Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[CARLHAYDEN]

It really interesting to look at the PPP opinion polls.  Since they have become the in-house pollster for the Daily Kos they have pretty consistently produced poll results more favorable to the Democrats than most other polls.

Take for example their recent poll of Colorado voters.  (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_08101118.pdf)

First, let’s contrast the composition of their respondents with the results of the 2008 Exit poll for Colorado. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=COP00p1)

 Ideology
                                        PPP          Edison
Liberal                            35 %          17 %
Moderate                       27              46
Conservative                 39              36

Second, let’s compare their partisan identification compared to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148949/Hawaii-Democratic-Utah-Republican-State.aspx#)

                                        PPP          Gallup
Democrat                        41 %          42 %
Republican                      33              43

Looks like PPP is a R2K reprise.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It really interesting to look at the PPP opinion polls.  Since they have become the in-house pollster for the Daily Kos they have pretty consistently produced poll results more favorable to the Democrats than most other polls.

Take for example their recent poll of Colorado voters.  (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_08101118.pdf)

First, let’s contrast the composition of their respondents with the results of the 2008 Exit poll for Colorado. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=COP00p1)

 Ideology
                                        PPP          Edison
Liberal                            35 %          17 %
Moderate                       27              46
Conservative                 39              36

Second, let’s compare their partisan identification compared to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148949/Hawaii-Democratic-Utah-Republican-State.aspx#)

                                        PPP          Gallup
Democrat                        41 %          42 %
Republican                      33              43

Looks like PPP is a R2K reprise.

The results of PPP contradict you. They are one of the best out there and got almost all elections right so far this cycle and also within the MoE.

You shouldn't use Gallup to prove variations in samples either, because Gallup wasn't really good in 2008 and they collected the party ID over half a year.

Sorry, but, the further out PPP is from elections, the more left-leaning their polls are.

Zogby has had similiar results, having weird polls far out, and becoming more rational near elections.

Methodological changes do matter.

Next, you can look at the exit polls for partisan identification (favors Republicans in Colorado) ,since you seem to dislike Gallup and be blind to PPP's faults.

Oh, BTW, Gallup and Edison largely agree on the ideological makeup of Colorado voters, while PPP would have us believe they are far more liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/political-ideology-conservative-label-prevails-south

[CARLHAYDEN]

ROTFLMAO!

Democrats having a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado!?!

Republicans really blew last year's Governor and Senate races in Colorado.

However, they DO control the state legislature and had a pickup in the House.

It was nice to see you acknowledge that in voter registration there are more Republicans in Colorado than Democrats, which both Gallup and Edison results support, and PPP disagrees with!

Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

ROTFLMAO!

Democrats having a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado!?!

Republicans really blew last year's Governor and Senate races in Colorado.

However, they DO control the state legislature and had a pickup in the House.

It was nice to see you acknowledge that in voter registration there are more Republicans in Colorado than Democrats, which both Gallup and Edison results support, and PPP disagrees with!

Hmm.

I didn't say that Democrats have necessarily a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado, but that at the moment it could be this way because the Colorado GOP sucks and because of more and more minorities registering as Democrats in Colorado.

After all there were 5-6% more Democrats turning out last year.

But there´s also the margin of error in the PPP poll (which is 4.5%), so you can also say that the spread between Dems and GOP could be lower. Who knows ?

Well, lets look your assertions.

First, occasionally there are elections when Democrat turnout is higher than Republican turnout, but, those elections are rare (roughly 1 out of 10).

Second, it is true that PPP polls do have unusually high sample size MoE (due to small samples), but that would NOT explain the partisan sample composition distribution.  In the PPP poll you cited, Democrats have an 8 point advantage, whereas in the Edison and Gallup polls (as well as voter registration you cited), they have a 1 point disadvantage.  That's a 9 point spread, which is NOT explained by sample size MoE!

Third, you ignored the other point about the PPP poll being heavily laden with liberals, both compared to the Edison and Gallup polls.

Finally, to me it makes no difference the race/ethnicity of voters as a vote is a vote.  So, would you be pleased to lose two white votes to gain one "minority" vote? 

[CARLHAYDEN]

ROTFLMAO!

Democrats having a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado!?!

Republicans really blew last year's Governor and Senate races in Colorado.

However, they DO control the state legislature and had a pickup in the House.

It was nice to see you acknowledge that in voter registration there are more Republicans in Colorado than Democrats, which both Gallup and Edison results support, and PPP disagrees with!

