"Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. "

Of the voters who sited their reasons to vote, morals WAS the highest...the articles are claiming they 'lied'. You can't use the 19% from the articles if you think terrorism was the cause of Bush's win, because the same article has a higher percentage for morals.

 

I'm not saying that morality voters didn't vote in higher numbers, I'm just saying as did the article that they did not decide the election.

"Gay marriage and values didn't decide this election. Terrorism did.

The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well."

 

Deyes you have a lot more patience than I do. You should consider a career in special education, teaching kids with impaired reading comprehension.

 

Truth is, the info can be spun either way- and this is an argument leading nowhere. There are so many different sources, and so many different numbers, with different analyses to skew those numbers every which way. People will continue to guess as to why people, in general, (especially the opposite side) voted for the candidate they did. And people will continue to argue over these questions... never coming to an agreement.

Funked- I could say the same about you- That I feel since you fail to see the opposite point- You might neeed a little one-on-one with your own special ed. reading comprehension instructor.

If people are guilty of anything here, it's not stupidity, it's more along the lines of close-mindednesss- the refusal to open up and give consideration to outside views, different than your own.

 

Who's got the 'high and mighty,' condescending tone now? At the first glance, I would have thought you were one of those dirty liberals!