I checked out this audiobook from the library - it's fascinating. Penn, who assisted Bill Clinton's campaigns and coined the term soccer moms, claims there are 70 microgroups in the US who account for more than 1% of the population and represent future changes in society. Businesses and politicians who can meet their needs will prosper.
Some examples:
1. Moderate Muslims - Penn says the typical American Muslim looks like the typical American in terms of conservative/liberal breakdown, religious adherence, education. This is different than in Europe, where Muslims are markedly more fanatical, where 1 in 7 say suicide bombing is OK and more than half don't believe Arabs flew plans into the WTC.
2. Internet marrieds - the stigma with online dating has waned, and more people -- especially urban liberals -- are turning to the Internet to find the One.
3. Ardent amazons - these are highly physical women, typically 5'7" and 175 lbs, who are thriving in professions such as firefighting, law enforcement, and the military. Surprisingly, 75% are conservative and most are rural.
4. Sun haters - this is the new anti-tobacco campaign; they go to extreme lengths in clothing to protect against sun exposure, because of fears that skin cancer will overtake lung cancer as the #1 cancer
5. Latino Protestants - though 70% of Latino immigrants are Catholics, a huge number are Protestant; not mainline, but Pentecostal. The Pentecostals have a sophisticated marketing and precinct machine much like the Democrats of the 1800s.
6. 30 Winkers - they sleep less than 6 hours a night routinely, due to work, long commutes, kids, or health problems. As a result, they demand late-night services.
7. Extreme commuters - they commute longer than 1.5 hours each way in order to enjoy a rural or remote lifestyle on the weekends
8. Commuter couples - Usually high-end professionals, they live in different places Monday through Friday but fly home to be together on the weekends - and report high marital happiness and low infidelity.
more to come...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Freakonomics
I just listened to a great book by renegade economist Stephen Levitt. An oldy but goody - I think it came out in 2004. He became famous for making the connection between the liberalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime rates in the 1990s - claiming that future criminals had been aborted en masse.
Economists are great like that. They say things people are unwilling to say.
It also had a preplexing chapter on the black-white education and earnings gap, as well as the 8 things that parents do that have a statistical outcome on child educational performance. Some very surprising results. Stay-at-home mothering, for example, had no impact.
Economists are great like that. They say things people are unwilling to say.
It also had a preplexing chapter on the black-white education and earnings gap, as well as the 8 things that parents do that have a statistical outcome on child educational performance. Some very surprising results. Stay-at-home mothering, for example, had no impact.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Five Lessons Learned for 2012
1. Get lots of small donations.
2. You don't need to be as specific as Bill Clinton was. You can run a whole election being general, giving good speeches, and win.
3. Stay poised and presidential, gracious. You don't need to go negative to win.
4. Endorsements do count. Line them up early (Kennedy) and late (Powell).
5. You don't need to be a moderate to win. You can be an extremist and have lots of past baggage, as long as you downplay it.
2. You don't need to be as specific as Bill Clinton was. You can run a whole election being general, giving good speeches, and win.
3. Stay poised and presidential, gracious. You don't need to go negative to win.
4. Endorsements do count. Line them up early (Kennedy) and late (Powell).
5. You don't need to be a moderate to win. You can be an extremist and have lots of past baggage, as long as you downplay it.
Why Obama Won
Pundits are saying he had this great fundraising campaign, and McCain had missteps. I think it's even simpler than that. I think people had two things in their minds:
- Obama looks more fit to confront our problems. He's young, handsome, ambitious. McCain is old and broken, something we're reminded of every time he tries to raise his arms.
- Give the black guy a chance.
Of course the pundits can't be this blunt on TV.
- Obama looks more fit to confront our problems. He's young, handsome, ambitious. McCain is old and broken, something we're reminded of every time he tries to raise his arms.
- Give the black guy a chance.
Of course the pundits can't be this blunt on TV.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Blowout
The media are falling over themselves finding every clue possible that, in early county returns, that Obama is going to overperform the polls and the Democrats obtain a supermajority. Maybe the very original post I had on the topic, when Obama first got the nomination, and I said McCain would get 5 states, maybe it will be closer to this if all this hype comes true.
Then hopefully it will re-energize pro-lifers to get more engaged than they've even been before.
Then hopefully it will re-energize pro-lifers to get more engaged than they've even been before.
Eve of Obama
Today we vote. The perception since McCain halted his campaign to focus on the financial crisis has been that Obama will win. The state-by-state polls project that he will win by a wide margin -- 318 electoral votes. The general feeling you get is that he will win, but that McCain is closing and it'll be closer than you'd expect.
