US election survey!

[anonymous201]

I took your test. Would be nice if you shared total results. You also need an indifferent option on a question or two

I intentionally excluded an indifferent/idk option, because I think too many people would take that as the safe option instead of committing to one side or the other.

a couple posts above, I shared my analysis of the data. since you asked, I'll also post a summary of the responses:

 

[anonymous201]

pardon the long scroll, that's the only convenient way for me to give you all the summaries.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

pardon the long scroll, that's the only convenient way for me to give you all the summaries.

So what did you learn?

 

[anonymous201]

pardon the long scroll, that's the only convenient way for me to give you all the summaries.

So what did you learn?

I'll repost my analysis. to give a bit more background, I created an index from the 'issues' questions, and cross-referenced this with how people voted and their demographics. I used other methods as well, such as crosstabulation and frequency analysis. my major mistake was not including an agnostic/atheist option. the vast majority of 'Other' respondents to the religion question fell into this category, alongside the small minority of less common beliefs.

~

Hillary voters were overrepresented in my results, with a slight overall majority (53%). third party voters were also overrepresented, to a lesser extent (they took up about 1/4 of the total, with Trump voters being slightly under 1/4).

as expected, Trump voters were very anti-establishment, while Hillary voters were for the political establishment. in particular, Trump voters tended to strongly agree or disagree, while Hillary voters clustered around moderate agree/disagree. There was little overlap between Trump and Hillary voters, except for the issue of putting American nationals first -- but even there, Trump voters strongly agreed as opposed to a moderate agree from Hillary voters. On all other issues, they were polarized.

There was very little overlap between Trump and Hillary voters. Trump in particular stood apart from everyone else. This was also somewhat true of Hillary, the main exception being Jill Stein (who may have siphoned off some of her votes).
Third Party voters had significant overlap with each other. they are mainly distinguished by avoidance of the two mainstream candidates (except for Hillary/Stein). Their views on the political establishment fell in the middle between the Trump and Hillary camps.

Education, Race, and Gender were NOT found to be significant, in spite of assumptions I've seen to the contrary. in fact, urban voters tended to be more anti-establishment than rural/suburban voters.

Christian Evangelicals were far more anti-establishment than everyone else. Protestants shared this to a lesser extent. everyone else was average and undistinguishable.

Most respondents were caucasian, male, suburban, and non-religious, which is probably an artifact from sampling online. education had a normal distribution.

 

[Pogo]

I took your test. Would be nice if you shared total results. You also need an indifferent option on a question or two

I intentionally excluded an indifferent/idk option, because I think too many people would take that as the safe option instead of committing to one side or the other.

a couple posts above, I shared my analysis of the data. since you asked, I'll also post a summary of the responses:

As already noted I always refuse to answer questions on race/religion (and often on gender/education as well) but I don't see my refusal reflected in "race" above nor do I see anything about religion.

On the latter, you mentioned the religion question as a cultural aspect, noting a difference between what religious pattern one follows now versus what background one grew up with. Had that distinction been articulated as such in the polll I think I would have happily answered it...

 

[Pogo]

as expected, Trump voters were very anti-establishment, while Hillary voters were for the political establishment.

urban voters tended to be more anti-establishment than rural/suburban voters.

Christian Evangelicals were far more anti-establishment than everyone else. Protestants shared this to a lesser extent. everyone else was average and undistinguishable.

Where did you derive a basis for this? There's nothing in the poll about "establishment", neither "pro" nor "anti". Nothing whatsoever.

 

[anonymous201]

As already noted I always refuse to answer questions on race/religion (and often on gender/education as well) but I don't see my refusal reflected in "race" above nor do I see anything about religion.

