[Updated] Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Howdy folks!  We're probably going to have an argument, but at least it isn't an argument about what primary candidate we should support.  I guess that's progress.

I was absolutely shocked that Proposition 8 passed in California.  That was a true crime against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.  I just can't fathom why a majority of Californians would do such a thing.  It hurt.  It hurt me less than it might have hurt someone who planned to marry the person they love, but it's still a crime against me too.  We are, all of us, brothers and sisters.  A crime against the few is a crime against all.

But I'm seeing too many people at too many websites lashing out against whole groups, namely African Americans and Mormons.  Be better than this, please.

African Americans have been subject to oppression the likes of which I hope the world never again sees.  So, by the way, have Mormons.  Admittedly the crimes against the two groups aren't the same exactly, but evil has been done to both.  Yes, they should know better.  No, I'm not happy about this.

But to lash out at the groups as a whole is as severe an evil as what's been done to our brothers and sisters.  We must be better than this.  We lost a battle on Tuesday, and not a small one.  There were casualties, millions of them.  In a way, we all were wounded by this.  Yes, even those who voted for Prop Eight were wounded by it, though their wounds were self-inflicted.  They should be ashamed.

One day, they will be. If not them, their children.  If not their children, then their grandchildren.

But I've known Blacks who were gay.  I know of Mormons who are gay.  I've known Blacks and Mormons who were not gay but opposed Proposition 8.  Guys, we have to be better than this.  It's simply too easy to lash out at groups for your pain.  A part of me doesn't blame you.  But that's too seductive, too easy.

In eleven months I will marry the most wonderful girl in the world.  She has made me the happiest man I know.  I simply cannot fathom why anyone would deny that right to another.  Joy is too rare in this life to suppress it.  And that's how we win this thing.  We have to make more people understand what it is that gays and lesbians want.  They want a shot at the same happiness the rest of us already have.

And yes, a lot of the people we'll have to teach are African American or Mormon.  A lot.  But a bunch of them aren't either of those things.  Heck, some of them are even gay (yes, I'm being serious).  We have to grow, as a people.  It won't come as quickly as we want.  People alive now will not all live to see it come.  That's a painful thought.

But don't lash out like this.  It's a shortcut, and it'll only make things worse.  Outright hostility by the gay community (and us straights who sympathize with them) against Blacks and Mormons will only make this worse.  

Patience is a painful thing, but a necessary one.  People are imperfect.  I am imperfect.  You are imperfect.  We all suffer our imperfections, and those of others.  But we should try to be better.  So, please, try.

[Update]Folks, there are Mormons who did not support this effort. You know that, right?

Tags: Prop 8 (all tags)

Comments

267 Comments

Please, guys, we have to be

Better than this.  I know you're hurt.  I'm hurt too.  But this isn't right.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Umm, my brother,

please stop using this site to interfere with my free speech and please stop using this site to continually attack me personally, as is evidenced by your diary.  Please execise the decorum you state you require on your moose site, onto this site.  Please emphasize this point to your fellow moosers (meese?  mice?  muse? whatever!)

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-08 01:15PM | 0 recs
How am I doing that?

How am I interfering with your right to free expression?  Have I deleted a single thing you wrote?  Have I prevented others from reading it?

I am doing what you are doing, no more and no less.  I am speaking.  You are free to continue.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: How am I doing that?

You are speaking, indeed.  Please do so with an original thought, not just one that seeks to counter mine, and then you will be engaging in discourse, not attack.  Please share this with your ilk.

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-08 01:19PM | 0 recs
OH,

EOM!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: OH,

In other words, disagreeing with me is verboten.  It will bruise my sensitivities.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 01:22PM | 0 recs
Denny.....

I did not mention you by name.  I've seen several threads at the Daily Kos, in addition to the two here.  This isn't about you.

Stop being self-centered.  I wasn't even thinking about you when I wrote this.  Get over yourself.

Some folks started a thread at Kos wherein they wanted to boycott businesses who EMPLOYED Mormons as executives.  It made the Rec list there.  Mercifully it was deleted.

And yes, I will cross-post this there after midnight once I'm able to diary there again.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 01:22PM | 0 recs
Denny

I have refrained from piling on your comments in general, because you're generally well-mannered and reasonable-sounding.

This comment, however, is completely asinine.

best,
Koan

by Koan 2008-11-09 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Actually, I've found the conversation quite instructive.  Here's what I've learned:

1) Despite the fact that Asians and Catholics voted for prop 8 in similar numbers, this is all the fault of Teh Black.  (I'm looking at you, Barack Obama).

2) There is no point in looking to the failure of organization in the No on 8 campaign, or wondering how we can do better next time.  In fact, there's no point in doing any kind of outreach at all.  The best course to chart is to shake our fists at the black community.  Also be real "edgy" and anti-PC about it.

3) When I was voting Democratic this year, I wasn't actually doing it in my own self-interest: i was making a tradeoff between Teh Gay and Teh Black - simple, really.  The deal was that I vote for Teh Black if Teh Black votes for Teh Gay.  I've been like, stabbed in the back.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

All the stats I've seen say Asians voted against 8. Do you have a link for any stats that say they voted for it?

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Asian/Native:  51% or 473,946 Yes votes
by Ida B 2008-11-08 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Where are those numbers from? The CNN exit poll says it was 51% against, 49% for.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Does it really matter, though?  Some individuals are anti-gay and others are not.  Are we really going to reach a judgment about Asian-Americans in general, either declare them homophobic or non-homophobic, based upon whether it was 51-49 one way or the other way?  Our eye is way off the ball at this point.

by Steve M 2008-11-08 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Not blaming anyone. I just found the Asian vote an interesting stat since it's generally believed that Asians are more conservative, and more church-going. And since we're one of the few states with enough Asians to get statistically relevent sampling, it's worth looking at California voting trends to see what's going on with this demographic.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Sure, but whether it's 51% for, or 51% against, really doesn't matter in the slightest.

by Steve M 2008-11-08 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Regarding Asians, I'm less concerned about how they voted on this issue as I am in their voting trends are in general. I just wanted to make sure there weren't other stats out there that I haven't seen, or ones that indicated something different. It's surprising to see even a 50/50 split on a group that's usually considered "conservative" and I think this may indicate something about Asian voting trends in general that Californians need to know for future elections.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Asians as a group aren;t well the right term, There are different Asian groups wihtin California. Vietnamest, Chinese, Korean, etc. I would guess the Koreans being ht emost conservative over all but that's just a guess. I have no proof other than what my friends tell me.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Definitely. Asians voted against 8 by 57% in the city of L.A., and I was curious if it was a certain nationality that was tipping the scales there. LA has tons of Koreans, so I'm not sure how national origin comes into play, or maybe LA  Koreans are just less conservative than others. We won't ever get stats for Asian sub-groups to know for sure, but this is a growing demographic so political campaigns should pay attention to the trends.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Well considering the cw passing as demography I doubt we will ever get any real answers. This is why I thought Shanikka's diary yesterday on the faulty CNN exit polls were so relevant. Even if she's half right, this would say we need to really start to understand the groups to whom we need to apepal and who has the impact. The gay movement so far has run itself like political amateurs. There was this Nation article about this very point. The fact is some fo that more than 35 million dollars should have went into indepth demographical and GOTV analysis to determine where we could run up the numbers and decrease loses. Instead, they had all these Kerry eque b.s. ads out.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I have plenty of complaints about the No campaign. Winning elections is all about carving out enough voters to get a winning coalition, that's why I think the demographic breakdown is very important, but not for purposes of blame. If you're into the demographics, check out this interesting LA Times piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm entary/la-oe-rutten8-2008nov08,0,6469896 .column

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Yes I m thank you.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

In other words Laker is looking to try and now blame the Asians also, his hatred is just looking for targets.

by venician 2008-11-08 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

No, you're right.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Actually its uncertain. Again we are basing this principly on a faulty CNN exit poll which actually got the outcome of the vote on Prop 8 wrong in that it said it would fail.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Seventy percent of blacks voted for prop 8 in cal. That is waaaay more than any other group.  Not sure what part of this fact you don't grasp? A majority of blacks in this country at this time are prejudiced against gays and will vote against gay marriage. Blacks as a voting group are also consistently voting with the christian right as the black church moves more and more into alliances and agreement with the christian right.

by linfar 2008-11-08 03:42PM | 0 recs
Look.

You do a disservice to the other 30% then.  Or is that when you meet an African American who doesn't hate on gays, is he/she "one of the good ones"?

You're discriminating.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Look.

have you ever made a comment about Republicans as if they were a completely united group?  Of course you have.  Then why now do you have a problem with this kind of talk?

by slynch 2008-11-08 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Look.

Because "Republican" is not a genetic phenotype.

by Jess81 2008-11-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Look.

relevance?

by slynch 2008-11-11 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

yes that stat is true.  but what is the point exactly?  do the LGBT feel betrayed - yes.  but was it enough to tip the scales - it doesn't appear so.

also linfar have you seen what is going on at kos and elsewhere?  its revolting.  i am extremely saddened about prop 8, but i think that unless people detach hateful talk (which seemingly is all over the tubes) then nothing good can come from this.

by canadian gal 2008-11-08 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

You don't know any gay Mormons who are out and still members of their church.

Mormons do deserve scorn for this. They didn't have to put themselves in the middle of this issue, they chose to take a stand in favor of discriminating against a minority group. These are the repurcussions for promoting hatred and intolerance.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Mormons do deserve scorn for this

Yes.  When you finance 50-75% of a campaign from Utah to change the laws of California, you deserve the scorn you receive from those affected by your actions.  

You and I have agreed almost 100% on this issue.  It seems that some progressives have a hard time with calling out anyone but "Republicans."  Stereotypes and blanket blame game politics is ok when attacking "Republicans," but if it gets more specific than that, like "Mormons," then we've crossed a line evidently.

You state it best, "These are the repurcussions for promoting hatred and intolerance."  I tolerate the Mormon church.  I do not "hate" them.  But they should be called to task for this.

by IssaquahIndie 2008-11-08 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Apparently Catholics make up approximately 30% of the California electorate and they voted for Prop 8 at roughly 64%.

So whom should we boycott . . . ?

The Vatican? Italy? Massachusetts?

by vadasz 2008-11-09 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I think it's fair to blame Catholics that attend church regularly and contribute. I heaped all sorts of scorn on the guy raising money for the Knights of Columbus because they've been funding 8. There are many, many Catholics that never go to church and don't support it at all, and they usually are ashamed of the things that the church does in their name. If people call themselves "Mormons" but don't attend, are't members in good standing, and don't contribute, they may be in the same guilt-by-association situation that lapsed Catholics find themselves in. They'll have to figure out how to deal with that, perhaps by not identifying themselves as Mormons.

by LakersFan 2008-11-09 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Over 3 million whites voted to strip gay Americans of their right to marry.  But since even more white people voted the other way, the white race gets the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.  Black race, on the other hand, you got some problems.

The logic befuddles me.  If someone spent all their time focusing on the problem of "black crime," because blacks commit proportionately more crimes than other racial groups, what would you think of that person?  Yet it's somehow fine to focus on "black homophobia" because the numbers suggest the black community has proportionately more of it.  Let's be clear: you want to talk about the crime problem, be my guest.  You want to talk about the "black crime problem," I'm going to slowly walk away.

I am not suggesting progressives are racists for focusing on the role of the black community in this vote.  I am suggesting that they are not thinking through the implications of their own logic.  And if we wouldn't say "blacks are criminals" based on statistics, we should think about the propriety of assigning collective blame in other contexts, too.

Now let's say we were to all calm down (unlikely!) and think this through rationally.  Over 5 million people voted for Prop 8, we would say, how do we change some of those minds?  Well, we might conclude that the black church is a big influence, and maybe we could develop an outreach strategy, figuring that since they're our allies on many other issues of social justice they might be reachable.

That would be fine, of course.  But considering only 6% of California residents are black, I sure hope black outreach wouldn't be your entire strategy!  And let me just say, the outreach will go a lot better if the reaction isn't "hey, aren't you the guy who was just ranting the other day about how it's black people's fault that Prop 8 passed?"  No one likes to be singled out for blame.

As for the Mormon issue, I'll just note that it's very important to draw a distinction between assigning blame to the LDS church as an institution and blaming "the Mormons" in general.  None of my Mormon friends are like that, thank God.  These are touchy issues and we need to be careful about what we say, because we need all the friends we can get.

by Steve M 2008-11-08 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

While I agree with much of what you say, the one big difference is that white Californians are a mixed bag of liberals and conservatives (52% Obama, 46% McCain, so you'd expect a mixed result. The AA vote tends to be very liberal and extremely Democratic, so it's a little shocking to see the results on this issue be so much more conservative than the rest of the AA voting trends.

You're correct, it's not "Mormons" who are responsible for this, it's some Mormons. But you know how it is when you're part of a group, you get blamed for the actions of the bad apples. And frankly, I want the good Mormons to be so ashamed of what their church is doing in their name, that they will make sure their church never chooses to do anything like this again.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Pro-equality Mormons will be equally ashamed of their church if you blame the church, as opposed to blaming Mormons in general.  And you won't run the risk that they'll react defensively and lash back at you, wondering why you're acting like they're the enemy just because of their religion.

As an analogy, consider the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist who want to destroy America, and the moderate Muslims who ought to be our allies against them.  We try to avoid the impression at all costs that we're declaring war on Islam in general.

by Steve M 2008-11-08 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

But the truth is, this was something being pushed in their churches every Sunday, and they are the only ones who could put a stop to that.

And the analogy between a fundy Islamic terrorist and moderate Muslim is not a fair analogy. If they are church-going Mormons, they all adhere to the same doctrine and all contribute financially to the same organization.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I feel as if we are in some where alterverse where we need to pretend that Mormon's are not an organized religion. Its like the salient difference is met with 'but its all hate" I dont get it.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

No, the AA vote tends to be extremely democratic because the Democratic Party is friendly to minorities. This doesn't say anything about how "liberal" on average they are on social issues.

Same as you can find gay racists in the Democratic Party, you will find black homophobes in the Democratic Party. Simply because of the fact they'd be just as much out of place among the Republicans.

So now, instead of bashing social conservatism everywhere, the remaining racists in the Democratic Party chose to focus to bash the social conservatives among the black population alone. And if this goes on, the Democrats are gonna lose black voters to the Republicans next time around, once the Republicans also figure out they need to embrace minorities in order to have a fighting chance.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-08 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I'm not blaming anyone but the religious organizations that chose to be part of this campaign. But it's still not accurate to say the AA vote is not liberal -- it is on most other issues, and not simply because the Democratic party is "friendly". And I think this vote made people aware and surprised to find out how very influential and socially conservative the church is in the AA community.

For those of us who want to win elections in the future, these are important things to consider. It's not about blame, it's about finding more votes next time around.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

What is with you that all you want to do is to find some group to blame so you can direct your hatred. Throughout this thread that's all you've been looking for is some group to HATE because they voted against 8. Why don't you sit back and examine why you're so full of hate instead of looking for people to aim it at.

by venician 2008-11-08 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Because the Mormons did in fact as an organize religion push for Prop 8. This is just fact. Th emore I read some of the people positng her the more convicne I am that this diary was written for hte purpose of manipuation discussion. The point has now been repeated multiple times when your argument is in fact a misdirection.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

So does that mean we should blame you as a white person for slavery and bigotry?

by venician 2008-11-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

yes.  And once that shame set in, whites changed.  Hypocrisy and bigotry need to be pointed out.  Period.

by slynch 2008-11-08 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I'll just note that it's very important to draw a distinction between assigning blame to the LDS church as an institution and blaming "the Mormons" in general.

I'll go further and say that we need to blame churches in general.  I get so fucking tired of listening to people say that progressives need to reach out to churchgoers.  The churches are the oppressors.

Any of you who don't see that it is time to go to war against religion have your heads in the sand. Belief in God and/or Jesus is braindead! We have to stop it.  Until we do, people will continue to be oppressed over the stupid bullshit in the bible, and people will continue to die because of unsafe abortions and lack of medical research.

Wise up, people!  Blacks aren't the problem!  God is the problem!  What have you done today to destroy God?

by alvernon 2008-11-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Yeah! Let's kill all the priests!

While we're at it, let's completely overlook the many liberal and tolerant religions out there, such as Buddhists, Wiccans, Reform/Conservative Judaism, liberal Muslims, Episcopalians and other mainstream Christian movements, Unitarians...as well as individual churches/synagogues/mosques/temples within generally intolerant religious affiliations which support the causes of equality and coexistence anyway.  Let's also completely overlook the fact that people who abuse sacred text to oppress others and demand conformity are of personality types which would continue to demand conformity even if they were atheists (Exhibit A: you), they would simply concoct other justifications (such as the pseudo-scientific notion that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "a mental disorder,"  or the false connection between gays and prison rapists/pedophiles smearing innocent gays as evil people...you know, the completely non-Biblical arguments that you hear all the fucking time from homophobes).  And of course, let's also ignore the fact that the tendency to hate and fear "the other" is innate in all people (atheists included) to some extent, because possessing a moderate amount of it is necessary for human survival.

So yeah, let's destroy religion in order to bring about utopia...never mind if that utopia has any relation to the reality of human nature and thus possibility of actually existing.  What a genius idea!

<eyeroll>

by Elsinora 2008-11-08 06:47PM | 0 recs
Lets convince the people we can

from every community. And that means outreach to people and perfecting the message by finding out what works.  

Basically if we are doing this through the electorate, that means we have work to do. I'm not really interested in blame. Lets get to work!

 

by KateG 2008-11-08 02:00PM | 0 recs
Seems fair

... To blame anyone who voted against it.

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-08 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Seems fair

I think you mean "who voted FOR it", in which case I agree.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:23PM | 0 recs
thank you

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-08 02:23PM | 0 recs
Yes. Individuals. Not groups

And that's the problem I've been seeing.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

But Mormons did campaign for it as a group, under the guidance, sanction and organization of their church, which they all help fund. That's why they deserve blame as a group.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

I think the conflations of individual voters with organized efforts by a centralized group like the Mormon Chruch is a deliberate ploy to take the spotlight off the Mormon Chruch. If you look at footage from the news of the Mormon church's response it plays the same "look over at the other people who supported it" approach. Namely they want us to ignore their involvement as central organizing figures.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

I think the ORGANIZATION should be blamed.  It's okay to criticize the organization.  I think that some people are concerned that this is turning into an anti-Mormon thing.  And I don't think that's what you mean.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

Mormons are the only ones who can get the Mormon church to change. So yes, I am blaming them. I certainly wouldn't contribute 10% of my income to an organization that funds a discriminatory and hate-based campaign, and I have a problem with people who do.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

Thi si swhere the issue of boycotts come into play. I do agree they should be boycotted until they change the organizd elements of their religon.  Sitting back in an organized religon to do nothing when you know you disagree with the organization isn't acceptable when it comes to denial of other people's rights. Its one thing if you accept that personally, bu tnot when you know they are doing it to others.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes. Individuals. Not groups

I think people are using Mormon as a short hand. They have not been bothering random mormons. They've been picketing at the sites of the organized religion like the churches. Or discssing the proselyters who are sent out by the organized church.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:20PM | 0 recs
Its about christian conservatives
that feel they should have the ability to impose their will on others.  I agree with you almost completely: the Mormon CHURCH is to blame for what happened in CA, as is the Catholic CHURCH.  


This is most certainly not a black against gays thing, or a lowercase mormon versus gays things.  However, in both instances, it is sad and shocking that groups, as you indicated, who have experienced their very own forms of discrimination would vote to discriminate against others- I think that is where the 'lashing out' is coming from...  Queer people are saddened that their bothers and sisters in minority would choose to take away their rights.  I think queer folks expect it from Mormons, the fact that so many black folks would choose to do so is, to say the least, disappointing.
by linc 2008-11-08 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Its about christian conservatives

Several opportunitistic forces are using Prop 8 for their own ends. I agree with your post completely. I find that many gay racists or racists in general have seized on the issue to make it about race rather than christian right idealogical views. This depsite the fact that clearly similar measures have passed in multiple states with litetl or no African American popultions and the questions surrounding the CNN exit polling data. This isn't to excuse the AAs who voted yes. But it does place the lumping together into context.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Its about christian conservatives

You mean white gay people, because gay people of color have been discriminated by you white gays for a very long time. Gay bars are the last bastion of segregation. It's rather funny to watch as white gay men experience discrimination and how all they want to do is lash out and HATE on every group that didn't give them what they as white people felt they were entitled to.

by venician 2008-11-08 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Its about christian conservatives

I find your post confusing as  gay black man. How exactly do I , if i want day want to marry, find into your black white construction fo reality?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:33PM | 0 recs
sounds like you have your own
issues to deal with regarding gay folks.  You are definitely barking up the wrong tree (for one) and your overly ambitious assumptions are way off target: you didn't actually address one issue I brought up in my post.
so, are you or aren't you disappointed that 'other' minorities abandoned gays (all of them) on prop 8?  Thats what I was talking about before you decided to start making assumptions about me and every other queer out there.
by linc 2008-11-08 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I think that these tensions are largely a media creation.  Before 8 even passed I saw articles saying it would pass because "Teh Black" as we seem to be refering to it.  I believe that stats actually show that AA democrats actually tend to vote for gay rights while uniaffiliated AAs tend to vote against but thats the point.  The "facts" should not be used as a wedge within our big tent.  They should be learned from.  I don't really agree with the argument that it shouldn't be noted that AAs voted for 8 by greater margins than white californian's simply because more overall white voters voted for prop 8.  Stats tell us something, they tell us how shared expereinces influence our views.  We should be working toward helping the AA and GLBT communities better understand each other and be more supportive of our dual alligance to the progressive movement.  As a gay individual I personally admit that I have not done as much to fight aganist racism in the GLBT community or in general as I should and I use these moment to realize that that must change.  Likewise, it is time for all of us to realize that we must work toward these two communities seeing eye to eye.  While I wish obama had done more, I was really impressed with his dialog on how the AA community must shed its homophobic past and elements and I say it is time the gay community should do some similar introspection.  (I am not saying GLBT individuals are racist, just that there r some racist undercurrents and sentiments within the community)  Lets focus on constructive change, not bickering.

by goodleh 2008-11-08 02:40PM | 0 recs
The Mormon LDS church actually organized
donated and promoted Prop 8 support.
There are quite a few African American Church leaders who actively promoted Prop 8 support amongst their congregations. Both of these  folks actively promoted homophobia in order to spread their message for Prop 8 support. Sorry, I make no apologies for condemning their bigotry.
by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

Central difference. AA churchs aren't centralized. there were quite a bit of AA churchs against Pro 8 under the view of render unto caesar that which is caesar. The scapegoating of AAs is based on what have proven to be faulty CNN exit polls. The arguments against the Mormon church are based on the fact it is a centralized organization that specifically called on its entire membership to ban marriage in CA. Contextually very big differences that I see others trying to conflate for their own ends.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
Agreed. African Americans are not a monolithic

body. There are folks on both sides of the issue just like other races, genders et al. Your comments on AA churches and Mormon Church are well taken.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

I think we should criticize all of the churches who supported this.  I think what a lot of African-Americans think that the entire community is being blamed for what happened.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

No the concern is that we are being singled out by people who are usiing this in opportunistic ways to support their pre existing racism.

I am both gay and black. I've been to some of the gay sites like Towleroad and Queerty that have been covering this. THe gay racists came out of the wood works to say 'See you can not trust those n---r" Not in those words, but clear implications

Add this you got people in the gay press like Andrew Sullivan (a guy with prior race issues who endorsed the Bell Curve book), Dan Savage and Avarosis fixating on African Americans. They do so based on faulty data and no matter how much one points out the data being faulty, one is told it doesn't matter.

Its almost as if if the numbers were reversed in the faulty poll- they still would have argued - well 30 percent supported Prop 8 , how dare they. For me at least, from what I've seen in the last few days, this is why I've come out to say not to all of this nastiness. This isn't a race problem. It's a homophobia problem we need to address.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

People who uses racist language should be condemned.  I think that Andrew Sullivan actually agrees with you on this.  And if I remember correctly, Dan Savage made a point of saying that racist gays were just as deplorable as homophobic African-Americans.

Do you have a source on the poll being "faulty"?

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

There was a dailykos diary about it being flawed. But you can tell just by looking at the results. They had to report "N/A" in so many of the sub-groups for AA respondents, it's apparent they had a very small sampling.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results polls#CAI02p1

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 04:45PM | 0 recs
There was also a DKos diary pointing

out the problems with Shanikka's analysis...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 05:07PM | 0 recs
louis...

got the link handy?  i only go over there when i have a direct link.

by canadian gal 2008-11-08 05:08PM | 0 recs
Links...

I don't like going to DKos...but for you going back and finding these links..:)

Shanikka's diary :
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 1/7/34645/1235/704/656272

Looks like the original diary was deleted by the author because he figured out something wrong with his math. But here's the link to his comments with Shanikka's..

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/11 /7/34645/1235/1835#c1835

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Links...

It wasn't just Shanikka. Nate Silver and Chris Bowers both heavily emphasized that people should take exit polls with a grain of salt. I don't have Bowers link. Here'sthe link

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/t en-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit.ht ml

One of the key things he points out is what Shanikka was getting at, but many of the posters, not understanding polls didn't and still don't get. Polls are only as good as they understand their demographics and their assumptions, and as Nate says:

"4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample -- essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place -- in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws."

and he adds:

"1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys."

This is relevant because if the MOE is high, what seems like 71 percent could actually just be 51 percent if the MOE is considered. Why does this matter? Because that number is more in accord with pre election polling of AAs done by SUSA in CA which showed 45 in favor of yes, and 45 in favor of no and 10 percent undecided.

In other words, there was no greater statistical variance from white to blacks as the exit polling suggested.

The main problem with the polling data is that rather than treating it as a data point comparing all others many took the data as verbatim to be right.

This matters both in the "blacks are at fault", in the outreach efforts to AA communities  who may or may not be persuadable but we would never know, and generally in people understanding what tey can and can not extrapolate from polling data.

These are the same reasons that in 2000 and 2004 the data was considered such an unreliable indicator. Its funny how fast we all forget.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Links...

ok, I'm a statistician.  And these arguments aren't nearly as convincing as you might like.  First, taking every n^th person exiting a polling place actually produces a smaller standard error--not a larger one--than a simple random sample.  Second, unless there is a systematic bias in missing some persons every so often, say taking the n+k^th person, where k is not random, this sort of sampling introduces no bias whatsoever and can only increase the standard error of any estimate up to the same value as would be obtained under simple random sampling.

Now, as for the clustering issue, true, but only partially.  Clustering of observations artificially reduces standard errors, but generally not by even close to as much as you're claiming (50-90%).  Furthermore, so long as the sample is large, the MOE will be small anyway, so even a 50% increase wouldn't amount to much.

All in all, these arguments are overblown.  The fact is that the vast majority of AA's voted for prop 8.

by slynch 2008-11-08 07:47PM | 0 recs
My comments were directed at

Shanikka's analysis...Willysnout did a good job in commenting...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/11 /7/34645/1235/1936#c1936

Lynch already had commented on Nate Silver's comments...

As a LIP, I let the experts talk...:)

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

That was a flawed analysis.  See my comment below.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

Are you referring to Shanikka's analysis? I disagree. its very relevant if her over all point that the CNN exit poll got the demographics of the state wrong. Why? Because polling relies on distributional issues if you are going to use precincts as your indicators (but randomly sampled precints). If you don't address the issue of AA distribution you will overweight their vote and underweight as i understand it the votes of others.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

If that's your argument, then you are arguing that every poll ever done is flawed.

Read my comment.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

No its my view that using exit polling to examine subgroups in a greater poll is difficult to do especially when exit polling in general is difficult to do. remember the polling you are defendind did in fact get the eventual top line wrong. YOu can say thats MOE, but the problem is that the MOE of the subgroup or cross tab here is huge. I am also saying when faced with real life data you don't ignore it even favor of the polling data. If the polling data as Shanikka said claimed the black population is 10 percent when in fact its 6- you don't keep arging the polling is right. I read your coment. It's just kind of besides the point because I am talking about the testable nature of assumptions, not merely whether on some theorectical level we should follow the assumptions. Stats are meaningful when bcked u by data that shows them to have accurate predicted what is the case. Not just because according the math you think theyare right.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

It was within 0.1% of the final result.  How is that a significant error?

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

What Shanikka said was that African-Americans made up only 6.2% of the population.  Why does that invalidate the poll?  African-Americans went to the polls in record number all around the country.  Why is 10% in California inconceivable.

And remember this...that 6.2% is also an estimate.  Just like a polling outcome.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

She did more than that. She went into the demographics and questioned whetner when you consider the actual voting population was it feasible? Ie, she broke it down according to of age to vote, then according to other factors until she pointed out the actual percentage of eligible voters. Then she questioned whether the voter turnout was 100 percent of that total to even break it down further. In one case, she took the numbers from one heavy black population to find turn out was higher but was still like maybe 60 percent?? In other words, I don't know if she's exactly right, but it was extremely smart way to test the mathatical assumptions. What she basically did was to reduce each time the numbers according to demographic realities-- ie, in one case reducing it by the number of people with fellony records, decresing as I said by outshall black outcome in districts that are heavilyblack etc. Like I said, I don't know if her numbes were right. I just kn ow that they certainly provided a clear method to test what are essentially assumptions on your part and the pollsters. When given a choice between her method and the pollsters, I trust hers because its dealing with real world numbers.

By th eway , the pollster who predicted Obama's win in Iowa later  predicted ealry on Obama GE win in IN. She did so by closely looking at the actual demographics and breaking it down. She explained it to nate. I can't remember the article. The important take away that I gathered from reading the pollster is that no one really does or few really does what she does.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

She's not dealing with real world numbers.  She's dealing with estimates.  She's basing her numbers on polling data and estimates as well!

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

what estimates were involved in the CNN exit data?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

The polling data is an estimate of the population data.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

by the way- her sources are in fact the US Census

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

That data is a population estimate based on a survey.  I actually checked out her sources.  Did you?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACS SAFFFacts?_event=Search&_lang=en& ;_sse=on&geo_id=04000US06&_state =04000US06

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

Yes I did, but i made the in correct view that the estimate was close to actual population

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

Apparently, you don't remember the Bush-Census-sampling data fight in 2000-1.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS /stories/12/20/bush.census.reut/index.ht ml

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

okay dont gloat I said you were right

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

The reaason why her numbers mattered to me was that it provided  way to break down the maximum possible pool of AA voters in CA, and against which you could check to see if that number could in fact be 10 percent of the voters on Tues.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

It would require a massive turnout of black voters.  However, the diarists estimates are estimates of estimates of estimates.  What was African-American turnout in other places?

