Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Rasmussen: Capitalism more popular than capitalism.


According to a recent Rasmussen report, Americans prefer capitalism over capitalism by a 33 point margin.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans weren't sure whether they preferred capitalism or capitalism, proving once again that our educational system is woefully inadequate.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

So, what's religion good for?

Gallup recently released a pretty interesting poll on the importance of religion to people in different states around the country.

Over the course of last year, 350,000 people were asked "Is religion a part of your daily life?" Here you can see those states that were most and least likely to say "yes." As you can see, Massachusetts is near the very bottom of the list religiosity-wise.


Be careful not to read too much into these numbers. While they had a wonderfully large sample size, their question was really sort of weird. Religion can be part of your daily life whether or not you actually believe what that religion says, and you can believe in a religion without obsessing over it every day.

This certainly shouldn't be interpreted to mean mean that 52% of people in Massachusetts are atheists (or that 85% of Mississippians are theists, for that matter).

On top of that, there's undoubtedly more social pressure to say that religion is a big part of your life if you live in an overtly religious area, and people have a tendency to overreport their own degree of religiosity in the first place.

It's still interesting, though. For all its flaws, it does give us an idea of which states value religion more than which other states. There's even a fancy map!


Very pretty.

Anyway, this made me wonder a few things. Like how could mostly-nonreligious Alaska have elected such a Bible-thumping lunatic for governor? I don't know the answer to that one.

I also wondered how these states stack up against each other in other metrics. Does heathen New England have more Satanic orgies than pious Mississippi? Sadly, I couldn't find reliable figures on the number of Satanic orgies per state (please send them to me if you can find them, readers!), so that one will have to go unanswered. But there are others!

How about divorce? The Bible frowns on that shit.

Hmm, looking at the 2004 statistics (the most current year available), it appears that godless gay-marrying Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any state! Washington DC is slightly lower, but it's not a state, it's just a weird anomaly-warehouse (it also comes out at 61% in the religious listing).

Divorces per 1,000 people (2004):
    Vermont: 3.9
    New Hampshire: 3.9
    Maine: 4.3
    Massachusetts: 2.2 (the lowest in the country)
    Alaska: 4.3
    Washington: 4.3

    Mississippi: 4.5
    Alabama: 4.9
    S. Carolina: 3.2
    Tennessee: 4.9
    Louisiana: no stats
    Arkansas: 6.1 (the highest in the country)

Hmm, it sure doesn't look like those religious states are very good at avoiding divorce. Except South Carolina, which is oddly good. The rest all come in significantly higher than the heathens.

How about teen pregnancy? The Bible's pretty much in favor of knocking up young girls, but religious folks like to claim that religion helps prevent teen pregnancy anyway. Does it?

Here's the source (pdf).

Pregnancy rate of women aged 15-19 (2000):
    Vermont: 44
    New Hampshire: 47
    Maine: 52
    Massachusetts: 60
    Alaska: 73
    Washington: 75

    Mississippi: 103
    Alabama: 90
    S. Carolina: 89
    Tennessee: 89
    Louisiana: 87
    Arkansas: 93

Well damn! It looks like religion doesn't do a very good job of preventing teen pregnancy either! Not that sensible people ever thought it did, but hey, that's the stupid claim. Oddly, DC has the highest teen pregnancy and North Dakota has the lowest (probably because there's nobody around to fuck).

What else does religion supposedly prevent? Crime! Hell, it's even in their commandments! Surely the religious states will have lower crime rates, right?

Violent crime rate per 100,000 (2005):
    Vermont: 126
    New Hampshire: 135
    Maine: 113
    Massachusetts: 461
    Alaska: 632
    Washington: 346

    Mississippi: 280
    Alabama: 433
    S. Carolina: 767
    Tennessee: 757
    Louisiana: 497
    Arkansas: 529

Well, the godless states aren't totally cool (WTF Alaska?), but they're still better off on average than the religious ones. Being non-religious is no guarantee that you'll be crime-free, but religion also seems to do a pretty shitty job of keeping people from committing crime.

Okay, just one more. I searched for "what religion is good for" because I was running out of ideas, and it led me to this stupid story that claims "you are 29 percent more likely to live longer if you are involved in religion than if you are not."

Holy crap! Besides being an essentially meaningless statement, that's exciting news!

Surely we'll see something similar in our statistics, and then we'll all move to Mississippi where we will become snake-handlers, because it will increase our life expectancy.

Life expectancy in years (2006):
    Vermont: 78.2
    New Hampshire: 78.3
    Maine: 77.6
    Massachusetts: 78.4
    Alaska: 77.1
    Washington: 78.2

    Mississippi: 73.6 (lowest of any state, though stupid DC sucks worse)
    Alabama: 74.4
    S. Carolina: 74.8
    Tennessee: 75.1
    Louisiana: 74.2
    Arkansas: 75.2

Yikes! Maybe staying in Massachusetts is a good idea.

Finally, please don't confuse correlation and causation in this post. Being religious probably won't turn you into a divorced and pregnant criminal who dies young. But it certainly won't do a damn thing to prevent it.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Hey look! A poll thing!