On the latter, you mentioned the religion question as a cultural aspect, noting a difference between what religious pattern one follows now versus what background one grew up with. Had that distinction been articulated as such in the polll I think I would have happily answered it...

that's respectable, race is a social fiction invented in the 19th century. unfortunately, it's an influential social fiction, which is why we have to consider it. also, whenever you do research, you're supposed to include control variables, and race/religion/gender are convenient controls for surveying. the fact that one of my controls turned out to be significant was an interesting surprise.

if you left it blank (which is fine), it doesn't show up in the pie chart.

I suppose I could've clarified religion better, but I wanted to keep it short and simple. yes, there's a difference between current beliefs and cultural background, but I counted on respondents to know what they best identify with. as I said before, I should've listed agnostic/atheist, since so many who chose Other were irreligious.

Where did you derive a basis for this? There's nothing in the poll about "establishment", neither "pro" nor "anti". Nothing whatsoever.

of course, I couldn't just ask directly about establishment views. I formulated questions about relevant political issues which tie into the political status quo. from there, I can use those responses to measure (roughly) how one views the establishment/status quo.

 

[Pogo]

As already noted I always refuse to answer questions on race/religion (and often on gender/education as well) but I don't see my refusal reflected in "race" above nor do I see anything about religion.

On the latter, you mentioned the religion question as a cultural aspect, noting a difference between what religious pattern one follows now versus what background one grew up with. Had that distinction been articulated as such in the polll I think I would have happily answered it...

that's respectable, race is a social fiction invented in the 19th century. unfortunately, it's an influential social fiction, which is why we have to consider it. also, whenever you do research, you're supposed to include control variables, and race/religion/gender are convenient controls for surveying. the fact that one of my controls turned out to be significant was an interesting surprise.

if you left it blank (which is fine), it doesn't show up in the pie chart.

I suppose I could've clarified religion better, but I wanted to keep it short and simple. yes, there's a difference between current beliefs and cultural background, but I counted on respondents to know what they best identify with. as I said before, I should've listed agnostic/atheist, since so many who chose Other were irreligious.

Good answer. "Religion" and "no religion" and "irreligiious" are very slippery slopes since it's so personal and ergo subject to how the respondent defines it for him/her self. I don't think technically anyone can be "irreligious" actually, since the moment we wonder about the universe we're into the spiritual. Perhaps what you're aiming for is the question of whether a respondent is a member of an organized, structured religion. I'd happily answer that (in the negative) but it shouldn't indicate "irreligious". I guess the target of that question phrased as such would serve to identify who's a "joiner" and who forges their own path. But a political affiliation would indicate the same thing (and the two would probably harmonize).

Where did you derive a basis for this? There's nothing in the poll about "establishment", neither "pro" nor "anti". Nothing whatsoever.

of course, I couldn't just ask directly about establishment views. I formulated questions about relevant political issues which tie into the political status quo. from there, I can use those responses to measure (roughly) how one views the establishment/status quo.

I don't see how there's anything that would indicate that on the poll at all. I think you're making a big leap here. There's no pattern of question(s) that go to how one views the establishment/status quo.

 

[anonymous201]

Good answer. "Religion" and "no religion" and "irreligiious" are very slippery slopes since it's so personal and ergo subject to how the respondent defines it for him/her self. I don't think technically anyone can be "irreligious" actually, since the moment we wonder about the universe we're into the spiritual. Perhaps what you're aiming for is the question of whether a respondent is a member of an organized, structured religion. I'd happily answer that (in the negative) but it shouldn't indicate "irreligious". I guess the target of that question phrased as such would serve to identify who's a "joiner" and who forges their own path. But a political affiliation would indicate the same thing (and the two would probably harmonize).

religion is a complex topic, and it's easy to get into semantics. yes, I was mainly looking for adherence to organized religion. as I said, I should've just included atheist/agnostic alongside 'other'.

Where did you derive a basis for this? There's nothing in the poll about "establishment", neither "pro" nor "anti". Nothing whatsoever.

of course, I couldn't just ask directly about establishment views. I formulated questions about relevant political issues which tie into the political status quo. from there, I can use those responses to measure (roughly) how one views the establishment/status quo.

I don't see how there's anything that would indicate that on the poll at all. I think you're making a big leap here. There's no pattern of question(s) that go to how one views the establishment/status quo.

consider what I asked: how you view the Obama admin (who had power for the last 8 years), whether you trust the mainstream media, opinions on foreign and domestic. I did a literature review, and there's a basis for all this. I also worked with other people who approved of my formulation before I posted.

I'd like to point out that when I did one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis, I compared how people voted with how they responded to the questions in accordance with the establishment hypothesis; I got 0.000 significance, which is actually the maximum. so there must be something to it.

 

[Pogo]

Good answer. "Religion" and "no religion" and "irreligiious" are very slippery slopes since it's so personal and ergo subject to how the respondent defines it for him/her self. I don't think technically anyone can be "irreligious" actually, since the moment we wonder about the universe we're into the spiritual. Perhaps what you're aiming for is the question of whether a respondent is a member of an organized, structured religion. I'd happily answer that (in the negative) but it shouldn't indicate "irreligious". I guess the target of that question phrased as such would serve to identify who's a "joiner" and who forges their own path. But a political affiliation would indicate the same thing (and the two would probably harmonize).

religion is a complex topic, and it's easy to get into semantics. yes, I was mainly looking for adherence to organized religion. as I said, I should've just included atheist/agnostic alongside 'other'.

Where did you derive a basis for this? There's nothing in the poll about "establishment", neither "pro" nor "anti". Nothing whatsoever.

of course, I couldn't just ask directly about establishment views. I formulated questions about relevant political issues which tie into the political status quo. from there, I can use those responses to measure (roughly) how one views the establishment/status quo.

I don't see how there's anything that would indicate that on the poll at all. I think you're making a big leap here. There's no pattern of question(s) that go to how one views the establishment/status quo.

consider what I asked: how you view the Obama admin (who had power for the last 8 years), whether you trust the mainstream media, opinions on foreign and domestic. I did a literature review, and there's a basis for all this. I also worked with other people who approved of my formulation before I posted.

I'd like to point out that when I did one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis, I compared how people voted with how they responded to the questions in accordance with the establishment hypothesis; I got 0.000 significance, which is actually the maximum. so there must be something to it.

Those three queries ---

• "how do you view the O'bama Administration"
• "how much do you trust mainstream media" (a term wide open to diverse interpretations); and
• opinions foreign and domestic...

--- are in no way the same as asking "how pro- or anti-establishment are you". They pose no questions about the established order itself. They all assume the answer is given in context .... how one assesses the O'bama terms acknowledges in advance that he was POTUS, but how one views the establishment that got him there is never queried.

Then there's the definition of "establishment". Is O'bama the "establishment"? If not, does he become so when compared with Clinton? Or if not, with McCain? Personally I see the entire Duopoly as the established order, so they all are. And Rump is too.

 

[anonymous201]

Those three queries ---

• "how do you view the O'bama Administration"
• "how much do you trust mainstream media" (a term wide open to diverse interpretations); and
• opinions foreign and domestic...

--- are in no way the same as asking "how pro- or anti-establishment are you". They pose no questions about the established order itself. They all assume the answer is given in context .... how one assesses the O'bama terms acknowledges in advance that he was POTUS, but how one views the establishment that got him there is never queried.

Then there's the definition of "establishment". Is O'bama the "establishment"? If not, does he become so when compared with Clinton? Or if not, with McCain? Personally I see the entire Duopoly as the established order, so they all are. And Rump is too.

my hypothesis is that there was a populist revolt against the established political order. the questions focused on variables tied to that concept. you can debate over the establishment, but what's clear is that the neoliberal agenda has dominated for years, and that Trump's election (along with Brexit) is a dramatic change. as you mentioned, some want to break away from the whole two-party structure, but that's outside the scope of recent events. I set out to measure political views and how they matched with voting behavior, and I got very meaningful results, as elaborated in the analysis.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Done.