Debunking the Cali Prop 8 voter myth
jimed14
Posts: 9,488
Exactly what I've been saying, it's just a matter of time before there is marraige equality for all ...
Was going to put this in the other prop 8 thread, but, that's gone on to be more about morality, thus, didn't want this to clog that conversation.
Prop 8 Myths - by Nate Silver
Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:
Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.
The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.
-- Nate Silver at 2:47 PM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
Was going to put this in the other prop 8 thread, but, that's gone on to be more about morality, thus, didn't want this to clog that conversation.
Prop 8 Myths - by Nate Silver
Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:
Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.
To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.
Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.
Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.
The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.
-- Nate Silver at 2:47 PM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
it's difficult to change the mindset of genrations, but the newer generations are a lot more *open* overall.....so TIME will be a determining factor, as almost always......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
BTW, here's a list of businesses and individuals who helped fund prop 8.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I think we should just call for the government to get out of the business of sanctioning all marriages and that would be a good resolution.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
uhhh ... i would have to respectfully say you haven't been listening ...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I wonder how useful all that money would have been if it went to a worthy cause.
I think the gay and lesbian community has made a fundamentally strong argument, but I do agree that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriages.
in the multitude of pages on the other thread - you are saying no one's made a case!??
and really - how can one be on the fence on this topic?
So what's wrong with the solution that government get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all?
Then people can perform whatever symbolic ritual they want and call themselves married to any man, woman, rock, giraffe they want to.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nothing at all. Ultimately this would be the best and correct solution.
uhhh ... that would be great!!! ... but that isn't the case is it? ... they are banning it in california ...
If the government would stop sanctioning any marriages - gay or straight - as I'm calling for, then the government wouldn't have a say in who could marry whom.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but that's a separate issue altogether ...
the issue here is whether you support the same rights alloted to a heterosexual couple for gay couples ...
I also do not believe that marriage is a right.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That is exactly the issue. In many states same sex civil unions do not offer the same rights and benefits as marriage, in some states it does. So while marriage may not be a right the government offers heterosexual couples more rights and benefits than they do a homosexual couple and that is just discrimination. Notice how in states like New Jersey that have same sex marriage civil unions that offer the same benefits and rights as a marriage there is no fight for same sex marriage. The gay and lesbian community is treated equally even though the terminology is different. So to many of them it's not about a term but about the benefits and rights tied to that term.
yeah ... exactly ...
our senior legal counsel in my office happened to have dinner with our ex-prime minister of canada (chretien) and he said the most touchy subject he faced was not the war in iraq but rather gay marriage ... in public - people were for it but in the privacy of their own homes - they weren't ... for him - it was always about upholding our charter of rights and this is what we did ...
i see it similar in the US - not many people want to come out and say they choose to discriminate but given a secret ballot - they have no problems doing it ...
Nothing. That's the a good solution for all involved.
But, then again, if government got out of these types of issues, the PC police would lose power. You see, they want to force you to condone behavior that you may or may NOT agree with. That's why this will never happen. The far left won't let it.
yeah ... if fighting discrimination is a far left thing ... i'm glad i'm part of that group
No one is trying to force anything down your throat. If anything it is you forcing your morality down our throats. All the gay and lesbian community want is equal treatment, no special treatment.
Once again, do you think the gay and lesbian community would be OK with no government involvement?
Do you think the "left" would be ok with no government involvement? Before you answer, think about it.
The gay and lesbian community would be and I don't give a fuck what the left thinks because no Government involvement is the correct approach to the issue.
Well then, we agree.
So you agree that the lesbian and gay community would be OK with no government intervention.
exactly right.
and until marriage is NOT a government term, homosexuals deserve the same, equal rights to marriage as heterosexuals. if the legal term ceases to exist, soething else entirely.
what exactly does that mean? as in.....no more filing joint tax returns, no automatic survivor benefits, rights towards decisions/visits in halth-related matters, you know....all the rights and responsibilities that now are associated with legal marriage? do away with them entirely? so then what.....have to make all those arangements legally on your own, whereas now it's just so damn easy to get a marriage license? or do simply mean, do away with legal 'marriage'...and have only civil unions?
for me personally, i LIKE legal marriage as a construct. i know many others look at it differently, but for me...it *simplifies* for lack of a better term, a lot of things. i know many non-married couples who had to go thru sooo much legal paperwork to have rights towards healthcare, decision-making, financial protections, etc.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
At the very least they deserve to have the same benefits and rights attached to civil unions as they are to marriage.
Someone mentioned donors above ... here's on donor creating QUITE a stir ...
Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus
By Marcus Crowder
Published: Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008 | Page 1B
Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.
Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
for the rest of the story ... go here ....
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1387273.html
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
So the government changes its regulations and allows adults to grant another adult the same rights and benefits as would happen in marriage, and the problem is solved, right?
But I still think the government should just stop sanctioning and recognizing any marriages and that would be the best solution. Why aren't people calling for that?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I have been calling for that. I believe that the government should just issue civil union certificates to any homosexual or heterosexual couple. Marriage should be left to the religious institutions to preform.
the problem, right now, is that government is involved and as unfortunate as it may be I don't see that changing anytime soon. So while they are involved then all people should be granted the same rights and benefits. Ultimately I would love nothing more than to see the government end the practice of issuing marriage licenses and simply issue civil union certificates to all couples regardless of sexual preference.
But it's not nearly as black and white as that statement would seem. As it stands, they DO have the same rights. If they want to get married, they can - just not to someone of the same sex. I'll say it again, marriage is not a right. Furthermore, the ability to say you are married does not solve the issue.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not talking about the term. Homosexual have the right to go get a civil union but in many states that civil union does not offer the same rights and benefits as if a heterosexual couple went and received a marriage license. I don't care what you call it, but you should give one group one set of rights and benefits and then turn around and give another group less simply because of their sexual preference.