I was playing around with the Blogger interface doowhacky and found that it allows you to easily make a poll thing. So I stuck one over on the right there asking which of the two remaining candidates you support.

This is of course a highly scientific survey, and whomever wins will surely become our next mayor. The poll ends in a week. So vote, dammit!

Friday, September 14, 2007

More Like May-snore-al Debate!

Proving that my friends are way cooler than anyone else's friends, I got together with some of them last night to watch the mayoral debate on FATV. Awesome!

Now, I'm actually not a big fan of debates. Truth doesn't much matter in a debate. You don't win by telling the truth (just ask Ron Paul), you win by having the most skill at debating. Debating is a very specialized skill, and has nothing to do with honesty. Personally, I'd rather see the candidates all submit specific multi-page position papers a couple of months before the election and be forced to defend them to a committee of fact-checkers and people who ask tough questions. But whatever.

On the other hand, the skills used in a political debate are some of the same skills that are valuable in a mayor. So it's not like it's totally pointless for deciding who'd be the best mayor. It's just totally pointless if you're trying to use it to examine the issues. It's about communication skills and creating the right perception, not good ideas. Communication skills and creating the right perception are important in a mayor though, so let's examine the boring debate!

Rather than pretend like the issues have relevance in this format, I'll just go through the candidates alphabetically by last name and give my perceptions from this debate:

Ronald Dionne:

Remember when James Stockdale was in the vice-presidential debates as Ross Perot's running mate? He seemed like a confused old man who was totally out of his element. That's who Ron Dionne brought to mind last night.

Don't get me wrong, Dionne seems like he's probably a pretty nice guy. He's been a truck driver in the past, and I bet he's fun to hang out with on a long trip.

But he didn't bring anything to the debate. He didn't really seem like he belonged there, or knew anything. And he kept getting confused about things. I expected him to bolt for the door at one point.

If there was an overall "loser" in the debate, it was probably Dionne.


Ted Desalvatore:

It's an old cultural bias that liars are "shifty-eyed". I don't know if that's true, but Ted may just be the most shifty-eyed person I've ever seen! Not only did he not look into the camera once during the entire debate, he actually went so far as to swivel back and forth in his chair!

Presumably he was talking to the tiny audience in the studio, but it came across really badly to anyone watching on tv.

I also think he believes that when you become mayor of Fitchburg you somehow become omnipotent and can do things like tell judges what to do. He did specify that he wouldn't be literally boxing with them (seriously!), but it's generally a bad idea to tell judges how to do their job. Anyway, my understanding is that they're not appointed by the mayor and I doubt they give two shits about what he has to say.

One fun thing he did say was pointed out over at Fitchburg Follies. It dealt specifically with a Prop 2 1/2 override for school budget stuff, and the quote is:
"I would be out there trying to sell the right decision, whatever the right decision would be."
Way to be informed!

He also thought that all it takes to manage a $95 million budget is "common sense." Oh my.

Of course, all that is getting dangerously close to an issue and as I said issues are meaningless in this format.

Anyway, DeSalvatore sucks on camera and came across really badly. Maybe a little bit better than Dionne, but he still ran third. Which I guess leaves two potential winners! Who will it be?

Tom Donnelly:

Nope, not the winner (I bet you can't guess who was!).

He never really seemed very comfortable on camera. All hunched-up and weird. Also, he attacked Lisa Wong out of the blue a few times, making himself the only candidate to really stoop to that.

A friend pointed out to me that Donnelly's the only one of the four candidates with the funds and likelihood to have done opinion polling. Does attacking Wong (and nobody else) mean that he fears her the most? Beats me, but it's possible! He certainly didn't seem too concerned about Ted.

He also spent a lot of time basically saying he'd have other people do his job, trying to put the blame for things the city council did on other people, and taking credit for things that Wong did. Weird.

He did at least look at the camera and basically act like somebody who might be a sort of bargain-basement mayor. Though it would require the town giving up a bit of dignity.

Overall, he just came across as sort of a dick though.

Lisa Wong:

Yeah, she won. Easily.

While Donnelly gave the impression that he might be mayor-ish, Wong gave the impression that she already has the mayor thing in the bag. She was good on camera, articulate, and actually made an attempt to present specific solutions to things.

Really, she was head and shoulders above the other three. Also, she's clearly much smarter and better-informed than the other three, which is pretty sad when you consider two of them are city councilors. She did manage not to come across as a snooty smart person though, which is probably good.

So yeah, Wong won.

And that's that for my mayoral debate wrap-up thing.

On a related matter, I notice there are two polls going on that ask who won the debate. One is over at Save Fitchburg, where the insane legions of Ted supporters have showed up to vote for him and pretend he didn't look like a cat watching a string during the whole thing. Still, he's just three votes ahead of Wong at this point (the others candidates are way down).

The other--much better--poll is at Hello Fitchburg. It's a better representation, I'd argue, since the DeSalvatore groupies don't generally try to stuff that one.

Why not go take both? Let your voice be heard!

[Update 9/18/07: Hey, there's even a third one at Fitchburg's Voice. It matches pretty well with the Hello Fitchburg one, and of course the Save Fitchburg one is still just gibberish that has DeSalvatore winning.]