Study shows Prop 8 exit polls wrong about level of support amongst Blacks.

[Sbane]

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid70200.asp

Prop. 8 Exit Polling of African-Americans Way Off, Experts Say

A new study on California’s Proposition 8 voting trends released Tuesday found that far fewer African-Americans voted to pass the gay marriage ban than the 70% suggested by exit polling and concluded that race was not the most significant factor affecting people’s vote for or against marriage equality.

After conducting in-depth analysis of election returns from five key California counties and using census data to estimate the racial makeup of the voters in those counties, researchers found that between 57% and 59% of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

"This is a far cry from the [National Exit Poll] estimate,” said Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College, one of the lead authors of the study.

Sherrill also noted that four pre-election polls put black support for the antigay ballot initiative anywhere between 41% and 58%. “While that’s quite a range, none venture above 58%,” he said. “On this basis alone, the NEP estimate of 70% would appear to be an outlier.”

A comparison of the Prop. 8 data with that of polling after the Knight Initiative, a 2000 measure that prohibited gay marriage in California by statute (rather than constitutional amendment), showed overall movement toward support of marriage equality across almost every demographic group “with the only holdouts being Republicans, conservatives, and those born before World War II,” said Patrick Egan of New York University, another lead author of the report. “Although Proposition 8 was victorious, I think the real story is that California voters have nevertheless shifted dramatically toward support for same-sex marriage.” In fact, the study found support for marriage equality increasing in nearly every demographic group by about one percent each year since 2000.

Egan and Sherrill also concluded that age, religiosity, party identification, and ideology had more of an effect on whether voters backed Prop. 8 than any other factors. For instance, the rate of support for the initiative among African Americans and whites was nearly the same for those who attended church services regularly.

Perhaps surprisingly, the study also revealed that partisanship and ideology trumped the fact of knowing someone who is openly LGBT. About two-thirds of the state’s self-identified conservatives knew someone who was gay and about 4 out of five of them voted for the measure – the same exact ratio of conservatives who voted for Prop. 8 but didn’t know an openly LGBT person. Republicans demonstrated a similar pattern, with about four out of five of them voting to pass the ban regardless of whether they knew anyone who was out or not.

“This leads us to the conclusion that at least in terms of marriage equality, opposition to our rights isn’t personal, it’s ideological and partisan,” Sherrill said. Though he called the resistance among Republicans and conservatives "implacable," Sherrill added, "Mitigating that opposition is the fact that California is becoming less Republican and less conservative. In fact, hard-core opposition to such things as gay marriage may be costing Republicans the support of younger voters."

This makes sense to me because the latino areas of LA voted just as strongly for prop 8 as the black areas.

And here is a link to the study. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

[Eraserhead]

Interesting.

[Holmes]

It's thanks to that stupid exit poll that the stupid African-American meme caught fire.

[Holmes]

Right on cue.

White voters were most emphatic in their support for same-sex marriage, with 68% supporting it and 27% opposing. African American voters were strongly against it, with 54% opposing same-sex marriage and 37% supporting it.

Nowhere near the 70. But that number won't die for a long time, I think.

[memphis]

It's thanks to that stupid exit poll that the stupid African-American meme caught fire.

The idea that blacks are less intelligent predates prop 8 by quite a bit.

[Torie]

It strikes me as passing strange that being a Republican means you are against marriage equality 4 out of 5 times, but that is the way it is I guess. My party has been "captured" by factions with which I don't agree on many issues. That kind of leaves me as a free agent. The GOP is going to wane with this kind of stuff as the "olds" die off, and the more flexible "youngs" fill their shoes. It's kind of sad, but that is the way it is I guess.

Thanks sbane for hosting this thread. One can't "blame" minorities for this. The "fault" lies in my own house as it were. And so it goes.

[CJK]

I find it hilarious how they refer to it as "marriage equality" instead of gay marriage. The issue isn't whether different marriages are equal or not, its whether marriage should be extended to cover gays as well.

[Alcon]

I find it hilarious how they refer to it as "marriage equality" instead of gay marriage. The issue isn't whether different marriages are equal or not, its whether marriage should be extended to cover gays as well.