Hmm.

I didn't say that Democrats have necessarily a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado, but that at the moment it could be this way because the Colorado GOP sucks and because of more and more minorities registering as Democrats in Colorado.

After all there were 5-6% more Democrats turning out last year.

But there´s also the margin of error in the PPP poll (which is 4.5%), so you can also say that the spread between Dems and GOP could be lower. Who knows ?

Well, lets look your assertions.

First, occasionally there are elections when Democrat turnout is higher than Republican turnout, but, those elections are rare (roughly 1 out of 10).

Second, it is true that PPP polls do have unusually high sample size MoE (due to small samples), but that would NOT explain the partisan sample composition distribution.  In the PPP poll you cited, Democrats have an 8 point advantage, whereas in the Edison and Gallup polls (as well as voter registration you cited), they have a 1 point disadvantage.  That's a 9 point spread, which is NOT explained by sample size MoE!

Third, you ignored the other point about the PPP poll being heavily laden with liberals, both compared to the Edison and Gallup polls.

Finally, to me it makes no difference the race/ethnicity of voters as a vote is a vote.  So, would you be pleased to lose two white votes to gain one "minority" vote? 

Colorado is trending Democratic according to the exit polls:

2004 exit poll: R+9
2008 exit poll: R+1
2010 exit poll: D+5/6

Besides that you don't seem to understand what I´m trying to say.

First, would you please be so good as to provide the link for your 2010 exit poll?

From what I can see, the Republican U.S. House of Representatioves candidates polled approximately 50% of the vote and the Democrat candidates approximately 45% in 2010 in Colorado.

[CARLHAYDEN]

That's still slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole (51.6R/44.8D).

That's primarily because of third party participation in Colorado:

Party                         Percentage
                            Colorado     Nation
Democrat              45.43          44.76
Republican            50.14          51.50
Libertarian              2.20            1.24
Constitutional         1.56            0.29
Green                      0.17           0.30
Independent           0.51           0.96

First, there was only one Green party candidate on the congressional ballot, which minimally helped the Democrats in Colorado.

Second, there was only one Independent had a much smaller percentage of the vote in Colorado than nationwide, which also slighly helped the percentage for the Democrats.

Third, both the Libertarian and Constitutional party congressional candidates did significantly better in Colorado than nationwide.  This hurt Republican congressional percentage s in Colorado to some small extent.

So, no, Colorado is not leaning toward the Democrats based on this data.

It must be noted that the Colorado Republican party needs to get its house in order (exterminate the McCainiacs).

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How will that get the Pubbie numbers up in Colorado again?

If you check the opinion polls, the voters are very irate that the Republicans are rolling over for the Democrats rather than seeking reduction in the scope and scale of the federal budget.

McCain and his acolytes are incessantly trying to "reach across the aisle" to try to implement the liberal Democrat agenda.

Now, if voters believed the Republicans would fight to implement the ideas they say they want (when seeking election), rather than compromising to implement the liberal Democrat agenda, the voters would be more likely to support them.

Why elect a second-rater (RINO) to do what a liberals Democrat will do?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, would you please be so good as to provide the link for your 2010 exit poll?

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#COS01p1

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=COG00p1

Thank you.

That's what I thought.

Neither link is to the House races.

In the Governor's race in 2010, the Constitution party candidate outpolled the Republican party nominee.

In the Senate race in 2010, the Republicans nominated a conservative, so the McCainiacs refused to vote in that election.

In short, in those two statewide races in 2010 there was a really bizarre result.

Do you really believe those where typical?!?

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the Senate race in 2010, the Republicans nominatd a conservatives, so the McCainiacs refused to vote in that election.

What percent of the Colorado electorate are McCainiacs? Do they have much sway in statewide elections? How much voted for Bennet over Buck? Please cite!

They are a relatively small percentage of the voters in Republican party, given their repeated defeats in primaries there.

However, the Democrat Senator was elected (he had been appointed to the office) with less than half the vote case.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the Senate race in 2010, the Republicans nominatd a conservatives, so the McCainiacs refused to vote in that election.

What percent of the Colorado electorate are McCainiacs? Do they have much sway in statewide elections? How much voted for Bennet over Buck? Please cite!

They are a relatively small percentage of the voters in Republican party, given their repeated defeats in primaries there.

However, the Democrat Senator was elected (he had been appointed to the office) with less than half the vote case.

Please cite your sources!

