Public attitudes on a pair of contentious national issues -- gun control and abortion -- have moved in a more conservative direction over the past year. In both cases, the changes have been driven in part by relatively large shifts among men, while opinions among women have not changed very much.

For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post.

The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

What troubles me Firm, is that  the samples they use are too few, They also released details that shows that more devout religious people favour torture, , their sample size was 742. They doubled it (more or less) for the "poll" that you specified. How they can say these are reliable, or even  close to the real story is bs.
I just find it unreliable and pointless, when the  size of the public is in the hundreds of millions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

First, a general comment - I'm surprised that a sampling of 1521 adults could be considered representative. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Firm, you commented about how you were surprised to see a conservative shift right after a liberal President was elected.  I think that Obama's election was due to two things primarily - an incredible organization, and a complete rejection of Bush and his policies.

Bush's supporters talked a lot about abortion and gun control, but I don't recall Bush himself identifying on those issues.  I identify him with NCLB, loosening of regulations, and of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and the economy.

I suspect that there would be firm public opposition to Bush's stands any issues on which Bush took a known stand.  But the social conservative stuff would have no "Bush effect".

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    In all honesty, Firm, I'm going to hope the data about abortion is wrong.  This is one of the areas where I'm completely out of step with the conservative platform/ideology.  Hell, I'm off to the left of Pres. Obama on this issue.  If the plan is going to be rebuilding on a socially conservative cornerstone, my support will be less than enthusiastic, at best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

First, a general comment - I'm surprised that a sampling of 1521 adults could be considered representative. 

See my above post to Lucy.

Many, many national polls are based on similar numbers.  It's the "magic" of numbers that allow claims of credibility in such cases, although they are always open to discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Firm, you commented about how you were surprised to see a conservative shift right after a liberal President was elected.  I think that Obama's election was due to two things primarily - an incredible organization, and a complete rejection of Bush and his policies.

Bush's supporters talked a lot about abortion and gun control, but I don't recall Bush himself identifying on those issues.  I identify him with NCLB, loosening of regulations, and of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and the economy.

I suspect that there would be firm public opposition to Bush's stands any issues on which Bush took a known stand.  But the social conservative stuff would have no "Bush effect".

Very interesting thought, Steven.

So while the Republicans lost in reaction to a specific leadership mix, their social base could be re-energized over social issues rather quickly?  Does that follow?

I'm still uncertain of why the shift in the quoted timeframe - basically in the last year, of which only four months cover the Obama administration.  Perhaps having a more liberal Congress over the last two years?  Some other social factors?

I really can't think of a reason that gives me the "ah ha!" feeling.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Firm, if you buy into my contention that there is strong anti-Bush sentiment that helped elect Obama, then you have to also accept that the stigma of Bush is attached to the GOP.  While many posters have claimed that Dems went along with him, the fact remains that Bush damaged the brand.

The GOP is really in a pickle.  The major issues are ones on which they are branded as the ones who caused the mess - Iraq, and the economy,  They cannot win on social issues until other issues give way to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
I think that the political pendulum has just begun it's swing toward the left.  Young adults today are significantly to the left of their parents' and grandparents' generations in their attitudes concerning the top issues.  I expect that it will be slow going at first and that there will be some tugs back toward the right, but I figure that we're at the start of maybe 20-30 years of steady leftward movement.