Here’s another adventure in what may become a regular feature, “Debunk the Statistical
Conclusions”. This time it’s a survey about Catholic voting preferences.
Keep in mind that the margin for error is +/- 5%.
In the most recent poll, Catholic registered voters favored Kerry by a 51 percent to 45 percent margin.
Adjusting for the error margin, Kerry potentially has 46% to 56% of the Catholic vote and Bush has 40% to 50%. I wouldn’t assume Kerry really has the lead until either the margin for error drops or Kerry’s lowest percentage beats Bush’s highest. The sample size may not have been large enough to be predictive. Furthermore, we’re not given the sample breakdown. There may be a selection bias.
Combined data from Gallup’s two most recent polls, conducted July 19-21 and July 30-Aug. 1, show that Catholic registered voters, who attend church weekly, support Bush over Kerry by a 52 percent to 42 percent margin. This group represents about one-third of all Catholic registered voters.
Among Catholic registered voters, who attend church on a semi-regular basis, that is, nearly every week or monthly, Kerry leads Bush by 50 percent to 45 percent. This group represents 27 percent of all Catholic registered voters.
Among Catholic registered voters who attend church on an infrequent basis, Kerry has a 57 percent to 39 percent lead. This is the largest group of Catholics, representing 38 percent of all Catholic registered voters.
What we’re actually looking at are 37% to 47% vs. 47% to 57%, 45% to 55% vs. 40% to 50%, and 52% to 62% vs. 34% to 44% for Kerry and Bush, respectively. The only group with a clear preference is the marginal Catholics. The strict Catholics are just shy of definitive and the semi-regular Catholics are a toss-up.
Now let’s look at the population breakup. From the strict Catholics, Kerry gets (rounding to the nearest whole percent) 13% to 16% and Bush gets 16% to 20%. From semi-regular mass attenders, Kerry gets 12% to 15% and Bush gets 11% to 14%. From marginal Catholics, Kerry gets 20% to 24% and Bush gets 13% to 17%.
Total it all up (and rounding to nearest whole percent) and Kerry has 45% to 55% and Bush has 40% to 51%. The survey gives 51% to 45%. If I were to take the middle of the ranges, I’d get 50% to 45%. That’s close enough for government work.
Ok, so I’ve bored you to tears with math. Am I getting to a point? Yes, it’s that Catholic voters aren’t going to hand either candidate a landslide victory. Don’t believe me? Here’s one more piece of math. Catholics make up about 25% of this country’s population. That means that, based on this survey, Kerry can expect about a 14% contribution to the popular vote and Bush can expect about 11%. Kerry and Bush would need another 37% and 40%, respectively if the popular vote decided the election, which it doesn’t. Doesn’t look like such a significant margin now, does it? I’m not saying it doesn’t look a little better for Kerry, but he’s not likely to break out the champagne over this.
One last thing…
Historically, Catholics voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in large part. However, in the past three decades, Catholics, who comprise 25 percent of the U.S. population, have become a key swing voting group. They proved their influence on election results when they broke with their historical voting pattern to support the winning Republican candidates in 1972, 1980, and 1984.
I’m quite curious to see just how strongly Catholics backed candidates in those elections.
(The basis for this analysis “Fake Precision” on Fallacy Files)
[An observant reader pointed out that the sample breakdown doesn’t add up to 100%. To make that happen, the “about one third” must be interpreted as 35%. I also accidentally swapped Bush and Kerry’s numbers in a couple places. I’ve adjusted my numbers and interpretations to reflect that. – Funky]
A few other thoughts:
In 1972, Nixon won with 60+% of the vote and a whopping 520 electoral votes. I’m not surprised he got a majority of Catholic votes.
In 1980, Reagan won with 51 percent of the vote and 489 electoral votes. So it makes sense that he also garnered the support of a large majority of Catholic voters.
In 1984, Reagan won re-election with 59% of the popular vote and a full 525 electoral votes.
It’s not like any of these were really close elections…
Oh, and another thought: Catholic voters are considered important not because they make up 25% of the U.S. population, but because they are concentrated in several states. In the 2000 census, these were the states with the highest Catholic population (as a percentage): Rhode Island, 61 percent; Massachusetts, 49.8 percent; New Jersey, 42.6; New York, 40.4; Connecticut, 38.4; Wisconsin, 30.4, and Pennsylvania, 30 percent.
Among them, these states have 106 electoral votes. Throw in California, which is nearly 30 percent Catholic, and you have a whole lot of electoral votes in Catholic-heavy states.
The sad part, of course, is that most of those Catholic-heavy states always choose radical abortion-rights politicians…
First, I wouldn’t call either Ted Kennedy or John Kerry “moderate abortion-rights politicians.” Their voting records can speak for themselves.
And the Democratic politicians aren’t an aristocratic wealthy elite? Yeah, right. They only pretend to care about the poor people. Where is their sense of charity? Far too often, it’s lacking.
What this country needs is more Christians who are willing to help the poor by sacrificing that third car, that new computer, that vacation to Bermuda, to provide the basic necessities of life to those in need. The government can’t solve everything — Christians need to help out. We can’t sit around on our duffs and vote for Democratic candidates, thinking that if we do, poverty will miraculously disappear. It won’t unless we do something.
And in the meantime, I will devote myself to helping the poor as much as I can, and helping the unborn babies too. Who ever said we had to choose between them?
The one thing I remember from my college statistics class is to *Always* be skeptical of survey and poll results. They can far too easily be manipulated (as you rightly note).
They choose moderate abortion-rights politicians, when their alternatives are members of a party that is devoted to the principle that poor people (or really all non-obscenely wealthy people) are deeply inferior, and exist only to serve the super-wealthy elite.
Also, a party that advocate the death penalty, and wars of choice.
I don’t like the trend developing in the Church to endorse Bush. It’s foolish. He is using the issue of abortion, which is really very low in his priorities to win over Catholic votes.
Likewise, they tied up congress for three days with an anti-gay amendment that they knew they couldn’t even muster a simple majority for. Those were three days they could have used to improve our security aparatus.
Christians in this country are being crassly manipulated in an attempt to concentrate power in an aristocratic wealthy elite.