You are viewing qwrrty

Previous Entry | Next Entry

hands
I posted something about this in ronebofh's journal, but it's been getting a lot of attention, so:

Did California's Proposition 8 pass because of increased black turnout in the state?  Barack Obama's Presidential campaign this year dramatically increased the level of black voter participation over its usual level, but exit polls indicated that black voters favored Proposition 8 by a 70-30 margin (whites opposed it by 49-51).  Obama himself is on record as opposing same-sex marriage, and has taken some heat for expressing only very lukewarm opposition to Prop 8 and only in the final days of the campaign.  So white liberals have begun asking: did Prop 8 pass because Obama incidentally drew homophobic voters to the polls?

CNN posted exit polls that tell some of the story: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1.  We have to assume that the exit polls are reasonably representative of how the general population actually voted.  That's not necessarily a safe assumption, but since people are already saying that black voters votes 70% in favor of Prop 8, it's clear that we've already accepted that premise.

Now, I'm no Nate Silver, but I don't think this question is that complicated:

10,357,002 votes cast on Prop 8.
5,425,000 were yes votes.

63% of all votes (6,525,000) came from whites.
49% of those (3,197,000) were cast in favor of Prop 8.
That's 31% of the total of all votes cast.

10% of votes (1,035,000) came from blacks.
70% of those (725,000) were cast in favor of Prop 8.
That's 7% of the total of all votes cast.

18% of votes (1,864,000) came from Latinos.
53% of those (988,000) were cast in favor of Prop 8.
That's 10% of the total of all votes cast.

So of all 10 million votes cast in California:
31% of them were white voters who voted "yes" on 8.
7% of them were black voters who voted "yes" on 8.
10% of them were from Latino voters who voted "yes" on 8.

So what?

So:

1. Black voters didn't pass Prop 8.  In terms of the percentage of the "yes" votes cast on the ballot measure and in the absolute number of votes, they were dwarfed both by white and Latino voters who voted for it.

2. Increased black turnout for Obama didn't pass Prop 8, either.  Black voters usually make up 6.7% of the electorate in California.  If Obama's campaign drew 300,000 more voters to the polls than usual, and 70% of those people voted for Proposition 8, that's only about 200,000 votes.  Proposition 8 passed by half a million.  It would have passed even if the black vote was at its usual non-Obama levels.

And, at the risk of sounding like the Monday morning quarterback:

3. Same-sex marriage advocates failed at outreach.  We knew that black turnout in this election was going to be extremely high, and that urban black voters have not tended to favor gay rights issues in the past.  In the end, 70% of black citizens voted to kill gay marriage.  We had an opportunity to engage in a more aggressive dialogue there and we blew it.  Not that we didn't try.  But it wasn't enough.

4. Same-sex marriage advocates failed at organizing, period.  White voters did vote against Proposition 8, but only by a razor-thin margin -- 49-51.  We should have been able to do much better than that.  Gay advocates got complacent with our early polls showing a landslide against the amendment, and we let the Mormons outflank us.

5. Dan Savage needs to get over himself, girlfriend.

Tags:

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
feste_sylvain
Nov. 7th, 2008 05:35 pm (UTC)
Decent analysis, but your totals only add up to 48% of all votes cast being for Prop 8, when it got 52.5% Specifically, you're not accounting for about half a million votes for the measure.

As a first guess, I'd say that you left out the Asian ethnic group; what did those numbers look like?

Let's pretend for a minute that the ethnic segregation of these votes has some political validity; could it be that subcultures have their own media choices, or were there "No on 8" messages that managed to alienate these subcultures with the form of their message?

Right now, I've got my hopes pinned on the ACLU technicality suit.
qwrrty
Nov. 7th, 2008 05:50 pm (UTC)
Asians and "other", yes. The CNN link has a breakdown for those demographics too. Asian voters voted slightly against Prop 8.

This isn't intended to be exhaustive -- I'm trying to address specifically the claim that Proposition 8 passed because Obama drew homophobic blacks to the polls. It didn't, and I didn't factor in the "Asian" or "other" groups because I don't think those numbers affect that conclusion.
feste_sylvain
Nov. 7th, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC)
Ah! Yes, I do believe you've got a conclusive argument against that notion here.
phornax
Nov. 7th, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
6. Complacency, complacency, complacency.

Slightly more than half the eligible voters in San Francisco County did not go to the polls on Tuesday. That's almost 220,000 people. With that county going 78% No on Proposition 8, we lost almost 172,000 votes.

About one-third of the difference ... all in one city / county.
creidylad
Nov. 7th, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)
Numerically though I think you have to look at how many african-americans usually vote in California, and then figure out if the increase in voters here was enough to swing the vote. So far I haven't seen those numbers anywhere, but I'm sure they are out there.
ayse
Nov. 7th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC)
The numbers I have seen showed that all the difference in the passing of Prop 8 can be accounted for in the increased turnout of black voters.

But whether or not black voters voted for Prop 8 at higher rates, the reality is that a lot of people in Southern California and the Inland Empire voted for it, too. Saying quite honestly that increased black turnout made the difference on this race doesn't mean we should disenfranchise black people.

Frankly, I'm all for the state annulling marriages. Now that we have a precedent, how about we change the constitution so the state no longer recognizes the marriages of anybody who were married by a minister rather than a justice of the peace or deputy? Surely that should not be legal.
qwrrty
Nov. 7th, 2008 08:41 pm (UTC)
The L.A. Times has exit polls for the 1996, 2000 and 2004 elections on their website. Later I'll see if I can get the right numbers out of them to take a stab at that. Although that level of statistical analysis is definitely getting beyond my pay grade.

I think the numbers I posted still work if it's true that traditionally, African-Americans vote approximately in proportion to their membership in the general population, which appears to be true from those exit polls.
browngirl
Nov. 7th, 2008 07:22 pm (UTC)
Without getting too much into things, I just wanted to thank you for this.
qwrrty
Nov. 7th, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)
Feel free to pass it on :-)
queenmomcat
Nov. 7th, 2008 09:09 pm (UTC)
I should also like to thank you for writing this. Very very much.

Sigh. I have many thoughts but I won't post them here.
creidylad
Nov. 7th, 2008 09:34 pm (UTC)
I agree the really real point is -- who cares? Bigotry needs to be addressed at ALL levels, and in all demographics, and as it applies to all people.
queenmomcat
Nov. 7th, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
Exactly.

(The clean version of my take on Proposition 8 is something like "No, it passed because it got more votes. We need to remember that the overlap between the group which is willing to accept a black president and the group which is willing to accept same sex marriage is not 100%. Not even close.")
wdr1
Nov. 9th, 2008 06:53 am (UTC)
Hmmm... I think you misread link 2?

He says "that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population", not that that is standard voter turnout?
qwrrty
Nov. 9th, 2008 07:40 pm (UTC)
You're right. I did misread that. But in fact, the L.A. Times exit polls from previous years show black voter participation in the 5-7% range anyway, assuming I'm reading those numbers right.
da_lj
Nov. 10th, 2008 03:58 pm (UTC)
Useful additional numbers, including why the 70% "yes on 8" among African-Americans isn't necessarily borne out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272
(Anonymous)
Nov. 12th, 2008 07:18 am (UTC)
Thanks for the Stats
I agree with the points made, 1-4.
Why is it that when some groups get disappointed, they automatically blame blacks? Why do others believe that nonsense, when blacks are less than 10% of voters in California? How is it people can ignore the 90% of the votes and so easily blame the 10% population? What is the name put to that so easily knee jerk reaction, to readily accept the red meat that suggests -- blame the black people? I can understand when some Republicans do this, that is a core part of their party ethos. So maybe this is just some republican operative throwing red meat at one group of voters, while they are very disappointed -- just to see how disruptive they can be.
Why not blame the advertising, $70+ million? Why not blame the sponsors? Why not blame the turnout being too low for every other group? It is so short sighted to have these kinds of knee jerk reactions of blame, that I choose to believe that it is Republicans spreading this mis-information, just to have a little *fun* with those interested in the issue.
qwrrty
Nov. 13th, 2008 05:54 pm (UTC)
Re: Thanks for the Stats
I don't actually believe this is a dirty trick. It's understandable to see why people would respond this way. The first thing you want to know is: who voted for and against this? The way the pollsters break down their exit polls does give a distorted view of where the votes came from, so it's not hard to see why people reach that conclusion.
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )