In fact, over two-thirds of all Democrats who identify as Protestant identify as "born again" or "evangelical." Not likely. This brings the famous words of Inigo Montoya to mind: "Yyou keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Considering that evangelism is a core belief of Christianity and part of many mainline churches, I think it may not mean what you think it means.  Of course, I'm not Christian, so don't take my word for it.

"I have to admit that it strikes me as a little strange that so many Dems think the Presidential election was stolen, but almost no one thinks the same thing about congressional elections."

Not really.  The stealing of congressional elections is much more subtle, because it relies on gerrymandering to force districts into shapes that favor incumbents.  Its harder to call an election "stolen" when someone wins it 60/40 than when someone gets the popular vote and the Supreme Court throws the election to the other guy.

"I also have to wonder how 55% of people who identify as non-white say they are protestants, and 61% say they are "born again" Christians. In fact, over two-thirds of all Democrats who identify as Protestant identify as "born again" or "evangelical." Not likely."

Why is this not likely?  And why is it odd that 55% of folks who identify as "non-white" say they are protestants?  Most of the black and asian Christians I know are Protestants, not Catholics.  "Born Again" christians cover a wide base too - wasn't Bill Clinton as Born Again Christian?  I'm fairly certain that Jimmy Carter was too.

Don't fall into the Republican trap - "born again" doesn't mean that they instantly fall into a Republican worldview - Republicans just keep saying that it does and hope that folks believe them.

I'm surprised by the percerntages, too, but then again, the numbers track with what our expanding influence feels like.

The quantitative person in me is surprised by these results, but the qualitative person, the blogger and netroots organizer in me, is not.

I think that you are confusing "born again", "evangelical", and "fundamentalist". These refer to different things. It seems likely that you are equating evangelical Christians with fundamentalist Christians. They are not the same.

Only about a quarter of the population (maybe a little less/more) are fundamentalist. These groups are more likley to be conservative because they believe that the Bible is literally the word of God and should therefore be interpreted literally.

Not so necessarily with evangelicals. Evangelists focus on the personal acceptance of God and Jesus Christ "as your personal savior" based on a moment of conversion. Evangelism encompasses a wide variety of sects with wildly varying beliefs about Christianity. The one thing that they share is that they are Protestant Christians, rather than Roman Catholic. However, the term evangelic has often been used interchangeably with the term Christian, so it is no surprise that large proportions of Protestants define themselves as Evangelical.

Nothing in here has addressed the central issue which is really question #20.

65% of Democrats could care less what we talk about and yet a large percentage of bloggers and readers think they should be calling the shots.

I have my own take at The Political Dogfight.

Chris, I think this deserves a lot more examination.

There was a similar question to this on page 14, referring entirely to congress. In that question, the "stole the election" number drops to zero, while the "corruption" and "disorganization / weak platform" answers increase significantly. I have to admit that it strikes me as a little strange that so many Dems think the Presidential election was stolen, but almost no one thinks the same thing about congressional elections.

Why is this so surprising?  The last two Presidential elections have been very close, making them possible to steal through manipulations of voting machinery.  

In contrast, very few Congressional races are at all close, as a result of gerrymandering, and while gerrymandering may not be fair, it isn't a "stolen" election in the sense of a corrupt balloting process when a Republican wins a district that is 70% Republican in voter registration, or a Democratic wins a similarly blue district.

For example, "[T]he 2004 U.S. House election recorded an unprecedented lack of competition. Fewer than 3% (12) of the 435 races were won by a margin of less than 7%; only 10 races were won by tight margins of 5% or less. There has never been such a small number of highly competitive races in American history. . . . The average victory margin was 40, meaning the average two-party race was won by 70% to 30% of the vote. Seven of every eight (83%) U.S. House races were won by landslide margins of at least 20% in 2004. Only 23 races (5%) were won by competitive margins of less than 10%. . . . Outside of Texas [where the districts were redrawn], 397 of 403 House seats stayed with the same party."

With a 29 seat gap between Republicans and Democrats, there would have to be fraud to the tune of more than 7% of the vote in every single close race in the nation, spread across many states with many different voting systems controlled by officials with different partisan affiliations for this to have changed the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

In the Senate, there is an 11 seat gap, meaning that for the balance of power to shift, ballot fraud would have had to shift in at least six races out of 34 to make a difference, each in a different state.  The only remotely close races were South Dakota, North Carolina, Kentucky, Florida, Colorado and Alaska.  Democrats won one of those races, and Republicans won five, which means that even if every single one of those Republican victories was a fraud, that Republicans would still have controlled the Senate, and while some of those races were somewhat close, only South Dakota involved a razor thin margin.