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

They are based on actual populations rather than polling which are less than estimates.  The fact you have to ask what was the turn out in other places rather than being able to accurately say what it was in CA is sort of the point.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

No, it's not the point.

This is how you judge your sample data.  You compare it to others.  If you are sample depends on a model of voter turnout that doesn't make sense, then it must be wrong.  One way to know if your model for voter turnout is wrong is to look at voter turnout in other places.  If AA turnout in the rest of the country was 50% and the model used by the pollsters in CA depended on 90% turnout, then the pollsters are probably wrong, given that turnout in other states was very different.

These are all estimates.  Polls are estimates of reality.  You compare them to as many different estimates of reality as you can to see how accurate you are.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

I think we disagree on this point. i can see where a model can be right for one state, but not for another. thats my only point on this particular issue with the comparing state to other states. you can generally say a higher turnout maybe based on circmstancses, but not clear to you can do much more than that

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

You can't apply a CA model to say WV, which has a tiny AA population or to GA, which has a substantial AA population.

But if you want to see if your turnout model is accurate, you can compare it to others.  If your model estimates bigger changes than others, you might want to investigate these differences.

In stats, you are making inferences about the population based on sample data. You want as much information as possible to make the best decision possible.  Looking outside your population for comparison is appropriate.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

I stll think its weird if its race related that MI with a higher  AA population (if the data I got is right) would have a less homophobia than CA with a lower AA population if it were some how culturally specific to AAs. Maybe there is something about CA?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

Obama turned out a lot of new voters this time that wouldn't have voted in 2004.  I think that may explain some of it.

by psychodrew 2008-11-09 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: There was also a DKos diary pointing

Or perhaps another possibility is that the religous element in the AA community has reacted more strongly in the 4 years since 2004?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:43PM | 0 recs
That Kos diary is wrong....

...on the validity of the poll.  I agree that there weren't enough African-American votes to push it over the top.

The author attacked the sampling method because CNN did not disclose the location of the polls that were sampled.  She said that the distribution of ethnic groups across California is not equal so the sample was biased.  What the author does not realize is that randomly sampling accounts for that.  If the sample precincts were randomly chosen from the population using a correct sampling procedure, then the sample should be representative of the population.

This isn't a just a concern in California.  It's a concern everywhere.  Each state has region differences that have to be accounted for in the polling sample.  What CNN did is normal, accepted procedure.

That said, sometimes mistakes are made.  The best way to tell that your sample is wrong is to look at your data.  Let's compare the data in the CNN poll to the actual results.  In CNN's exit poll, 52.46% of respondents voted yes on proposition 8 and 47.54% voted no.  In the actual breakdown of votes, 5.4 million voted for (52.38%) and 4.9 million (47.62%) voted against.  The exit poll was about as close to the end results as you possibly get.

Another way to see if your sample and data are good is to see if your data correlates well with things that you would expect.  Let's look at how other groups--not African-Americans--responded in the poll.  If the poll is good you would expect more conservatives, more Republicans, more Bushies to vote for.  And you would expect more liberals and younger votes to cast ballots against.  What do the data tell us?  Republicans voted for, Democrats and independents against.  Voters over 30 for, voters under 30 against.

Let's summarize what we've found.  This poll accurately predicted the outcome.  In the social sciences, we say that it would have excellent predictive validity.  The poll also contained data that we would expect to find, based on other polls and other elections.  We would say it has excellent convergent validity.

But that's not enough.  Maybe we should compare this poll to other exit polls.  Fortunately (actually unfortunately), we can.  There was also a gay marriage amendment in Florida.  In California, the racial breakdown for those casting yes votes was 49% for whites, 53% for Latinos, and 70% for African-Americans.  The Florida exit poll found similar results with 60% for whites, 64% for Latinos, and 71% for African-Americans.  Just for fun, let's take a look at the predictive validity of the Florida poll.  The exit found that 62.46% of voters supported amendment 2 and 37.54% opposed it.  The finally tally was 62.01% for and 37.99% against.  Another strong result.

We can argue about what the polls mean, and we can argue about how to handle the data, but the idea that the poll itself is flawed just isn't true.  The author of that diary at Kos is just wrong.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:27PM | 0 recs
I want Prof. Lynch to weigh in on this

he is a demographic expert...lynch, are you reading?

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I want Prof. Lynch to weigh in on this

I am now, but I'm late.  Drew is dead on on all counts--good explanation Drew!  The Kos diary is, to be blunt, BS.  But you already knew this Louis!

The short of it is that African Americans overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, no matter how you slice it.  I'm 100% convinced by the exit polls.  I might agree that the standard errors (MOE, ultimately) may be broader than claimed, but not substantially so.

by slynch 2008-11-08 07:58PM | 0 recs
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in

this. This is a highly emotionally charged issue. I think two different issues are getting conflated and confused.

  1. African-Americans voted in majority in support of Prop 8 ban.
  2. African-Americans are (solely) responsible for Prop 8 ban passage.

Conclusion 1) is right in light of CNN exit poll, 2) is wrong in light of CNN exit poll.

The interesting thing is the "last minute swing" in favor of the Prop 8. The actual poll results are significantly dissimilar to the pre-poll data. The exit poll however accurately reflected the actual outcome.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Again, as Nate Silver said and I l ink to him above, I belive you to be wrong about this. First, the most important mistake is that you assume that they could have a random sample:

" Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys."

It is number one on his list of why we should not in fact trust exit polling to be accurate.

More than this, She is absolutely right as to checking actual data against polling assumptions. The fact they assume 10 percent of the population should raise flags since in fact it is actualy 6.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/t en-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit.ht ml

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Nate wrote that before the election.  And I haven't seen anything since.

The 2004 exit polls overstated Kerry's vote.  This poll nailed it down to one tenth of a percent.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

The timing of the article is irrelevant to the quesiton he raises about the things you are using as arguments to claim the polling results were in fact close if not correct. It was on the same day of the election. I doubt many of his problems with exit polling data will changed since just 4 days ago.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

After all the criticism pollsters took in 2004, you don't think that they didn't make changes to their methodology?  Of course they did.

Nate wrote that article before the results came in.  I would love to see is thoughts on it now.  But the best way to judge the validity of a poll is to compare it's prediction to the outcome.  And this poll was very very close.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I am not trying to figure out what ifs. I deal with what has been proven. Stats are one piece of a bigger picture of proof. If someone gives me a set of numbers, I test them if Ican against whats out there. If someone said the population again is 10 percent, nd its 6. That matters a lot especially given the MOE and set of assumptions about distribution.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

What are you talking about?

The best point of comparison is the prediction and the outcome?  What else do you compare the poll to?  

And just out of curiosity, what is the "set of assumptions about distribution"?

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

so you are saying that if the overall numbers are with in the MOE that its impossible for the internals on a subgroup to be wrong?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

This poll wasn't just within the MOE.  It nearly hit the nail on the head.  It was certainly better than the pre-election polling.

Is it possible the pollsters over-sample African-Americans?  Certainly.  But did they oversample Yes on 8 African-Americans?  If they did, then they must have undersampled Yes on 8 Whites or Latinos people somewhere else to get such an accurate outcome in the total sample.  It's more likely that they oversampled African-Americans evenly across the two groups.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

it was off by at least 5 points.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

What was off by five points?  The outcome?

The poll predicted 52.46% yes and 47.54% no.  The actual vote was 52.38% yes and 47.62% no.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Okay you are right about several points. Let me go back to relook at the data. I did misunderstand seveeral points.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

remember my point here isn't that there aren't a lot of blacks who are homophobic but to question the assumption that its signfiicantly, as iin 20 points mroe than the rest of the population.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I understand that.  I would prefer that this be a polling error, too.  

But you have three things working against that.  First, as I pointed out, similar results were found in Florida.  Second, the rest of the internals were consistent with what you would expect to find.  Third, the poll accurately predicted the final outcome.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

No it wasn't preference - just my misunderstanding of the data. I do however think its odd that it would be more homophobic in Ca than MI

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I understand your point, but I wouldn't look at it like that.  You are comparing CA 2008 to MI 2004.

AA turnout was much, much higher this year.  This was a historic election for the AA community.  There were a lot of people who had never voted before and didn't understand the issues as well.

Also remember that the 2004 exit polls were very wrong.  They way over-sampled Kerry supporters.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

well the later part is certainly true. In one exit interview one white woman- a teacher said she had no problem with gay marriage, but didn't want gay issues taught in school. I was dumbfounded that after everything in the press a teacher would say that and especially considering she knows the laws of CA wouldn't allow teaching anyhthing that a parent doesn't specifically endorse. Then again maybe she was just lying.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

The most important element that matters here is your thesis about random sample. This is the very thing he is questioning regarding all exit polling data. This is th ething that is at the heart of Shanikka's critique. if the sampling is wrong, you aren't goingto get the close or even right results.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

But they got the right results.  How would they have gotten results that accurately predicted the results within 0.1% of the outcome if the sampling was flawed?

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Better question is how could they predict AAs as 10 percent of th epopulation when in fact they aren't for the purposes of voting?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

The didn't predict AA's as 10% of the population.  African-Americans made up 10% of the sample in the exit poll.  

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I must have gotten that number wrong.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I think your number is right.  The terminology was confusing.  In the exit poll, African-Americans made up 10% of the sample.  The diarist at Kos argued that there weren't enough African Americans registered to vote in California to make up 10% of the electorate.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:49PM | 0 recs
Actually Shanikka herself was wrong

in assuming AA population as 6% by assuming the census population percentage. When considering the registered voters in CA (and not the total population) the percentage is nearabouts 8%...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Shanikka herself was wrong

the estimates i see are 6.7 in 2005. not sure what it is now.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:12PM | 0 recs
Actually my point was that amongst registered

voters the percentage is more close to 8%.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 09:18PM | 0 recs
Actually her analysis made a faulty assumption

about linking actual population to registered voters.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

nate isn't completely right about the clustering bit.  It's still a random sample, but observations aren't completely independent, so each 'case' is not providing a complete piece of unique information.  It does not, however, inflate the MOE that much, especially if (1) the sample is reasonably sized, (2) the case per cluster ratio is not large, and (3) the number of clusters is large.

It absolutely does NOT lead to biases.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:02PM | 0 recs
(1) is the problem
The sample size for CA AA's is roughly 134, which is way to small to make national inferences about tolerance.
by Neef 2008-11-08 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

which is exactly what people are doing. The media is running with this theme. I've seen multiple articles in both the gay and straight press witht he blacks versus gays theme.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

no, actually it isn't too small.  It yields about an 8% margin of error, tops.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:16PM | 0 recs
That's silly
I realize that the calculated sampling error is roughly 8%. But that's meaningless unless the sample is representative of the population.

I can ask 1000 Alaskans which season they prefer, and assume that the answer will be within 3% of what Floridians would say. I'd be wrong to do so.

by Neef 2008-11-08 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

your post doesn't make any sense.  If the sample is some variant of a simple random sample of Californians, then it is representative of Californians.  End of discussion.  No one claimed it represented Alaskans, Floridians, or any other population.

The MOE is 8%, tops.  The sampling error is smaller.  It is simply (at most) sqrt(.5*.5/n).

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

actually this is where you really go off the deep end. Apparently you haven't been reading the news lately because that is exactly whats appearing in the press.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I was never talking about the news or about the nation.  The issue was whether the sample size was sufficient for representing Californians.  It was.

Could we make some statement about the entire population of blacks from it?  Not statistically.  But, as I said above to you, unless there's a good reason to believe black Californians differ from blacks elsewhere, I think the results are suggestive.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

an as I said not if you look at MI in 2004 where a similar meassure passed.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

for the record I am perfectly willing to believe you on the numbers. but when you start overstating what we can extrapolate or claim that basically all blacks are the same across the US - you lose me.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I think it's suggestive.  I wouldn't hang my hat on it, bet the farm, etc.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

others are betting the farm and running with the narrative. more than that they are ignoring counter vailing data points. I am not sure those points are right for MI as I told Drew, but they certainly paint a different statistical picture for the measure that passed ther ein 2004.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

well, keep in mind that that was four years ago.  If I were going to bet on whether 55% of blacks in the country are anti-gay-marriage based on a Michigan poll from 2004 or 75% are, based on a CA poll from 2008, I'd probably trust the more recent one more.

Preferably, I'd get national level data.  Come to think of it, the General Social Survey (a cross-sectional survey done every other year) asks respondents about their views of gay marriage.  I may take a look at those data and write a diary tomorrow.

by slynch 2008-11-08 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

and there in lies the problem with being a theorist. if you think the exit polls would be more representative of such a huge increase across the nationa today that than 4 years ago then I got a good bridge to sell you. well they do say stats can prove anything and i guess you just prove that to me. like i said, tio e for bed. nice convo. have a good nite. thanks.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 09:08PM | 0 recs
I don't think Lynch is saying what you're

thinking he is saying...I don't think he is suggesting extrapolating CA data to a national level inference.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I'm not a theorist.  Theory just justifies what I'm saying about the results.

What, however, would justify your claim that exit polls from 4 years ago would be better than exit polls from last week?  And how would you interpret the difference?  I'm just curious, because I really don't have a position on that.

BTW, you can't "prove" everything with statistics any more than you can with words.  Lots of people may use statistics incorrectly to try to 'prove' a point, but there are right and wrong interpretations and uses of statistics, just like there are right and wrong uses of logic in sentences.

by slynch 2008-11-09 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

If you believe you can justify making a judgement about roughly 12 percent fo the populaton baseed on a polling in one state of less than 300 people then you are theorist . Nothing you are really are going nto say that going to convince me you arent.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I agree with you--nice conversation.  I had to go to bed too.  I had a splitting headache from having just a little too much beer at a dinner party last night.

First, I never said that you could take the CA results and make any definitive statement about the rest of the country.  I said it was suggestive, but national polling would be required.  Certainly, data from 2004 MI are no better, and in some ways worse, because they're dated.  You're defying simple logic to suppose otherwise.

Second, the thought that, because I use infinite population statistical theory to justify that the CA poll was valid (defined by having a quasi-random or simple random sample) and reliable (the extent of the reliability being defined by the MOE) does not make me a theorist.  I'm a VERY applied statistician, and everyone who knows me would find the argument that I'm a theorist laughable!  In fact, I'm occasionally criticized for not being more theoretical.

Third, "theory" doesn't have the same meaning in statistics, nor science more generally, as the colloquial use of the term.  This is actually part of the problem with the evolution debate.  "Theory" in science means some statement about the world that has stood the test of time and has not been debunked (disproven). It's as close to "proven" as you can get. In math, theory is even stronger--it is a proven statement.  In other words, the theory behind polling is proven and not subject to debate.  What is debatable--and is often is criticized/questioned is (1) whether polling was done right, and (2) whether claims are made that are not supported by the polling data.  I argued that the pollng looks like it was done right in CA.  And I argued that, given the polling was done right, you could trust what the data had to say about black Californians.  That's all.  In terms of extrapolating beyond CA, I said that it was suggestive that perhaps nationally blacks overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.  But, I'm not married to that statement, because I don't have the data to be firm about that conclusion.

As I said, I may look at GSS data today (I have to extract some anyway for some unrelated analyses I'm doing) and write a diary about it.

If I had to make a firm statement about the blacks' views on gays throughout the country in the meantime, I would say that the truth is probably somewhere between the MI poll you cite and the CA poll we've been discussing.  There was clearly a strong GOTV effort in CA to mobilize blacks to vote for prop 8, so the CA numbers may be a little high for the country.  But even your MI poll showed majority support among blacks against gay marriage.

by slynch 2008-11-09 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

a) The point of using the 2004 data is to understand that what you are saying in context seems far fetched, and to make you question why people would be come more homophobic rather than less. The same factors which would have made the AA community homophobic  were present then, and in fact given the first impression on the issue, would have been eve n more powerful a motivator. I've gone beyond the numbers into common sense because I am a black guy territory. There are somethings you can argue with me, and somethings being a member of the community in question I am just not going to believe. Telling me that black folks changed their mind to tune of 20 percent in 4 year is one of those things I am not going to believe.

b) It's the same issue I have with this polls internals that show black men are less homophobic than blck women. I simply don't believe that. This is one fo those "wait how can this poll be right " I don't want it means, but it does make me question the sample no matter how much you point to numbers. Its counterintuitive that black men are less homophobic than women.

c) I am not using science here. I am using everyday conversation. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but don't do so by resorting to parsing of words. The point is that when confront with data that you can't explain- what did you do with that data? Ie, Michigan "well it must be bad data." Why must it be bad data? It is more likely countervailing data. You may ask why is this important- because then it raises the very real question of whether the vote on Tues was what people believe or whether it was a community that no one bothered to reach so the so called blacks are unusually more homophobic meme is in fact a reflection of a lack of messaging rather than real views on the subject. The reason why I provided you the anecdote regarding the woman who believed that her voting No on 8 would result in her children being forced to be taught about homosexuality in school is that it demonstrate what your polling numbers are not telling me.

You seem t be very good with numbers, but I am balancing off what yo know with what I know from interaction with people, many of them conservative or middle of the road. Sometimes things are what they believ,e and sometimes things are just knee jerk reactions because of messaging . Hence my comment about Obama's performance in places in which 4 years ago the Democrats were killed. I know you aren't discussing these things. But this is a wider discussion than the numbers.

However in term s of the numbers I now have a better since of where my question marks are. Like I said, to even say this is suggest is where I start to realize you are going off the rail. You may not realize you are. But I do because to say it is suggestive is to say if you found the same numbers among white people in one state is suggestive of all white people. Most people would look at you like you are over extending your argument.

c) No one ever said that blacks did not vote for prop on 8 in the majority. The question is whether the numbers are that much out of whack with other voters. For example,  If 52 percent of white men are voting yes, and 58 percent of blacks are voting yes, that's a big differenced than saying 75 percent of blacks are voting in a way that 52 percent of white men are not voting.

The point of these numbers is what narrative is driven. hence again the comparative numbers with MI.

d) It was not simply GOTV. It was messaging or lack there of. A refusal to even send out flyers as millons of flyers were sent to black homes saying that Obama supported Prop 8.  Using anti prop 8 black ministers. canvasssing in black neighors by pro prop 8 people. Meanwhile none of it met by any similar efforts by No on 8. The purpose of understandign these numbers is to start to dig deeper than people have done. My example continues to be how Democrats performed this time in several states like IN than last time simply because we showed up. My guess, but i have no proof, I would bet if the MI numbes are right, it is because people campaigned against the anti marriage effort in black areasa of the state.

Going back to the issue- the point is whether blacks are more homophobic not whether they are similar to others. The question is what can the numbers tell us in any meaningfulw ay about the larger questions being asked. That's the point fo diaries like this.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I have now downloaded the GSS data and have looked quickly at some numbers before going to lunch.  Right off the bat, the closest measure on homosexuality that the GSS has is a question regarding whether homosexual sex is ok (or not).  Over the last 8 years, the proportion of blacks saying that homosexual sex is ok has DECLINED slightly, while the proportion of whites saying that homosexual sex is ok has INCREASED DRASTICALLY.  Specifically, in the early 1970s, about 10% of blacks thought it was ok; that percentage peaked in 2000 at about 20% and has declined since to about 17%.  For whites, about 10% said homosexual sex was ok; that percentage has increased to about 35% with no real change in the long term trend.  This suggests to me that it is quite reasonable that the proportion of blacks disagreeing with homosexual marriage has increased from '04 to '08.  As for whether it is reasonable to have increased from, say 55-75%, I don't think so.  I think that's a difference between MI and CA polls, perhaps in method, and perhaps in terms of the specific measures the votes were about.

On the rest, common sense is very often wrong.  I will take what polling data say over any individual's anecdotal 'life experience' every day, and there's really no rational reason not to.  I have common sense also.  I just don't rely excluxively on it when confronted with representative data.  You don't get to dismiss data simply because you don't want to believe it.  As I said last night, the CA data show a large difference between the support for prop 8 across race.  You don't get to deny that just because you want to.  I showed what the MOE was, based on the sample size, and there's clearly a substantial difference.

