September 23, 2008

We’ve Been Meaning to Mention That Jennifer Kerns Isn’t Just Fashion-Challenged — She’s No Statistical Expert, Either

Last week, the chuckleheads at Protectmarriage.com — the ones who want to take away our already-established right to marry here in California — issued a press release (which hysterical-zealot sites like Lifesitenews.com jumped on and drooled over as if Jesus himself had just left a message on their answering machine) claiming that support for the anti-gay, anti-marriage, anti-family Proposition 8 was vastly underestimated by current polls.

Something stank about Jennifer Kerns‘ P.R. (almost as much as Frank Schubert stinks from his compulsive coffin-nail habit*), but I haven’t had the time to take a closer look at the numbers. Fortunately, NYU assistant prof and polling expert Patrick J. Egan has saved us all the trouble:

Can You Trust the Polling on Proposition 8?

Do voters lie to pollsters when asked their opinion on banning same-sex marriage? That seems to be the question in California, where a survey last week found voters rejecting a proposed statewide ban on gay marriage by a decisive 17-point margin. Conservatives have countered with a study claiming that voters — driven by “political correctness” — substantially underreport their support for banning gay marriage to pollsters.

But a careful analysis of polling data on marriage amendments and election results from previous races indicates that if any such reluctance exists with regard to same-sex marriage initiatives, it is small — about two points on average since 1998. In 2006 it was effectively zero. In other words, if the election were held today, polling trends suggest that California voters would reject the marriage ban — known as Proposition 8 — by a healthy margin. …

The group ProtectMarriage.com released a study last week that compared preelection polling with actual Election Day results in 26 states that have voted on same-sex marriage initiatives since 1998. They contend that many survey respondents who supported the bans misreported their preferences to pollsters as undecided or even opposed, and conclude that support for these measures has been underestimated by an average of seven percentage points.

But my analysis of the ProtectMarriage.com data suggests that the study’s methodology overstates the gap between polls and election results with calculations that implicitly allocate undecided survey respondents to the “oppose” category. …

Egan’s analysis, “Is There Really a ‘Bradley Effect’ for Same-Sex Marriage Initiatives?” is quite the interesting read; e.g.:

… [R]ecent research has suggested that the “Bradley effect” has subsided. A paper by Yale University’s Daniel Hopkins analyzing state?level elections since 1989 estimates that the size of the Bradley effect—which was never very big to begin with—is now effectively zero. Despite much hand?wringing in the media of a Bradley effect hurting Barack Obama, he actually outperformed pre?election polls on average by about three percentage points during the 2008 presidential primaries.

My analysis of the ProtectMarriage.com data suggests that we can draw a similar conclusion about same?sex marriage initiatives. As it turns out, the ProtectMarriage.com study’s methodology overstates the gap between polls and election results with calculations that implicitly allocate undecided survey respondents to the “oppose” category. Here’s an example. In November 2004, Utah voters passed a constitutional amendment banning same?sex marriage by 66 percent to 34 percent. A poll released by USA Today shortly before the election found the amendment ahead by 60?32%, with 8% undecided. The ProtectMarriage.com study counts this as a six?percentage point gain in support from the survey to Election Day. But the share of supporters not only increased between the poll and the ballot box; so did the share of those opposed. The proper comparison is thus to compare he share of supporters among decided survey respondents … 65% — to the election result of 66%, for a gap of only one percentage point.

Reanalyzing the ProtectMarriage.com data this way yields the finding that if any Bradley effect is in place for same?sex marriage initiatives, it is small—and it is certainly not on the rise. Since 1998, the gap between polled support for marriage bans among decided voters and Election Day results has averaged only 2.2 percentage points. In 2006, the gap declined to just three?tenths of a point in the seven states holding initiatives for which data are available. Figure 1 plots the gap by state and by year and displays the annual mean for the our years (1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006) in which most of the initiatives were held. …

Thus it is unlikely that recent polling on Prop. 8 in California substantially understates support for the initiative. Given how much the marriage ban is currently trailing in the polls, the probability is very low that if the election were held today a Bradley effect would lead to a Prop. 8 victory. Stay tuned, however: the pro? and anti?Prop. 8 forces have each raised millions to finance what will undoubtedly be a knock?down, drag?‘em?out fight via TV ads. A lot can change in seven weeks—including polls. But when new surveys are released, take voters at their word: they are telling the truth.

Much more at the link.

Well, we’re not surprised. What else would you expect from the sort of people who tend to — how shall I put this gently? — make shit up.

* Yeah, that’s something else I forgot to mention. I don’t have a problem with smokers or smoking, but I do have a big problem with uber-hypocrites — you know, like self-righteous right-wingers who try to force everybody else to submit to their rigid ideas about “morality,” and then get caught bonking the family’s underage nanny.

Not that Frank Schubert, mouthpiece for the California Hate-the-Gays campaign, is bonking anybody (we wouldn’t know), but this equally stunning, jaw-dropping display of hypocrisy, courtesy of Chino Blanco, absolutely floored us:

When Frank’s not busy with his Yes on 8 duties, he’s been known to enjoy a relaxing smoke. He’d also be the first to admit that being a smoker in health-conscious California is no easy thing. In Frank’s own words:

I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.

If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers.

You tell ‘em, Frank. It’s always a pleasure to read a Yes on 8 campaign manager defending the principle that smokers deserve equal protection no matter how unpopular they might be. Now I’m off to advise ALL my gay friends to take up your bad habit and thereby qualify themselves in your eyes for the equal protection that you’re working so hard to deny them.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |