tiresome that so many people in our “mainstream” media spend so much time and money endlessly blathering about what one hateful ignorant minority group wants. It’s just another example of the media pretending only one segment of Americans even exists at all.

  • my2cents

    Congrats Ed according to Raging Bee you’re mainstream now.

  • Chiroptera

    One word of caution: This survey has a very small sample size, only 316 people.

    Actually 316 people is perfectly reasonable for the overall result. I can say to 95% confidence that 57% plus or minus 6% of Republican primary voters support establishing Christianity (vs opposing or having no opinion). So I am reasonably certain that more than half of Republican primary voters. Of course, this depends on the sample being a truly random sample.

    On the other hand, after looking at the report itself, it looks like those 316 people are spread pretty thinly among the candidates. For example, if I am reading it correctly, 25% of these people claimed to support Walker; that gives a total number of 79 for Walker.

    A quick calculation indicates, then, that to 95% confidence 36% plus or minus 11% of Walker supports support making Christianity official (vs. opposing or having no opinion). Plus or minus 11% may be pretty high for error bars, depending on what is the point you want to make about Walker supporters.

    With smaller numbers of supporters, the error bars on the other numbers will be wider.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Raging Bee “Is anyone doing any polling of DEMOCRATIC primary voters?”

    People try, but have trouble pushing their way through all that marihuana smoke.

     

    “I find it disgusting and tiresome that so many people in our “mainstream” media spend so much time and money endlessly blathering about what one hateful ignorant minority group wants. It’s just another example of the media pretending only one segment of Americans even exists at all.”

    It this the part of the show where I point out Public Policy Polling is a Left-leaning organization, and then the horn plays the “wah wah” sound?

  • Nemo

    They’re not polling Dems as much because It Has Been Decided that Hillary Clinton is our candidate, apparently. Not by me, but they didn’t ask me.

  • k_machine

    “Which version of Christianity?” would be an interesting follow-up question.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    k_machine “‘Which version of Christianity?’ would be an interesting follow-up question.”

    That’s easy: the default one. Mine.

  • peterh

    Just over half of a minority party isn’t exactly any sort of mandate.

  • oldskoolnyc

    One thing this poll reveals is, how conflicted Rand Paul supporters are. On one hand they overwhelmingly believe in evolution, and have the highest amount of supporters that believe it Global Warming (yes it’s only 54% but, I digress!)

    At the same time, these “Libertarians” support the idea of Christianity as the National religion.

    I guess I’m in the same camp. Rand Paul has some good ideas about interventionism, and reforming the drug laws but, then has terrible ideas on how the “free markets” would work out all of the issues if regualtions were relaxed. Tell that to the people of West, Texas. The lack regulation really worked out there, 15 dead, over 100 injured, private, and public property destroyed. Rand, takes 1 step forward, 2 back!

  • Michael Heath

    When I was looking at polling pretty closely during the 2004 election season, about 60% of the GOP’s voting base was made up of politically/religiously conservative Christians. So I’m not at all surprised in these results.

    The 2004 season was particularly interesting because that was the campaign season where the GOP thought it’s best voter turn-out strategy was to have state-level voter referendums on gay marriage prohibitions. So the bigotry inherent in evangelicalism and fundamentalism was exposed to what I then found was an astonishing degree.

    Scott Walker’s slavish devotion to the Koch brothers fits tightly with the fact 93% of his supporters deny the reality of global warming. That was one the surprising result though I’m not conversant on who is attracted to Gov. Walker nationally above the the other Republican candidates. It looks like the infamous practical joke about him and the Koch brothers backfired and instead paid dividends to Walker and helped him build a base. A kind of secular Liars for Jesus® pay-off.

  • Synfandel

    As Chiroptera points out, 316 sounds like a decent sample size for the overall results, assuming good randomization. The report cites a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 per cent. That’s not bad.

    The problem comes with breaking the results down by presidential candidate support, and here Chiroptera has fallen into the trap. The division of the results effectively reduces the sample sizes of those candidate-specific sub-polls down to very problematic numbers. The 94.5% confidence level for the overall results doesn’t equally apply to the results for, say, Scott Walker supporters. In order to set a confidence level on the Scott Walker results, we would need to know the number of Scott Walker supporters in the poll—i.e., the sample size for the Scott Walker sub-poll results. The reports puts this at 25% of respondents, or 79 of the 316 Republicans polled.

    Assuming perfect randomness (which is never true) and a confidence level of 95%, and pulling a standard deviation of 0.5 out of my ass, I get an margin of error of more like 11%.

    MargErr = sqrt((Z-score)(Z-score) * StdDev(1 – StdDev) / SampSize)

    MargErr = sqrt((1.96)(1.96) * 0.5(1 – 0.5) / 79)

    MargErr = sqrt(3.8416 * 0.25 / 79)

    MargErr = sqrt(0.012157)

    MargErr = 0.11026

  • Michael Heath

    peterh writes:

    Just over half of a minority party isn’t exactly any sort of mandate.

    It actually is given that the Christianists disproportionately vote in primaries and don’t give a shit if the financial base of the GOP use those same candidates candidates to hurt the economy once their legislators are voted into office. As long as the Christianists are fed the red meat of demagoguery against those they hate and more abortion restrictions.

  • Synfandel

    Caveat: I haven’t worked with statistics since the 1980s. So, my calculation might be full of sh*t.

  • Michael Heath

    85% of Rand Paul supporters “believe in evolution”. That’s surprising.

  • Gvlgeologist, FCD

    I never thought I’d see the day when I could say, “Rand Paul supporters have the best grasp of reality of supporters of any Republican candidate for president” – at least for climate change and evolution.

  • Chiroptera

    Synfandel, #15: The problem comes with breaking the results down by presidential candidate support, and here Chiroptera has fallen into the trap….[For Walker’s supporters] I get an margin of error of more like 11%.

    Isn’t that what I said? Was I unclear? Or am I misreading you?

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Actually Scott Walker outstrips Huckabee and Cruz in the Global Warming Denial Sweepstakes, and finishes 2nd to Huckabee (although, to be sure, a distant 2nd – no one comes close to Huckabee here) and in front of Cruz in the Evolution Denial Sweepstakes.

    Let’s give Scotty his due, here.

  • peterh

    @ #16:

    “peterh writes:

    ‘Just over half of a minority party isn’t exactly any sort of mandate.’

    It actually is given that the Christianists disproportionately vote…”

    Run the numbers. 57% of 45% gives 25.65% – hardly a groundswell.

  • pixiedust

    The subgroup with the highest level of opposition to official religion are the people who don’t support any of the named candidates, or aren’t sure. That says a lot.

  • lofgren

    316 people seems more.like playing tricks with statistics than actually saying anything meaningful.

  • anubisprime

    This ‘revelation’ is not a real shocker in the scheme of things.

    The relatively small sample size might be exaggerating the commitment to a ‘theist democracy’…now there are two words that are seldom seen in the same sentence.

    But it might be a relevant point to know the exact wording used, some folks might just have assumed that a society based on ‘Christian ethics’…another two words that are habitually mortal enemies…and that the 10 commandments which are more or less upheld by secular law should be the basis of community, not necessarily the grim Xtian shangrila mooted by the dominionists…

    But even so it would be beyond reasonable doubt that the republican circus is, and traditionally has been, supported and part financed by the conservative Xtian hordes of little brain and great fear, to such an extent that they are the tail that wags the dog.

    There is a certain comfort in those figures, considering the murky pool this sample was dipped from, shall we say the nominally politically rabid and intelligent lite rank and file.

    These are not slam dunked stats…there are swathes certainly but there are gaps or breaks in the support ideology. and that was something that would never have happened even a decade ago, because at one time it seemed the combined sunbeams for jeebus had but one mantra…’If you are not with us you are against us’

    Mainly because ostracism in xtian communities was the tool that was a great crowbar against dissention, and has been for centuries.

    That black & white rule of thumb seems to be fragmenting, and well…’divided they fall’…does the adage not go something like that?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Congrats Ed according to Raging Bee you’re mainstream now.

    Well, yeah, he kinda is following the herd here.

    They’re not polling Dems as much because It Has Been Decided that Hillary Clinton is our candidate, apparently. Not by me, but they didn’t ask me.

    They didn’t ask me either. Who the fuck DID they ask? The only people I’ve heard supporting her are neo-con-artist Republicans — which gets us right back to my original complaint.

    Just over half of a minority party isn’t exactly any sort of mandate.

    It’s not even that; it’s just over half of the tiny minority of the minority party who are likely to vote in the minority party’s primary.

    Rand Paul has some good ideas about interventionism, and reforming the drug laws…

    This is another example of the dishonesty of the MSM: is Rand Paul the ONLY person who has ideas other than what we’ve come to accept as the standard Republican platform? Probably not — but he’s the only such person for whom the MSM allows any attention. When a liberal says something sensible, it’s just liberals being predictable and saying predictable liberal things — but when Rand Paul says exactly the same thing, the Republican-friendly media proclaim it “big news” because he’s a “gadfly” and a “new Republican” and look at the intellectual ferment in the Republican Party and there’s change in the air and a new generation blah blah blah… Meanwhile it’s never in doubt that Rand Paul will never be a real threat to ANY standard Republican policy, and the Republicans know this the whole time they’re allowing him to pretend he’s a brave out-of-box rebel.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    …a ‘theist democracy’…now there are two words that are seldom seen in the same sentence.

    Is that anything like an “Islamic Republic?”

  • abb3w

    The full PPP topline gives the fraction of people who supported each candidate, which allows closely estimating their actual support (rounding to percentage of 316 means it might be off by one or two), allowing the calculations that Synfandel points out are needed. Bush, Carson, Huckabee, and Walker have enough support in the sample that at eyeball, there does seem a significant difference — Huckabee and/or Carson supporters are more establishmentarian than Bush/Walker supporters.

    Contrariwise, the Rand Paul support sample is only about N=12, which is a bit too small for practical use; the result would seem to support saying it’s significantly likely a majority of his fans accept evolution (which might be the GOP’s social Darwinist wing), but not much beyond that.

    Nohow, the overall 57±5.6% does seem pretty staggering.

    Incidentally, it looks like the “not sure/someone else” crowd may include a lot of conservatives still in touch with reality, who thus don’t like the GOP’s current bowl of fruit loops.

  • Synfandel

    Chiroptera wrote:

    Isn’t that what I said? Was I unclear? Or am I misreading you?

    That is, indeed, exactly what you said. I have no idea how I misread you that badly. My apologies.