I should be happy, right, being a progessive? The feeling among my liberal friends is that this is going to be a big whoosh of fresh air after years of war, expanded presidential powers, lower standing in the world, and a recent recession. There is the added hope that a supermajority in Congress will ensure any pro-abortion justice will be confirmed no problem, as well as a glut of open judge positions.
But what is a Catholic to think? Time for four years of re-engaging in public life like never before. And praying for Obama's conversion. I say McCain tops 200 electoral votes.
I should be happy, right, being a progessive? The feeling among my liberal friends is that this is going to be a big whoosh of fresh air after years of war, expanded presidential powers, lower standing in the world, and a recent recession. There is the added hope that a supermajority in Congress will ensure any pro-abortion justice will be confirmed no problem, as well as a glut of open judge positions.
But what is a Catholic to think? Time for four years of re-engaging in public life like never before. And praying for Obama's conversion. I say McCain tops 200 electoral votes.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Gallup: highly religious people more liberal (small "l")
October 8, 2008
Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others
Pattern holds throughout the world and across major religions
by Brett Pelham and Steve Crabtree
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.
The pattern is similar when Gallup asked respondents whether they had volunteered their time to an organization in the month prior to being surveyed. Though the overall numbers are lower here in all regions except Africa, highly religious respondents are again more likely to say "yes" than those who are less religious.
One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case.
The "religion effects" we see in these questions are consistent not only across the major global regions, but also consistent across the world's largest faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Among respondents who identified with each of these major religions, those who fall into the highly religious category are more likely than those who are less religious to say they've engaged in all three helping behaviors, with differences for helping a stranger ranging from 7 percentage points among Buddhists to 15 points among Jews.
Bottom Line
We cannot conclusively attribute these helping behaviors to the direct influence of religiosity. It's possible, for example, that these differences occur because inherently helpful people may be inherently attracted to religion.
But it does make intuitive sense that religious people around the globe are likely to engage in helping behaviors. After all, selflessness is a principle tenet of many religious traditions: One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat or almsgiving, for example, similar to the long-standing practice of tithing among Christians. Important principles of Buddhism include Sila, which requires people to treat others as they would prefer to be treated themselves, and Dāna, which loosely translates as "generosity."
However, the tendency of highly religious people around the world to say they donate their time and money does seem more impressive when you consider that, from a global perspective, those people are consistently poorer than those who are less religious. Among those highly religious respondents worldwide who reported their annual incomes to Gallup, the average figure (converted into international dollars) was about $10,000. Among those less religious respondents who reported their incomes, the average was about $17,500. Seen in this light, the data presented here offer compelling evidence of the role of religious dedication in helping to encourage supportive, community-oriented behaviors in areas where they may be most needed.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2006 and 2008 with at least 2,000 adults in most countries. Because most analyses focus on large numbers of participants (e.g., more than 40,000 highly religious people in Africa), confidence intervals were only a fraction of a point (i.e., less than ±1 percentage point). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others
Pattern holds throughout the world and across major religions
by Brett Pelham and Steve Crabtree
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.
The pattern is similar when Gallup asked respondents whether they had volunteered their time to an organization in the month prior to being surveyed. Though the overall numbers are lower here in all regions except Africa, highly religious respondents are again more likely to say "yes" than those who are less religious.
One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case.
The "religion effects" we see in these questions are consistent not only across the major global regions, but also consistent across the world's largest faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Among respondents who identified with each of these major religions, those who fall into the highly religious category are more likely than those who are less religious to say they've engaged in all three helping behaviors, with differences for helping a stranger ranging from 7 percentage points among Buddhists to 15 points among Jews.
Bottom Line
We cannot conclusively attribute these helping behaviors to the direct influence of religiosity. It's possible, for example, that these differences occur because inherently helpful people may be inherently attracted to religion.
But it does make intuitive sense that religious people around the globe are likely to engage in helping behaviors. After all, selflessness is a principle tenet of many religious traditions: One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat or almsgiving, for example, similar to the long-standing practice of tithing among Christians. Important principles of Buddhism include Sila, which requires people to treat others as they would prefer to be treated themselves, and Dāna, which loosely translates as "generosity."
However, the tendency of highly religious people around the world to say they donate their time and money does seem more impressive when you consider that, from a global perspective, those people are consistently poorer than those who are less religious. Among those highly religious respondents worldwide who reported their annual incomes to Gallup, the average figure (converted into international dollars) was about $10,000. Among those less religious respondents who reported their incomes, the average was about $17,500. Seen in this light, the data presented here offer compelling evidence of the role of religious dedication in helping to encourage supportive, community-oriented behaviors in areas where they may be most needed.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2006 and 2008 with at least 2,000 adults in most countries. Because most analyses focus on large numbers of participants (e.g., more than 40,000 highly religious people in Africa), confidence intervals were only a fraction of a point (i.e., less than ±1 percentage point). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