I take it to mean equality of marriage rights between heterosexual and homosexual couples, not whether different marriages are or aren't equal.

This is one of the inherent flaws of exit polling.  How do you choose precincts that are not only representative of the state, but have sub-groups representative of the state's sub-groups?  It's impossible.

[Sbane]

It strikes me as passing strange that being a Republican means you are against marriage equality 4 out of 5 times, but that is the way it is I guess. My party has been "captured" by factions with which I don't agree on many issues. That kind of leaves me as a free agent. The GOP is going to wane with this kind of stuff as the "olds" die off, and the more flexible "youngs" fill their shoes. It's kind of sad, but that is the way it is I guess.

Thanks sbane for hosting this thread. One can't "blame" minorities for this. The "fault" lies in my own house as it were. And so it goes.

Yet at the same time the greatest swings from prop 22 to prop 8 came in republican counties like Orange, Ventura and historically republican counties like Contra Costa and San Mateo in the bay area. I think it was due to republican leaning independents who lived in this area changing their minds rather than the republicans. You would fit in that mold as well, although you haven't switched your party affiliation. Also which way did you vote on prop 22? I know back then gay marriage was just viewed as some "crazy librul" idea.

[Torie]

It strikes me as passing strange that being a Republican means you are against marriage equality 4 out of 5 times, but that is the way it is I guess. My party has been "captured" by factions with which I don't agree on many issues. That kind of leaves me as a free agent. The GOP is going to wane with this kind of stuff as the "olds" die off, and the more flexible "youngs" fill their shoes. It's kind of sad, but that is the way it is I guess.

Thanks sbane for hosting this thread. One can't "blame" minorities for this. The "fault" lies in my own house as it were. And so it goes.

Yet at the same time the greatest swings from prop 22 to prop 8 came in republican counties like Orange, Ventura and historically republican counties like Contra Costa and San Mateo in the bay area. I think it was due to republican leaning independents who lived in this area changing their minds rather than the republicans. You would fit in that mold as well, although you haven't switched your party affiliation. Also which way did you vote on prop 22? I know back then gay marriage was just viewed as some "crazy librul" idea.

I have always favored gay marriage since it became an issue. So I voted against Prop 22. This issue has never been a close call for me, and the arguments against it struck me as tendentious and make weight on their face when I was exposed to them. What this is really about is that some folks are just uncomfortable with gays, and the public arguments in my mind are largely window dressing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

An exit poll was shown to be wrong!  GASP!

But in all seriousness - couldn't some of this be due to the recent bad media coverage that Prop 8 has been getting.  I'm not saying that it accounts for everything, but I think perhaps a few percentages of black Californians could now be lying about not supporting it (as I think a small percentages of white Californians would also say).

[Sbane]

Of course it doesn't surprise me that an exit poll is wrong. I just found it curious that everyone was so quick to jump on black people based on it. As this poll (and the exit poll) shows, the ones to "blame" are those 65+ and the religious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Heavily black areas in certain parts of Oakland voted around 30-35% for Prop. 8.

[Sbane]

Heavily black areas in certain parts of Oakland voted around 30-35% for Prop. 8.

Yup. Even Richmond voted against prop 8 and Vallejo was close. Rather it was places like Fairfield, Pittsburg and Antioch that voted more in favor of prop 8 while having a lower (but still significant) black population.

[Brandon H]

So if the blacks voted at a lower level than expected, that means more of the other races (with whites being the majority) supported it than previously thought.

[Stranger in a strange land]

So if the blacks voted at a lower level than expected, that means more of the other races (with whites being the majority) supported it than previously thought.

well the exit poll's Hispanic support for gay marriage looked suspiciously high to me. And yes, California whites aren't as socially liberal as the rest of the country thinks.

[phk]

I think in large part my original hypothesis ist still true. That non-whites would end up decisively pushing it to the "Yes" side. A tie-breaker of sorts.

[Platypus]

Whether its 70% or 58%. African-Americans are still more intolerant than the other groups...

[Lincoln Republican]

Two points

As previously pointed out by CJK, this article keeps using the term marriage equality, instead of what it actually is, gay marriage, a grab by the gay community to change the definitiion of marriage.  The article is shameless and very biased towards support for gay marriage and does not even attempt to be impartial. 

