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
-
very true.
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......Stay with me...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow0 -
I agree that it's definitely a myth that needs debunking. Great post.
BTW, here's a list of businesses and individuals who helped fund prop 8.0 -
The gay marriage debate is an issue where I'm on the fence. I haven't seen a good argument from any side.
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.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:The gay marriage debate is an issue where I'm on the fence. I haven't seen a good argument from any side.
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.
uhhh ... i would have to respectfully say you haven't been listening ...0 -
polaris wrote:uhhh ... i would have to respectfully say you haven't been listening ...The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
sponger wrote:I agree that it's definitely a myth that needs debunking. Great post.
BTW, here's a list of businesses and individuals who helped fund prop 8.
I wonder how useful all that money would have been if it went to a worthy cause."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
know1 wrote:The gay marriage debate is an issue where I'm on the fence. I haven't seen a good argument from any side.
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.
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."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
polaris wrote: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.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:So what's wrong with the solution that government get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all?
Nothing at all. Ultimately this would be the best and correct solution."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
know1 wrote: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.
uhhh ... that would be great!!! ... but that isn't the case is it? ... they are banning it in california ...0 -
polaris wrote: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.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote: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.
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 ...0 -
I don't agree that's the issue.
I also do not believe that marriage is a right.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:I don't agree that's the issue.
I also do not believe that marriage is a right.
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."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
mammasan wrote: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 ...0 -
know1 wrote:So what's wrong with the solution that government get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all?
Nothing. That's the a good solution for all involved.know1 wrote:Then people can perform whatever symbolic ritual they want and call themselves married to any man, woman, rock, giraffe they want to.
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.0 -
saveuplife wrote: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 group0 -
saveuplife wrote: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.
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."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
mammasan wrote: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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help