Home » Culture, Intelligent Design, science education » That ID-friendly US prez hopeful Rick Santorum has won Alabama, Mississippi primaries

That ID-friendly US prez hopeful Rick Santorum has won Alabama, Mississippi primaries

If he loses, they can always give the leftover vests to charity

As in, the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Here.

The former Pennsylvania Senator won most major demographics in both states, each of which was laden with very conservative voters. In ‘Bama, Santorum carried women (Gingrich won men), every age group except seniors (who broke for Romney), independents, Tea Party supporters, evangelicals (who comprised 3/4 of the electorate), and those voters who said they were looking to back a “true conservative.” The exit poll results in Mississippi were nearly indistinguishable from its Eastern neighbor, almost to an uncanny degree. What makes Santorum’s dual victories so head-turning is the fact that he substantially out-performed public polling in both states. . In Alabama, only one poll showed Santorum leading during the entire month of March; in Mississippi, he led in…zero March polls. Yet he won both. Early exit polling from CNN indicated that Mitt Romney was positioned to narrowly win in Mississippi, but he ended up slipping to a very close third place in both states.

And the meat grinder hasn’t even warmed up yet.

The gen is that hopeful Romney will end up winning anyway, but note that Santorum “substantially out-performed public polling in both states.” This could be a sort of reverse Bradley Effect – having been told repeatedly how awful it would be to vote for Ms. X, people inform pollsters that they won’t do any such thing. Once out of sight in the booth, however …

(Note: The original Bradley effect ran in the opposite direction; people claimed they would vote for black politicians but then evidently didn’t. The take home message for commentators is, making a candidate out to be either God or the devil can backfire badly.)

See also: ID friendly US prez hopeful Rick Santorum wins Kansas

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to That ID-friendly US prez hopeful Rick Santorum has won Alabama, Mississippi primaries

  1. Ron Paul supporters seem to be causing chaos at the conventions.

    http://hillbuzz.org/ron-pauls-.....ency-63749

  2. I cannot help but be amused by this video in which Rick Santorum recommends that the person challenging him should “Vote for Ron Paul.

    In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has this to say about “Creation versus Evoluton”.

    “From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can’t this remain an academic debate and not be made the politcal issue it has become?”

    I am disappointed that Uncommon Descent is advocating for a particular candidate, or so it seems. There are infinitely more important problems facing our nation than whether a candidate supports intelligent design.

  3. Santorum supported ID because he is more concerned with the socially conservative issues than Gingrich and Romney. ID as far as it relates to what ought to be taught in the public schools class rooms IS a political issue. It does matter what an elected thinks about these issues because it reveals what they believe, know and how they think according to their world view.

    Obviously, UD is most concerned with politics as it pertains to ID and so it is perfectly reasonable that Santorum should be getting positive coverage here at this site..

    Ron Paul seems to either not understand the issue of ID at all, or his quote is taken out of context, as it only pertains to evolution VS creation. ID is a different theory that sits in the middle of the two extremes, being compatible with creation and some basic views of evolution that allow for a guiding agent.

    However, I should note that while at one time Santorum openly supported ID being taught along side of Darwinian Evolution, later on Santorum did backtrack in some interviews saying he was not sure if ID should be taught but that the “problems” with the theory of evolution need to be taught.

    Either way he is right that the problems of evolutionary theory need to be taught- I however wish he would take the time to actually understand the dialog and issues involved so that he can go back to taking and maintaining the stronger position– that ID IS a scientific theory that rivals Darwinian Evolution and thus should be taught along side evolution, even if ID is given less time given that it is a theory held by a minority of those in the scientific community.

  4. I would argue that ID is going to stand or fall in the research labs and the halls of academia, not in political contests or the courts. Which former, happen to be the places where it has made its greatest inroads.

    Whether or not someone like Santorum spends eight years riding the herd over the goats gathered at Babylon on the Potomac is basically irrelevant, compared with what it means to the materialists’ cause when someone like Anthony Flew becomes convinced by the scientific evidence.

    My opinion, but its correctness may just stand in sharp relief if the Coppedge affair at JPL turns into yet another debacle in open court for ID, with the egg landing this time directly on the faces of the “big guns” at the Discovery Institute. Which outcome, after reading JPL’s side (pdf) of the story — kindly provided by alicejohn in another thread — IMHCO represents a distinct possibility.

    Of course, our courts are adversarial for a reason, and once Coppedge’s side (pdf) is heard JPL’s case may be blown out of the water and its alleged violations of the law confirmed. But to me at least, having read both briefs, that outcome stands in doubt. In that, were I a juror and those two documents were my only basis to decide — “ID friendly” or not — I would have to decide for JPL.

  5. I wouldn’t call almost hoodwinking Springer into publishing creationism “inroads into academia”.

  6. Well at least that would put creationism somewhere north of, say, the flat earth theory, eh?

Leave a Reply