which Cong. Districts could vote (or have voted) against a gay marriage ban

[nclib]

Arizona   unsure
California   (available at SoS) looks similar to list of white + asian majority CD's that vote Democratic
Colorado   likely CO-1, CO-2, poss. CO-7
Connecticut   at least CT-1, CT-3, and CT-4 would be competitive
Delaware   unsure
District of Columbia   likely
Florida   poss. One of the So. Fla. Ones - hard to estimate county splits
Hawaii   an outside chance at either
Illinois   prob. a few Chicago CD's
Iowa   an outside chance at IA-2
Maine   ME-1 likely did
Maryland   poss. MD-3 and MD-8
Massachusetts   MA-1,MA-4,MA-7,MA-8
Michigan   prob. none with no dist dominated by Ann Arbor
Minnesota   likely MN-4 and MN-5
Missouri   outside shot at MO-1 and MO-3
Nevada   unlikely unless NV-1 contains mainly the socially liberal areas of Clark
New Hampshire   an outside chance at either
New Jersey   most of the Dem voting districts
New Mexico   unsure
New York   most NYC ones other than NY-9 and NY-13
North Carolina   outside shot at NC-4
Ohio   outside shot at OH-10 having done that
Oregon   maybe OR-3
Pennsylvania   poss. Philly area CD's
Rhode Island   an outside chance at either
Texas   none unless any CD contains enough of Austin
Vermont   likely
Virginia   VA-3 and VA-8 did
Washington   poss. Seattle area CD's
Wisconsin   WI-2

-------

Comments?

[Lunar]

California   (available at SoS) looks similar to list of CD's represented by white Dems

I don't think that is accurate, even if you're counting Asians as white.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

My district is represented by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus but we still send that Prop packin'.  I wish people wouldn't force such a racial dynamic on the gay marriage issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

MN-4 and MN-5 would.

There is no way VA-8 didn't.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

VA-03 and VA-08 voted against it. VA-11 came closest of the remaining districts, going 52-48 in favor.

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/ElectionResults/2006/Nov/htm/d_141.htm

[nclib]

California   (available at SoS) looks similar to list of CD's represented by white Dems

I don't think that is accurate, even if you're counting Asians as white.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

My district is represented by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus but we still send that Prop packin'.  I wish people wouldn't force such a racial dynamic on the gay marriage issue.

Perhaps I should have said districts with a white + asian majority that voted Democratic. CA-9 has a black representative, but not a black electorate.

While minorities are not as anti-gay as they are said to be, they still are less pro-gay than whites who vote Dem for Pres.
According to page 13 of this, every CD with a black + hispanic majority (except for CA-31 and CA-33) voted for the ban.

[ottermax]

In WA, I think CD-7 (Seattle) is a definite bet on gay marriage. CD-1 (Edmonds, Shoreline, Bainbridge) would also surely vote for gay marriage. CD-8 (Bellevue, Eastside burbs) would strongly support gay marriage at the core, and even though I live here, I'm not sure how much the rural parts of the district would vote for  ban, although I bet that this district would be against one. CD-2 and CD-6 also look like they would not support a ban, especially CD-2 based on the recent "everything but marriage" vote.

CD-9 would hopefully vote against a ban, but I doubt it. And CD-3 clearly would ban it based on this year's results. E. WA's districts, 4 and 5 are hopeless for gay marriage.

So to sum up:

For a ban: 4,5,9,3
Against a ban: 7,1,8,6,2

Of course I believe that WA does support gay marriage, but I'm not sure what would happen in CDs 9, 6, and 2.

[Sbane]

When will we know how the CD's voted on Ref-71?

[Lunar]

California   (available at SoS) looks similar to list of CD's represented by white Dems

I don't think that is accurate, even if you're counting Asians as white.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

My district is represented by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus but we still send that Prop packin'.  I wish people wouldn't force such a racial dynamic on the gay marriage issue.

Perhaps I should have said districts with a white + asian majority that voted Democratic. CA-9 has a black representative, but not a black electorate.

While minorities are not as anti-gay as they are said to be, they still are less pro-gay than whites who vote Dem for Pres.
According to page 13 of this, every CD with a black + hispanic majority (except for CA-31 and CA-33) voted for the ban.

CA-31 and CA-33 are like 10% white and 20% white respectively, so I think the millions of voters in places like that would be enough to shed some of the race theory as a bit of a shallow interpretation on gay marriage votes :-/ 

Sure, race is correlated, but I think you'd find that race is more highly correlated with religiosity, which would be the dominant variable....

I mean, what you said originally was only medium-wrong, but it was like saying "Oh there's no crime except in the black areas"  

And I'm pretty much an angry political correctness guy when it comes to white liberals bashing minorities for their own communication problems ever since the No On 8 campaign flopped

[Sbane]

California   (available at SoS) looks similar to list of CD's represented by white Dems

I don't think that is accurate, even if you're counting Asians as white.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

My district is represented by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus but we still send that Prop packin'.  I wish people wouldn't force such a racial dynamic on the gay marriage issue.

Perhaps I should have said districts with a white + asian majority that voted Democratic. CA-9 has a black representative, but not a black electorate.

While minorities are not as anti-gay as they are said to be, they still are less pro-gay than whites who vote Dem for Pres.
According to page 13 of this, every CD with a black + hispanic majority (except for CA-31 and CA-33) voted for the ban.

And every black+hispanic majority district is in southern california. The difference between northern california and the rest of the state is more significant than any racial differences. Remember almost half of whites voted yes on 8 and it wouldn't surprise me if a majority of southern california whites did.

[TeePee4Prez]

PA, if I were to guess:

Locks: 1, 2, 14
Most Likely: 6, 13
Tossup: 7, 8.  Eastern Delco (7) and Lower Bucks ( have too many old school Catholics for me to be certain, but they have liberal bases.
Could surprise: 11, 15
No way Jose: 3, 4 (worst Dem district), 5 (though wouldn't be so bad with PSU), 9 (clear worst), 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19

I recant:  1, 2, and 14 have enough of a liberal base, but watch the African American vote.  The latter would be the most likely vote FOR a gay marriage ban.  PA, like I said with Phil numerous times on social issues, isn't as socially conservative as everyone thinks.  It's just the sheer number of districts reflect a more socially conservative nature than the state as a whole.

[Mr.Phips]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well. 

[Smash255]

Add in some NY ones outside of NYC  NY-2 & NY-4 would likely vote against a ban, NY-21 perhaps as well same for NY-1, NY-22 & NY-28.  NY-3 is a maybe, much more law and order & economically conservative than socially conservative.

[nclib]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well. 

KY-3 did not. It takes up nearly all of Jefferson County, which voted for the ban by 60,000.

[TeePee4Prez]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

[Smash255]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

I think he meant would vote against a ban.

[TeePee4Prez]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

I think he meant would vote against a ban.

Semantic issue.  Not sure what he meant.  Though it's a still tough call.  Gay marriage hasn't really been polled at the micro-local level in PA, just statewide.  Interestingly, it wasn't as conservative as I thought.  Sure, in districts like PA 7, 8, or 13 and I'm sure in New York/Long Island, you still have vocal minorities of socially conservative Catholics who you're not sure if they vote Dem, but may have different feelings on issues like that.  That's why it's hard to tell.  I know the infamous 13th is pro-choice, even the Philly portion, but a lot of older Catholic and Jewish women may favor choice, but not gay marriage per se (my mom for one).  Then again there may be some younger voters who are pro-life, but favor gay marriage.

[Smash255]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

I think he meant would vote against a ban.

Semantic issue.  Not sure what he meant.  Though it's a still tough call.  Gay marriage hasn't really been polled at the micro-local level in PA, just statewide.  Interestingly, it wasn't as conservative as I thought.  Sure, in districts like PA 7, 8, or 13 and I'm sure in New York/Long Island, you still have vocal minorities of socially conservative Catholics who you're not sure if they vote Dem, but may have different feelings on issues like that.  That's why it's hard to tell.  I know the infamous 13th is pro-choice, even the Philly portion, but a lot of older Catholic and Jewish women may favor choice, but not gay marriage per se (my mom for one).  Then again there may be some younger voters who are pro-life, but favor gay marriage.

Looking at the 3rd, I would say a Gay marriage ban would probably pass in the Suffolk portion of the 3rd, as well as SE Nassau County (such as where I am), but fairly close (especially in SE Nassau, some areas of  SE Nassau a ban would fail), once you go into NE Nassau I would say its 50/50 to slightly against a ban.  Generally a Republican area, but mostly due to fiscal reasons, fairly liberal socially.   Then going a bit further west in the district, you have more of a divide.  Areas such as Levittown and perhaps N. Merrick is likely where the ban would get the most support.   Then you have areas just to there south such as southern portions of Merrick and Bellmore, which tend to be upper middle class and quite liberal (and probably the most Jewish portion of the district), which would likely vote to defeat the ban by a large margin.   I would say Glen Cove likely votes against the ban as does Long Beach, though the margin of Long Beach I'm a bit unsure of.  It is a bit of a hot spot for people in their 20's, and has a large sized liberal Jewish population as well, but also has quite a number of older Irish & Italian Catholics.  They are mostly middle class, and tend to vote Democratic at a stronger clip than most older middle class Irish & Italian Catholics on LI, but can be a tough read.