For the 2010 General Election results, please see:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/general/ColoradoReport.html

For the 2010 Republican primary results, please see:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/primary/ColoradoReport.html#REP

[CARLHAYDEN]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

[CARLHAYDEN]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

This is pretty well-known already, but must be a shallow comfort for you folks considering the obvious trend you're working against.

Hmm.

You didn't "know" or acknowledge it when I pointed this out previous.

Oh, and would you please point out where the electorate (as opposed to inaccurate surveys) shows such a "trend"?

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

First, in 2008, due to intensive effort on the left and disgust among voters on the right with the Presidential candidates, the actual voters in the 2008 General Election were farther to the left than in recent elections prior to or subsequent to that election.

Second, California is generally regarded by political observers as being well to the left of the rest of America.

Third, the proponents of homosexual marriage considered putting a new measure on the ballot in 2010 but were advised against doing so by experts who told them (I believe correctly) that the electorate in 2010 would be more unfavorable to them than in 2008.

So, when you cann't win in a left state when the wind is at your back, the 'trend' is against you.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

This is pretty well-known already, but must be a shallow comfort for you folks considering the obvious trend you're working against.

Hmm.

You didn't "know" or acknowledge it when I pointed this out previous.

I'm not sure that's English, but...have I disagreed in the past?  I don't respond to every post you make to indicate my agreement or disagreement.

Oh, and would you please point out where the electorate (as opposed to inaccurate surveys) shows such a "trend"?

Are you claiming that national and state polling that shows a long-term trend toward support of gay marriage increasing is..."inaccurate" because of the gap between it and Election Day results?  Yeah, I'm not sure you know what a "trend" is either.

Alcon,

You are truly comical.  Yes, there are a lot of things you don't understand.

Did you bother to look at any of the studies for which I provided the url?

Now, yes, some surveys show an increase in support for homosexuality, including 'gay marriage,' but if you look at the election returns on that issue ('gay marriage') you will see that the 'polls' have been pretty consistently overstating such support relative to actual votes.  A most recent example being Maine.

Also, when opponents of 'gay marriage' sought to put the issue on the ballot in Massachusetts the proponents of 'gay marriage' fiercely opposed such a vote.  It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support.  

Why? Direct democracy ought to be opposed by anyone who feels strongly on just about any political issue. Nobody should propose holding referenda on any subject they consider important, because the democratic process debases all subjects. I would hope that a conservative like yourself would understand that and share my hostility towards mass politics.

Yours is a legitimate position.

However, this thread is about the inaccuracy of polls on state 'same-sex marriage' laws.

Now, will you in turn admit that if there had been a referendum on the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, the voters may have rejected 'gay marriage'?

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

First, in 2008, due to intensive effort on the left and disgust among voters on the right with the Presidential candidates, the actual voters in the 2008 General Election were farther to the left than in recent elections prior to or subsequent to that election.

Second, California is generally regarded by political observers as being well to the left of the rest of America.

Third, the proponents of homosexual marriage considered putting a new measure on the ballot in 2010 but were advised against doing so by experts who told them (I believe correctly) that the electorate in 2010 would be more unfavorable to them than in 2008.

So, when you cann't win in a left state when the wind is at your back, the 'trend' is against you.

Proposition 22 (2000):
yes 61.40%
no 38.60%
margin 22.8

Proposition 8 (2008):
yes 52.47%
no 47.76%
margin 4.71

That's a difference of 18 in 8 years or about 2.25 per year, if a similar trend were to continue until 2012 the results would be 4.3% in favour of gay marriage.

I tried to be clear about this, but apparently not clear enough for you.

In 2008, the Democrats achieved a remarkable increase in support at the polls in California while Republicans suffered a significant increase, both relative to 2000.

Now support for 'gay marriage' is significantly greater among Democrats than Republicans in California (and probably most states), so 2008 was a particularly good year for the proponents of 'gay marriage' in California, and they still lost. According to Edison, 85 % of those who voted no on Proposition 8 voted for Obama, whereas 61 % of those who voted for Proposition 8 voted for McCain.  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p7


Here are some numbers from Dave Leip on the partisan Presidential vote in California in 2000 and 2008, as well as changes and proportions.

So, it would appear that of the change in the vote was the result of the Democrat surge in 2008.

Party                    2000          2008          Change

Democrat            53.45          60.94          1.14
Republican          41.65          36.91          0.89
Proportion            1.28            1.65          1.28

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

Yes, let's 'look' at the 'record' then, 'Carl.'

It's not even that complicated, you only have to just look at a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

In the mid-90s, support for gay marriage was in the mid-high 20's. Throughout the early 2000's, support nudged upward through the 30s. In the last 3-4 years, support for gay marriage as evolved rapidly. This isn't a matter of opinion, the country is coming around to supporting gay marriage and it will happen whether you like it or not, sooner or later. There has been an undeniable upward tend in support for gay marriage in the last 15 years.

As the poster previous to me just mentioned, there's been an 18% swing in favor of gay marriage from 2000 to 2008. Since 2008, the national opinion of gay marriage has swung even more in favor of gay marriage.

This is what trend means, Carl:

trend (plural trends)
    An inclination in a particular direction

Morakai,

Please pay attention to what I posted.

Yes, several surveys are showing increased support for homosexuality, and 'gay marriage,' but the elections have shown those polls to be highly suspect (to put it mildly).

That's not just my opinion, but that of a number of expert analysts (I cited url's).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.

First, it would seem that you are asserting that you are a homosexual (otherwise you assertion about being married would have no relevance).

Second, it wound be interesting to know the state where you marriage occurred, as not a single state has had 'gay marriage' instituted as a result of a vote of the people.  Some states have had 'gay marriage' imposed on them by black robed superlegislators, while a very few others have seen real legislators betray the explicit promises to the voters to oppose "gay marriage' (New York is the supreme example of the latter).

Third, I really don't have any idea of what you mean by "socially," as this thread has been devoted to the legal institution of marriage and surveys with respect to extending marriage to homosexuals.

Fourth you assertion that "the trend is clear," is simply a gratuitous assertion, without evidence (which I have supplied in my posts).

Fifth, your assertion that "(if I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons," doesn't make any sense to me.  Please be so good to expand.

Finally, as I have (on other threads at this forum in days past) noted that the central purpose of marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is to provide for the rights of minors 'ensuing' from the marriage.  As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.

Brittain, I support your marriage. I can't figure out why anybody wouldn't. Out of spite, I suppose. Need I remind you, however, Massachusetts recognizes your marriage, but the federal government does not. You're still not all the way there legally.

Memphis,

I am sure there are a lot of things you can't "figure out."

But, no matter how much evidence and logic one might apply, you seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so "out of spite."

[CARLHAYDEN]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

More to the point, it's not how marriage law operates now in the U.S. If CARL tried to legislate this distinction or put it up to a vote, it would lose by a landslide. When this interpretation crimps the rights of heterosexuals to marry (imagine any marriage post-menopause), it is soundly defeated.

This concept has been brought up in pretty much every same-sex marriage court case and defeated by the mountain of evidence citing that procreation is not a requirement for opposite-sex couples, and also that many same-sex couples are raising children of their own (adoption or biological, whichever; the court doesn't deem adopted children as less worthy of protection) who merit that environment offered by the shelter of the laws.

CARL's either going to get this or he'll choose not to, that's fine. I'm not going to waste time rehashing arguments the rest of the country already had over the past ten years about how laws are passed, why courts exist, the fact that marriage doesn't adhere to the strictures needed to exclude same-sex couples, etc. It's enough to know that he's losing this in the long run and condescending loudly to people on a web site isn't going to change that.

Please do drop you posts if you are unable to answer any of my points.

Replying to a silly post of another poster is simply laughable.

Oh, and you keep making false assumptions.  Adoption if a legal process.  The courts require evidence of provision for such adoptees.  Marriage provides for such legal protections.

Funny how the proponents of homosexuality on this board can not cite even one election in which the public has endorsed 'gay marriage' but blithely assert they will prevail based on surveys which have proven to be inaccurate.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.

Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Those NM numbers from Putrid Propaganda Polling only were achieved after PPP deliberately stacked the poll to get the numbers that they wanted.

Of course, the lefties here don't care about that reality.

Agreed, there must be a conspiracy.

Not a conspiracy, just PPP producing numbers its clients like:

Well, let’s compare the PPP numbers for New Mexico with those from other sources.
PPP asserts that 30% of their respondents are liberals, 30% Moderates and 39% conservatives (Q. 16) 

Here’s what Edison (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/) had to say on voter Ideology in New Mexico in 2008:

Liberal               22%
Moderate          44
Conservative    34

According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx) the breakdown is:

Liberal             21.0%
Moderate        34.3
Conservative  41.2

Here’s the ratio of conservatives to liberals according to the three polls:

PPP                  1.3
Edison             1.5
Gallup              2.0