The other point is where a gay activist is quoted as saying opposition to our rights, as if to make a statement of fact that marriage is their right.  Marriage is neither their right nor is it their place to be changing the definition of the institution of marriage.

I note they have absolutely no, as in "0" comments from the majority of the population, who are opposed to gay marriage.

This reporting is a disgrace.

[Joe Republic]

The other point is where a gay activist is quoted as saying opposition to our rights, as if to make a statement of fact that marriage is their right.  Marriage is neither their right nor is it their place to be changing the definition of the institution of marriage.

LOL.  Whose "place" was it to redefine marriage in Western society to make it inappropriate for adults to marry off their little kids to somebody for financial gain?  It's amazing the justifications for opposing gay marriage that you guys make up so frequently.

[Lincoln Republican]

The other point is where a gay activist is quoted as saying opposition to our rights, as if to make a statement of fact that marriage is their right.  Marriage is neither their right nor is it their place to be changing the definition of the institution of marriage.

LOL.  Whose "place" was it to redefine marriage in Western society to make it inappropriate for adults to marry off their little kids to somebody for financial gain?  It's amazing the justifications for opposing gay marriage that you guys make up so frequently.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for exploiting the issue of children being married off to someone for financial gain and using it as justification for gays to be allowed to marry one another. 

Anyone with any common sense should realize that exploiting children for the purpose of financial gain or for that matter exploiting children for any puirpose is completely deplorable and reprehensible and cannot under any circumstances be compared to the gay marriage issue.

[Alcon]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for exploiting the issue of children being married off to someone for financial gain and using it as justification for gays to be allowed to marry one another. 

Anyone with any common sense should realize that exploiting children for the purpose of financial gain or for that matter exploiting children for any puirpose is completely deplorable and reprehensible and cannot under any circumstances be compared to the gay marriage issue.

You know what you should be ashamed of?  Your repeated inability to understand what a reductio ad absurdum argument is. 

Either you're remaining willfully ignorant, or you're intentionally slurring Joe to try to win an argument.

[Lincoln Republican]

My kind sir, I am not slurring anyone, as you put it, nor am I willfully ignorant as to the facts and circumstances surrounding this very serious issue facing America today.

I simply do not believe that the tragic issue of child exploitation, in any of its' hideous forms, should be raised to justify same sex marriage.  It is that simple.

Now, I realize that you are very fond of throwing out sophisticated sounding words and phrases, and latin terms here and there, in order to prove your self perceived intellectual superiority, however, that does not change the fact that my arguments and statements are just as valid as anyone else's. 

[Alcon]

My kind sir, I am not slurring anyone, as you put it, nor am I willfully ignorant as to the facts and circumstances surrounding this very serious issue facing America today.

I simply do not believe that the tragic issue of child exploitation, in any of its' hideous forms, should be raised to justify same sex marriage.  It is that simple.

Now, I realize that you are very fond of throwing out sophisticated sounding words and phrases, and latin terms here and there, in order to prove your self perceived intellectual superiority, however, that does not change the fact that my arguments and statements are just as valid as anyone else's. 

Or you could search reductio ad absurdum and actually find out what it is.  Now that we have this whole Google thing, I guess that gives you the opportunity to learn what new phrases mean.  Kind of like how I did, since I wasn't born "intellectually superior" or whatever.  I didn't say anything about you not knowing about the history of racial conflict in America.

Your arguments are just as valid as anyone else's?  And yet you just called out some other arguments as being so morally horrific.  I don't think you have any idea of what is or isn't valid, just what gives you an emotional reaction.  That's underballing your intellect, obviously.

[Brandon H]

As previously pointed out by CJK, this article keeps using the term marriage equality, instead of what it actually is, gay marriage, a grab by the gay community to change the definitiion of marriage.  The article is shameless and very biased towards support for gay marriage and does not even attempt to be impartial. 

The article is from the Advocate. I could be wrong here, but I think the Advocate is a gay newspaper (or magazine). So it's suppose to be biased, and I would actually be surprised if it wasn't. You wouldn't expect High Times magazine to have articles show why marijuana is bad and should not be legalized.