[patrick1]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

I think he meant would vote against a ban.

Semantic issue.  Not sure what he meant.  Though it's a still tough call.  Gay marriage hasn't really been polled at the micro-local level in PA, just statewide.  Interestingly, it wasn't as conservative as I thought.  Sure, in districts like PA 7, 8, or 13 and I'm sure in New York/Long Island, you still have vocal minorities of socially conservative Catholics who you're not sure if they vote Dem, but may have different feelings on issues like that.  That's why it's hard to tell.  I know the infamous 13th is pro-choice, even the Philly portion, but a lot of older Catholic and Jewish women may favor choice, but not gay marriage per se (my mom for one).  Then again there may be some younger voters who are pro-life, but favor gay marriage.

Looking at the 3rd, I would say a Gay marriage ban would probably pass in the Suffolk portion of the 3rd, as well as SE Nassau County (such as where I am), but fairly close (especially in SE Nassau, some areas of  SE Nassau a ban would fail), once you go into NE Nassau I would say its 50/50 to slightly against a ban.  Generally a Republican area, but mostly due to fiscal reasons, fairly liberal socially.   Then going a bit further west in the district, you have more of a divide.  Areas such as Levittown and perhaps N. Merrick is likely where the ban would get the most support.   Then you have areas just to there south such as southern portions of Merrick and Bellmore, which tend to be upper middle class and quite liberal (and probably the most Jewish portion of the district), which would likely vote to defeat the ban by a large margin.   I would say Glen Cove likely votes against the ban as does Long Beach, though the margin of Long Beach I'm a bit unsure of.  It is a bit of a hot spot for people in their 20's, and has a large sized liberal Jewish population as well, but also has quite a number of older Irish & Italian Catholics.  They are mostly middle class, and tend to vote Democratic at a stronger clip than most older middle class Irish & Italian Catholics on LI, but can be a tough read.

Even after living in Long Beach for 20+ years I dont know how this would fall.  It certainly wouldnt pass or fail by any large margins.  LB has a rather balkanized set of voting blocs. It has gotten quite a bit more yuppified over this past decade which would swing slightly against a marriage ban. You have a still heavy Catholic neighborhood, a strong Orthodox Jewish community, secular Jews, rich liberal condo dwellers, a black enclave and ever growing Hispanic community.  Now demographics dont tell you the full story on this but it can give you clues. Now growing up I can say that homosexuality was not accepted. I dont know if this  was product of youthful machismo or if many people's views have changed.  I personally was once staunch against gay marriage but now would just like to see govt get out of the marriage business altogether.

[TeePee4Prez]

Possibly KY-03 would vote against gay marriage.  MO-05, NV-01, NY-28, NC-04, OR-03, PA-13, TX-25, and MD-04 likely would as well.  

NV-01 and PA-13?  Doubtful.  I know in PA-13, the Montgomery County portion would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage as would the Philly portion of district not near a Catholic parish.  Not saying we're Berkeley or Cambridge, but our social conservatism is more "law and order" than it is cultural.  

I know what you're thinking.  NV-01= lots of Hispanics, PA-13=lots of older white Catholics, but even within those groups they're not all "Rosary a Day" people as much as the media perceives them to be.  As shown in the epic PA-13 thread, Schwartz's social liberalism was well documented/advertised here in 2004, yet she still won comfortably.  Also MD-04= African Americans, but it's still a socially progressive district.  Why do you think Al Wynn got the boot?

I think he meant would vote against a ban.

Semantic issue.  Not sure what he meant.  Though it's a still tough call.  Gay marriage hasn't really been polled at the micro-local level in PA, just statewide.  Interestingly, it wasn't as conservative as I thought.  Sure, in districts like PA 7, 8, or 13 and I'm sure in New York/Long Island, you still have vocal minorities of socially conservative Catholics who you're not sure if they vote Dem, but may have different feelings on issues like that.  That's why it's hard to tell.  I know the infamous 13th is pro-choice, even the Philly portion, but a lot of older Catholic and Jewish women may favor choice, but not gay marriage per se (my mom for one).  Then again there may be some younger voters who are pro-life, but favor gay marriage.

Looking at the 3rd, I would say a Gay marriage ban would probably pass in the Suffolk portion of the 3rd, as well as SE Nassau County (such as where I am), but fairly close (especially in SE Nassau, some areas of  SE Nassau a ban would fail), once you go into NE Nassau I would say its 50/50 to slightly against a ban.  Generally a Republican area, but mostly due to fiscal reasons, fairly liberal socially.   Then going a bit further west in the district, you have more of a divide.  Areas such as Levittown and perhaps N. Merrick is likely where the ban would get the most support.   Then you have areas just to there south such as southern portions of Merrick and Bellmore, which tend to be upper middle class and quite liberal (and probably the most Jewish portion of the district), which would likely vote to defeat the ban by a large margin.   I would say Glen Cove likely votes against the ban as does Long Beach, though the margin of Long Beach I'm a bit unsure of.  It is a bit of a hot spot for people in their 20's, and has a large sized liberal Jewish population as well, but also has quite a number of older Irish & Italian Catholics.  They are mostly middle class, and tend to vote Democratic at a stronger clip than most older middle class Irish & Italian Catholics on LI, but can be a tough read.

Even after living in Long Beach for 20+ years I dont know how this would fall.  It certainly wouldnt pass or fail by any large margins.  LB has a rather balkanized set of voting blocs. It has gotten quite a bit more yuppified over this past decade which would swing slightly against a marriage ban. You have a still heavy Catholic neighborhood, a strong Orthodox Jewish community, secular Jews, rich liberal condo dwellers, a black enclave and ever growing Hispanic community.  Now demographics dont tell you the full story on this but it can give you clues. Now growing up I can say that homosexuality was not accepted. I dont know if this  was product of youthful machismo or if many people's views have changed.  I personally was once staunch against gay marriage but now would just like to see govt get out of the marriage business altogether.

I would tend to think gay marriage, as a social issue, gets more favor amongst younger voters whereas abortion practically transcends generations.  I know mostly younger people who are pro-life/favor gay marriage and older women who are pro-choice/very against gay marriage.  That's why it's such a tough issue to gauge.  Sure, you know the primarily younger, white liberal areas would favor it overwhemingly, but Hispanic, black, and white Catholic areas would lean against.  The thing with the latter 3 is to what degree.

[xavier110]

Long Island would be a battleground, for sure. NY-01, where I live, would be extremely close -- the Hamptons would reject a ban by double-digits, but I'm unsure of how strong support would be for the ban in the rest of the district. The liberal city residents who are registered out here could make the difference.

[Smash255]

Long Island would be a battleground, for sure. NY-01, where I live, would be extremely close -- the Hamptons would reject a ban by double-digits, but I'm unsure of how strong support would be for the ban in the rest of the district. The liberal city residents who are registered out here could make the difference.

It would be close. portions of NY-1 specifically the Mastic/Shirley area would likely be in favor of the ban.   Areas in and around the three village vicinity I think would be opposed to the ban, Stony Brook Village, Old Field, etc. Not to mention the campus of Stony Brook itself (where I spent 4 years).  Stony Brook is very liberal and the ban would get demolished there.

[nclib]

bump for recent results and new districts

Minnesota by new CD:

Yes % (from pro-gay to anti-gay):

MN-5: 28.55%
MN-4: 38.19%
MN-3: 43.32%
MN-2: 45.95%
MN-6: 53.40%
MN-8: 54.42%
MN-1: 54.92%
MN-7: 63.53%

Maine by new CD:

(Yes %, again from pro-gay to anti-gay, though yes is pro-gay here):

ME-1: 59.03%
ME-2: 45.43%

Any ideas about Maryland/Washington (or others)?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The gerrymandering in Maryland is so severe it may have passed in every district except the Eastern Shore one. Though MD-05 looks probably more likely to be against than for.

In Washington, the 3rd, 4th and 5th were obviously against, and the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th obviously for. The 8th seems tricky from a map.

[Seattle]

The gerrymandering in Maryland is so severe it may have passed in every district except the Eastern Shore one. Though MD-05 looks probably more likely to be against than for.

In Washington, the 3rd, 4th and 5th were obviously against, and the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th obviously for. The 8th seems tricky from a map.

It barely passed in the 8th. (I think by 2000 votes, or something)

[Skill and Chance]

The gerrymandering in Maryland is so severe it may have passed in every district except the Eastern Shore one. Though MD-05 looks probably more likely to be against than for.

In Washington, the 3rd, 4th and 5th were obviously against, and the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th obviously for. The 8th seems tricky from a map.

I remember reading that in MD it failed by almost 60/40 in MD-01, by about 53/47 in MD-05 and barely failed in MD-04 (!).  It passed everywhere else and got >60% in MD-08.