I don't find it counterintuitive at all that black men would be less homophobic than black women.  Black women are more threatened by it, because it reduces their chances of finding a black man to marry.  There is an established research literature on this topic.  Your personal beliefs or experience don't outweigh it.

As for word parsing--you're the one doing that.  You've taken what I said out of context.  My "MI data are bad data" comment regarded whether MI data from '04 have any bearing on CA in '08 (they don't).  In other words, '04 MI data are bad data for making statements about '08 CA.  But, as I said above, it does look like blacks have become less accepting of homosexuality, not more, over the last 8 years or so.  So the pattern is consistent with these national level data.  As I said, maybe I'll write a diary about this if I have time later in between working on a few other projects that actually feed me and pay my mortgage!

on (c),

by slynch 2008-11-09 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

Part of the issue here is you making up your own arguments to back up the numbers as you see them rather than just talking about the numbers. Thus, you give the sense of legitimacy through numbers, but then you say things that are not at all substantiated by your guesses. They are just guesses. Hence, why I trust my instincts more than just relying on your views of the numbers or certainty.

I am not going to go back and forth through your whole post, but let me comment on just a few off top my head.

a) On homosexual sex, for example, you mention decline by capitalizing it,b ut then ignore that you also add slightly. 20 points difference between 2004 and 2008 is not slight.  Yet the variance in views about homosexual sex has declined by only 3 points. More than this, your numbers when you think about it does not make much sense in terms of correlation since more people voted No on 8 despite the overall numbers in homosexual sex. These numbers aren't  at all consistent as you present them with your thesis. As you say, on MI versus CA, you don't know. but taking your numbers on their own terms- there is no way your measure would give us any real idea of whats happening. That's why I fall back to what you call annecdote versus your random guessing based on a minor shift in views of homosexual sex. I get your point- that  the decline doesn't need to correlate perfectly, but you are still just guesing at this point. I get the feeling thats a hard thing for you to accept that you are doing given your certainty over the math in CA.

b) You offer no counter at all regarding black men voting on gay marriage in lesser numbers of yes votes than black women other than more random guessing. You then criticize my guessing by saying that you trust the numbers more. But then, you didn't off any numbers. Just your own guessing. I do get to deny the overarching things you are others are setting into narrative. You di not even bother to respond to my critique of other things you said.

c) Please ahead and work on other stuff. I thinkw are at an impasse. You refuse to admit to the limitations of what your numbers can tell you. I have my instincts that its not telling us very much. Both for the reasons I cite and those of others who have my instincts about their meaningfulness.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

you're being intentionally obtuse, continuing to claim I'm arguing things I am not claiming.  You can't beat the argument with logic nor data, so you're just making stuff up about what I'm saying and trying to confuse the issues.  

I've shown the CA data are not questionable.  The least proportion of blacks that supported prop 8 was around 70%, based on the MOE.  That greatly exceeds the support from any other group.  It isn't even close.

I've said that MI data from '04 are not better for predicting CA opposition to gay marriage than the CA data.

I've said that neither are good for making national level conclusions about the topic for several reasons, and I said that at the national level, the truth is probably somewhere between the two sets of data.

Then, using national data, I said that the proportion of blacks believing homosexual sex is ok has declined slightly over the last 8 years, while the proportion of whites believing the same has increased substantially.  This pattern is consistent with what I said could have happened:  that blacks had become less supportive of homosexual marriage.  But I even said that it was only consistent--I didn't say it proved anything.

What have you offered?  Your anecdotal and common sense beliefs, the argument that I'm some sort of theorist, as if that indicates anything at all (it doesn't, and you were wrong about it), and, I believe, willful distortions of what I've said.

So, how about this:  you keep believing what you want to.  It doesn't seem that you want to really know what the truth is or might be.

Just keep in mind that, for me, I have no vested interest in this issue.  I'm a straight white progressive male, and I don't live in CA nor MI.  So what's my motivation for making stuff up?  I only started making comments in the first place because, as a professor who teaches nothing but statistics, I get tired of people attacking polling methods and statistics without understanding what the hell they're talking about.

Personally, I have no real vested interest in this issue--I am emotionally detached from it.

by slynch 2008-11-09 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

The obtuse part is where we move from one question to another and you continut to act as if we are n teh first question.

The question wasn't whether MI data proves anything about CA- it was whether it suggests your overall "suggestive" comments about the entirity of the US black population based on 300 interviews is really suggestive at all.  I offered you data regarding MI, and your response so far is that it must be wrong or to provide me irrelevant data bout views on gay sex.

I always love the "I am detached" statements. Detached people don't write the way you do and certainly not at the length you do. I don't pretend to be detached. I pretend to know something more than what you are making up based on 300 interviews about the entire black population of the US.

Like I said, you were able to almost convince me regarding CA until you went off the deep end here with the over arching stuff about the entirety fo the US.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I give up.  You're still making up stuff I didn't say.  I never said the CA polls extended to the entire US.

I'm done talking with you.  You're dishonest.

by slynch 2008-11-09 07:52PM | 0 recs
Sorry it came to this...I agree with you that

CA polls cannot be extrapolated to the entire US. Does not make sense. And repeatedly you explicitly stated so. I don't know why he kept insisting that you said otherwise.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-10 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry it came to this...I agree with you that

yeah, I'm sorry it did too.  After a while, though, it felt like he was taking tidbits of what I was saying, piecing them together into what he wanted to hear, and then attacking it.  Intentionally trying to not understand what I was saying.

Oh well.  Good to see you Louis.

by slynch 2008-11-10 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry it came to this...I agree with you that

Nice to see you too. Come and visit us at MM sometimes too.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-10 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

by the way, I haven't even unleased my full arsenal of arguments against your position- because you can not explain how then states like Oregon passed such measures overwhemling despite your claim that whites are more receptive of gays.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I don't have a position other than that blacks are more strongly against homsexual marriage in CA than whites, based on the CA data.  You're putting words into my mouth.

And, the argument that blacks are more anti-gay than whites does not logically lead to the conclusion that whites support gays.  Whites can oppose gays at a 55% level, while blacks oppose gays at a 75% level.  They're both opposed, but blacks are more so.  Neither are particularly receptive, and legislation will get passed with these margins.

by slynch 2008-11-09 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I am not putting words into your mouth. I am using the construction of your argument as they are being presented. You also continue to overstate your case. Which is my only point.

by bruh3 2008-11-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
He didn't do that, you have been misreading him...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-10 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

ah, I see--you said something about national inference above.  I wasn't claiming that.  But, actually, if the sample were a random sample of US residents, the MOE would be the same.  Doesn't depend on the population size; only the sample size.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

his point is that people are using this for the entire US not just this particular electoral outcome. WHich even if true actually doesn't tel  us much about what blacks think of gay marriage because no one tried to persuade them as voters except the Yes on 8 Campaign which activiely campaigned in the communities of color for months. You are above my paygrade when it comes to the nubmers, but on the narratives forming, and on what happened prior to the vote in Nov 4th I am certain about what has been said and done. ie, many said even before the vote that blacks wouldn't vote for us so they didn't bother to canvass. you can read an article by the Nation on that subject.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

yeah, yeah.  I agree with you about the narratives, etc.  I'm only arguing the numbers.  And, I am disappointed that blacks in CA voted so heavily for prop 8.  Disgusted, actually.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: That's silly

I don't understand that.  This is politics. I fyou don't compete, then the other side controls the narrative.

Were you disgusted when in state that Kerry didn't compete in 2004 people voted for Bush by 20 points or more? Versus 2008 when Obama did compete in those states he won them and/or came close or signinficantly closed the gap between the Kerry performance>?

This is essentially what happened in CA. The No on 8 campaign refused to compete with the yes on 8 in the communities of color. They didn't even canvass there. You may dislike Shanikka on the numbers but she discusses and the Nation discusses the absolute failure of the campaign to compete. If you leave  a message vaccuum what do you expect normal voters to do?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:59PM | 0 recs
Well, the discussion has been

about a national inference, so I was referring to it in that context. But it's pretty clear that the sampling itself is bad. Look at the numbers:

black women voted 75% for the proposition at 6% of the sample. Total blacks voted 70% at 10%. By extension, black men voted 62% at 4% of the sample. That is a 13 point male female swing for blacks.

It's 4 points for Whites, 2 points for Hispanics. For both Whites AND Hispanics the male vote was higher than the female.

But for blacks, the gap is three times as large, in the opposite direction? Come on.

There is something wonky with this sample, and without the actual data set I can't tell what.

by Neef 2008-11-08 08:59PM | 0 recs
In the CNN poll there was no inference

about black men voting pattern was made presumably because of insufficient data. You are now projecting conclusions which the Exit poll did not make.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results polls#val=CAI01p1

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 10:07PM | 0 recs
It's simple math

not inference.

Women were 6% of the sample, blacks were 10%. The blacks number clearly is different from the women number, and clearly includes men. The votes of the men is determined by the difference between the women's vote and the total vote.

by Neef 2008-11-09 05:03PM | 0 recs
Yes I very know well that. Now you should know

why the Exit Poll did not make the same inference regarding Black male vote...thus you were projecting...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-09 05:27PM | 0 recs
Perhaps they have

a minimum sample size before they will state a percentage...who knows?

Do you have an alternate theory on what the black male vote is? Surely you can't say "they don't know" because they added it to the total black vote. The total black vote is the sum of the black male and black female votes. Knowing one tells us the other.

If the total black vote was the same as the total female vote, you could assume ignorance of the black male vote. Since they are different, you cannot. This isn't projection, it's fairly obvious deduction.

by Neef 2008-11-09 05:54PM | 0 recs
The sampling is representative of African

American per se but it is not true for black males as a subcategory. While black female vote sample was considered within the MOE of the poll but obviously the black male was not. Thus the exit poll added N/A for black male vote data. For you to extrapolate the African American sampling data to Black male data as a subcategory is wrong. Thus your projection that the Exit Poll says 62% of Black Males voted in support of Proposition 8 is wrong. The Poll does not make that conclusion as it does not have sufficient sample data to conclude that for the Black male subcategory.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-09 06:05PM | 0 recs
Now you're challenging the basis of sampling

methods...pretty bold I must say...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Now you're challenging the basis of sampling

No, I am defending it. Ask yourself this: If this were a single-day election poll with 134 sample, how much would you trust it?

Yet here we are renegotiating the relationship between two communities based on it. In light of that, don't you think a bit of skepticism is the more appropriate platform?

But it goes beyond that to what is pretty clearly a bad sample. See my response to slynch (right above this)

by Neef 2008-11-08 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

uhm MI which has a higher population than CA of AAs actually had the numbers in the mid 50s for AAs supporting the marriage amendment in 2004. I know Drew says apples and oranges, but this is one of those things that makes me put a big question mark on this especially when you overstate your case like this.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

I don't think we're having the same conversation.  I wasn't talking about MI, only CA.  If you were using 2004 MI data to make a claim about 2008 CA, I'd say your data are bad.  It's four years old and from the wrong population.  The CA polling data are the right data to be looking at, and they are more than sufficient to be convincing that 70+% of AA's supported the proposition.

by slynch 2008-11-08 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

so you think in 4 years that the black attitude on gay marriage has worsened to 70 percent when it was inthe mid 50s and that my data from actual exit polls in 2004 was bad, but this data in inf act correct?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

by bad data, I mean 2004 MI data isn't better than 2008 CA data for looking at CA in 2008.  I trust the CA data for telling us what the state is in 2008 in CA.  I don't know anything about the MI data nor the 2004 MI vote.  Frankly, both sets of data can be correct--and I'm sure they are.  The difference is most likely in question wording either in the exit poll, or possibly even in the nature of the MI law that was being voted-on vs. the CA proposition.

by slynch 2008-11-08 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

for record, before I go to bed, you had me until the last few comments. If you had said CA alone- then sure. If you had said maybe different statesw, different results. if you had said maybve the exit polls were off for some reasons and explained how they were wrong for MI. Sure. I might buy individal accounts. but when you say we can extrapolate or even suggest all blacks across the nation. nope lost me there.good night time for bed.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

I was saying CA alone, and I wasn't making any definitive claim beyond it.  

by slynch 2008-11-08 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: (1) is the problem

Thanks for the computation.

So, the 70% could be 62%, even in a "perfect" - do your best to be random poll.

Exit polls are not perfectly randomized - due to costs, they are done at a small mumber of precincts.

More importantly - exit polls do not cover the non-poll-going voters - mail-in votes. I am not sure how much they cover the early voters (a bit too expensive to have polsters at a fairly large number of polls across a state where some voting began Oct 6 http://rickshawdiaries.wordpress.com/200 8/09/29/early-voting-in-california/)

Again, I do not argue agains the statement that the AA polulation voted yes in higher numbers than whites. I do question the isue of by how much.
And, given that this entire  "AA's are bigots" flow of diaries in the democratic blogsphere are suggesting is based on one poll, I think people need to be a bit more cautious. What if the poll IS wrong? Enough polls are...

by lolo08 2008-11-08 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

By the way, I am not even adding to this the problem that all pollsters have of polling African Americans. I am also not adding to this the issue of whether the AAs would have been honest about their vote. There is a chance that some would have said they voted yes, when they voted no because they didn't want anyone to know. Black activists discussed this issue as well.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:49PM | 0 recs
Actually Drew, I'm very impressed with your

analysis..Are you working on demographic statistics or something? If so you should talk with Lynch or atleast see his book...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Drew, I'm very impressed with your

I have master's degree in psychology and I'm working on my PhD.  I know a little about polling and statistics.  Is this poll 100% accurate?  No.  Of course not.  There are social desirability issues with face-to-face interviews and no sample is 100% representative of the population.

But this poll's predicted outcome was very close to the actual outcome.  So it couldn't be that bad.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:52PM | 0 recs
I'm aware that you're working on your PhD...

I was wondering whether your research focus is demographic statistics...your analysis was impressive...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm aware that you're working on your PhD...

I don't study demographic statistics.  My lab does a lot of research where we need to target certain sub-groups.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:06PM | 0 recs
Goodluck on your PhD......

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 06:17PM | 0 recs
Thanks!

At this point, I'm going to need it.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Drew, I'm very impressed with your

yeah Drew, in case you missed it above, I said you had a great explanation.  good on you!  To bad you're in the wrong social science. :)

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

By the way, here's the results of looking at Michigan on the issue of gay marriage in 2004, and the breakdown of a highly segregated population fo blacks and whites:

"When the anti-gay-marriage amendment passed here in Michigan, the black communities in and around Detroit pretty much reflected the same opinion as the rest of the state. Wayne county (Detroit mostly) voted 54% for the measure while statewide the winning total was 58%. Only the counties of the major universities voted against the homophobic measure. The black community is no more homophobic than the population as a whole (here in Michigan)."

I can't find the link to this data so I can not verify it.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I read that.  I believe it.

Maybe the reason that it was different this time is because of the number of new voters.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Or maybe its not as simple as race when trying to determine whats happening. Or maybe the CNN exits were wrong and when you take the lower end of the probably larger MOE it was actually in line with this outcome in MI, but because people already have the CW that blacks are so much more homophobic, it's easier to just accept the unusally large number when compared to other polling data? I don't know. My point is to as Chris Bowers suggest  use all data as a data point rather than as conclusive.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

So lets take the poll data - 2240 total answers.
AA - 10%
70% of those is ~150 people
~50% would be ~115 people.

So the argument of "blacks passed" this proposition is based on < 40  as in FOUR ZERO people's answers.

Why exactly are we even discussing this as a representative result of "all" AA's?
In a statisitics research on votes of hundreds of thousands of people this is a ridiculous number.

by lolo08 2008-11-08 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

according to their mathmatical assumptions they say it isn't. which is mychief problem with the discussion as well.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

A sample size of 2240 people is pretty substantial.  The national daily tracking polls that we loved to monitor during the campaign usually had less than 1000.  And at the end of the day, the exit poll predicted a result that was only 0.1% off the final tally.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

ofcource 2240 is substantial.

But 224 (10%) is not from my stats knowledge a substantial enough sample of the AA vote.

And hence based on this figure only, the MoE would be very large.  

Anyway, I am not Nate & sincerely hope he will weigh in on this one.

by lolo08 2008-11-08 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

It wasn't a sample of AA Californians.  It was a sample of California.  2240 is pretty good.  And the poll accurately predicted the outcome!

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

How does that respond to the question about AAs in California? I suppose what would be nice is if someone actually focused on a poll of AAs in CA right now rather than trying to figure it out as a part of a greater polling data

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

In this case, we are talking about the proportion of African-Americans in the population of voters.  Looking at the entire sample is appropriate.

by psychodrew 2008-11-09 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

But it is not the outcome we are discussing is it?

We are discussing the 70% yes AA vote, which is larger than the other groups ~50% yes vote.

Had the AA vote in the poll been in the 50% range this diary and a whole bunch of others woudn't have been written.

So we need to ask ourselves how reliable is that 70% number. And this is where the ~220 AA respondents come in (10% out of 2240). My stats are a bit rusty, I admit, but for a population of several hundred thousand AA Californian's (not sure what the exact number is) and with a non-really random sample (exist polls are not perfectly random - they cannot account for mail-in ballots and a whole bunch of other stuff).  So if 220 a large enough sample for an MoE separating
50% from 70%? Not sure. Are you?

by lolo08 2008-11-08 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I am sure--the answer is yes, that sample size is sufficient, regardless of how large the population is.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:09PM | 0 recs
The inferences about AA tolerance
are based on the smaller subset, so effectively the poll is on 6% of 2240.
by Neef 2008-11-08 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

you can make extremely precise statements about infinitely large populations from fewer than 1000 people.  2240 is huge.  And the proportion for African Americans wasn't based on 40 people--it was based on the whole AA subsample.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

of again less than 300 respondent who are AA, not 2200

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

look, in a sample of 300 folks, the max margin of error would be for a proportion of .5, and that MOE would be:

1.96*sqrt(.5*.5/300)=.057.  5.7%.  And that's assuming the proportion in favor (or opposed) was at 50%.  Anything away from that point reduces the MOE.  Suppose it were 70%.  In that case, the MOE is .052.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:20PM | 0 recs
Except that the sample is only 134
The statement "blacks voted 70% for prop 8" is supported by 150ish responses in the case of CA, and slightly more in the case of FL.

There are several problems with this. First of all, imagine a national tracking poll using a single-day sample of 300 people. That's what we're using to derive the tendencies of blacks as a whole.

Second, you will note that the black vote was generally consistent with the Protestant vote. How many of these blacks were Protestant (I'll assume that they weren't Jewish or Catholic)? If many blacks were Protestant, then the predictive power of the "black poll" is way off, because it seems to assign homophobia to people of color, when it may in fact be assigned to religious people.

Thirdly, the actual difference between Blacks and Hispanics in FL was something like 71% to 66%. Do you really think that difference is outside the MOE with a sub-200 sample? Does the dialog change if FL Hispanics were the "most bigoted minority", or were there different requirements for them?

Bottom line, the exit poll is certainly enough to raise eyebrows. But there is some serious shit being tossed around, based on a poll we'd all ignore during the election.

by Neef 2008-11-08 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Exactly. Way too few respondents to accurately reflect the views of the larger group.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

not true.  You don't need a large sample to accurately predict a parameter for a population.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

then whats the difference between why people do not believe poling data of this size for other polls?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

let me rephrase- when polls are normally of such a small sample size, the common refrain by the pollster as well as poll analyzers is that the polling population is too small to know whether its is accurate or not. are you basing this solely on outcomes of the election?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

no, I'm basing it on theoretical statistics.

The margin of error tells you, with some pre-defined level of confidence (which is usually 95% in social science polling) what range you can really expect the true population value to fall in.  If the sample is small, the MOE will be broader than if it were a larger sample.  But the MOE is whatever they claim it to be, basically.

The reason people always say they don't want to trust small samples is because they don't understand the mathematics behind polling.  But, the fact is that you don't need large samples to make very accurate and precise statements.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

the person making the comment about greater actually referred to the MOE. His point was that since it was probably very large-- it could be anywhere if he had to randomly guess from plus or minus 5 or 10 points which would make it closer to other estimates, and as has been said here, that running with the wrong conclusion is bigger than the people who are misunderstanidn the polling here. It runs to people extrapolating the entire population fo the US.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I assume an infinite population.  These are infinite population statistics, not finite population statistics.  The MOE doesn't hinge on the size of the population, only the size of the sample.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

the person making the comment about greater actually referred to the MOE. His point was that since it was probably very large-- it could be anywhere if he had to randomly guess from plus or minus 5 or 10 points which would make it closer to other estimates, and as has been said here, that running with the wrong conclusion is bigger than the people who are misunderstanidn the polling here. It runs to people extrapolating the entire population fo the US.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

As far as the sub-groups, it's pretty suspect when so many of the stats have to be reported as "N/A". Either way, I don't really care or claim whether the poll is correct or not. I do think people are putting too much stock in this one poll, and focusing on just one group. But at the same time, I think there are things to be learned from the numbers in order to find a winning strategy next time this issue is on the ballot. (In other words, I don't care about the specifics, just the trends.)

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

agree 100 percent with this. The problem is the narrative. Before the election the white gay groups did nothing to reach out to the black community becaause tey pressumed that they couldn't be persuaded. I wonder if somehow they created a self made outcome by not competing for the AA vote that allowed the Yes on 8 to run up the numbers to a level they would not normally be. I am thinking now of the example of Obama versus Kerry's number and how by  simply competing he outcomes shifted in several states.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

Definitely. The strategy was terrible. Just as an example of reaching out to different audiences, I watch a lot of sports on TV, and a lot of Bravo. I saw a ton of No on 8 commercials while watching shows on Bravo (preaching to the choir). I saw zero No on 8 commercials while watching basketball games on ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and TNT. Bad strategy.

I live in a town that has low AA population, decent size gay population, and we voted No on 8. There was a lot of enthusiasm here, and I was blissfully unaware that the No on 8 ground game was even worse than their choice of advertising venues. This is a problem that the campaign will need to address. If the exit poll numbers help them figure out where they went wrong, that's good. If the numbers are just used to blame one group (when plenty of people of all demographics voted for 8), it's a waste of time and won't help develop a winning strategy for next time.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I don't claim that diary was right and really didn't read much of it myself. I can see that the poll is inherently flawed, so you can probably get some general trend data from it, but can't get reliable info about sub-groups. And the smaller the sub-group, the less reliable it is.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

thats actally what someoen else who said of the MOE- the best we can get from it is more likely than not AA s support ed 8. But thats about it.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

this is simply a false claim.  

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

so you are certain that the AA population in CA voted for Prop 8 by  75 percent based on 300 people?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:14PM | 0 recs
Less than 300
134 black women (6%) voted for it 75%. In order for the entire 10% of blacks to vote 70%, the missing 4% of black men must have voted 62% for it. So already, the "70% of blacks voted for it" is provably false, unless you posit that Californian black women outnumber black men by 3 to 2.
by Neef 2008-11-08 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than 300

actually, they probably do outnumber males 3/2.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than 300

That's voters, not the whole population. There is a wide gender disparity among AA voters.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 08:33PM | 0 recs
But we're talking about AA's as a whole.

Remember how that poll is being viewed. it's important to remember that.

by Neef 2008-11-08 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: But we're talking about AA's as a whole.

If you see any of my comments, I don't take much stock in the poll, and only think it's useful for overall trend data. But there is consistently a large gender gap in AA voter turnout, which is just one of those things that's good to be aware of when looking at stats.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than 300

yeah that part seems about right. more women voting than men. my only issue with it is the assumption that black men would be less homophobic than women.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than 300

yeah that part seems about right. more women voting than men. my only issue with it is the assumption that black men would be less homophobic than women.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

ok, so if the poll of 300 blacks said 75% voted for prop 8, I would say that I am 95% "certain" that the population value was between 75% +- 4.9%.  If you want me to be 99% certain, I'd say the MOE is +- 6.45%.

This assumes the sample is a simple random one (or systematic, which actually produces smaller variance), and that clustering has no effect (which can't be determined unless I know how many clusters, n per cluster, and a few other things.  But even then, I wouldn't say the MOE would increase more than 1 point.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

you are over my paygrade at this point. I am arguing my basic understanding of stats.

The deeper problem isn't whether or not the poll is theorectically right it is whether it inf act reflects what happened and more importantly what narrative has now formed in the black and gaycommunity. ie, that blacks across the US will vote 75 percenrt against gays.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: That Kos diary is wrong....

I trust the poll.  It looks like black Californians overhwlemingly supported prop 8.  I'd bet money (assuming my understanding of the polling method is correct--that they didn't do something funky I don't know about) that at least 70% of blacks in CA voted for it, based on the results.

I don't think that can be extrapolated to non-Californians, because the poll wasn't representative of folks outside the state.  But, unless one can explain how California AA's differ from AA's in other states, I think it is suggestive.

by slynch 2008-11-08 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

Oh so you went into black churches and tried to disuade them from voting yes, and know which churches incourged their members to vote yes?

by venician 2008-11-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Mormon LDS church actually organized

DFTT

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

I notice there is this game where if one criticize the Mormon Church, that is now being used by the Mormon Church, and I am guessing its supporters to pretend that this is discrimination. This argumennt is a little like saying anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy is anti jewish.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Braindead

Actually, I disagree with you on one point.  I think it would have made sense to target the Mormon church more.  The Courage Campaign came out with a great ad that asked why Californians should allow the national Mormon church to use tens of millions of dollars of contributions from outside California to break up California marriages, take away rights of Californians, and tell Californians how to live.  I thought it was a great ad.

by markjay 2008-11-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
I agree with you.

African-Americans and Mormons are not to blame.  Everybody who vote for the gay marriage bans is to blame.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 03:12PM | 0 recs
I agree 100%

And I'm furious with the formal Mormon church.  I just won't go so far as to blame "the Mormons."  It's too much.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%

But everyone who calls themselves "Mormon" supports the same organization that you are furious with, and in doing so, they are condoning their actions.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 03:26PM | 0 recs
No, there are some that do not

You need to meet more Mormons, apparently.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: No, there are some that do not

Know tons. Married to a former one. Try again.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%

You shouldn't assume that every "Mormon" supports the church financially.  Others may be working hard within the church to change hearts and minds.  I don't think it's a simple as you are making it.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%
If they're Mormons in good standing, they're supporting the church financially (unless they have serious finanical problems, in which case the church may be supporting them).
 
by LakersFan 2008-11-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%

I don't know the Mormon rules.  I just don't think that we should blame individual Mormons for the behavior of the institution.  There is no way of knowing their own private views on this and I don't think it helps us to attack them for it.

by psychodrew 2008-11-08 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%

If you dont know the mormon rules, shouldn't you learn them before forming an opinion about what is correct?

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100%

I know some of the rules. I know you can't be a member in good standing without tithing 10% of gross income. I'm not just making this up.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 06:58PM | 0 recs
Drew, you nailed it. n/t

by Koan 2008-11-09 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated]

You do know  your updated post doesn't address the point people are making, right? You are the one who wants to pretend there is no organized Mormon church, and hence linking BLacks with Mormons. One isn't organized, and the other is. That's why your diary is a little misleading to pretend the issue with both are the same.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 04:07PM | 0 recs
When I see people at Kos

Demanding a boycott of any company that HIRES Mormons as executives, there's a problem.  That diary made it to their rec list.  Thankfully it was deleted.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: When I see people at Kos

If diary was deleted, then this is a strawman argument. The boycotts I agree with are of the Mormon businesses, of the church and Utah. Each of which like with the boycott of South Africa has th eimpact of forcing people to take sides who have up until now choosen to stay quiet when they knew this was wrong. I don't accept the idea that we can magically like many of you are doing pretend that the Mormons aren't an organized religion or that they don't use their members money to promote hate. If you want pretend one has nothing to do with the other, that's your deal. But boycotts by their nature of blunt instruments designed to force people to get off their butts , if for no other reason than self interest.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 04:12PM | 0 recs
It was up long enough to make it #3

on their Rec List.  There were over 100 comments flat-out supporting a boycott of businesses that HIRE Mormon executives.  I assure you I didn't imagine it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It was up long enough to make it #3

My point isn't about whether you imagined it. Its about whether its enough to justify this diary. I say no. I have seen a concentrated effort here and on Daily Kos to try to take the Mormon CHurch out of this. Some of them straight out saying we shouldn't boycott for whatever reason, and some make other similar arguments. None of which , and neither haveyou or others, addressing theorganized nature fo the church. Until you address the reality that the church is organized I will conclude this is all just knee jerk liberalism along th elines we shouldn't say anything about anyone as a group . Th eproblem with that is as I said along the lines of Israel versus being Jewish. One is persmissible to criticize as a collective given how they are organized, and the other is not.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:06PM | 0 recs
I made no effort, none at all

To "take the Mormon Church" out of anything!  If you wanna take a swing at the formal church organization, be my guest.  But I'm seeing far too much animosity towards Mormons not the church itself.

I blame the Catholic Church for the Inquisition.  I don't blame Catholics.

If you're able to bifurcate your feelings then this diary wasn't directed at you.  Not everyone else is so enlightened as you.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I made no effort, none at all

its a formal organization. you seem to think its an easy line to draw (Mormon v Mormon Church), and id ont when you are putting money into that organization. to use an extreme I doubut you would accept such an argument (Mormon v Mormon Chruch) if the Mormon Church was were saying they believed in slavery? Its a moral question and a real world politicl one.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 06:37PM | 0 recs
If that were the case

And I knew Mormons who were opposed to it and were either trying to change it or had stopped participating in the church as a result, I'd still see things this way.

I'm not absolving individual Mormons for their support.  I'm trying to avoid two things:

1) Painting with far too broad of a brush.
2) Completely missing the cause of the problem, thus missing a solution.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-08 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: If that were the case

I don't personally understand how one can make such a distinction. morally, being a member of an organized organization like a church did make you responsible if you think they are doing something morally repugnant to you, and you are still nevertheless supprting it. and no- the cause of the issue here is that of money interest and boycotts work for that.

by bruh3 2008-11-08 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: If that were the case

But you are missing the cause of the problem. One organized religion poured $25 million into the Yes campaign and its members were responsible for pushing this issue throughout our state. They created the problem and they are now reaping what they have sown.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated] Blaming Blacks and Mormons

Good post.  Blaming entire groups for the actions of a few members has never, EVER been helpful.

by Skaje 2008-11-08 09:07PM | 0 recs
This is Bullshit

The Church poured money into the State. The Mormons knocked on doors, made phone calls, sent crazy emails. The Mormon church was activated for this cause. They don't get off the fucking hook because there are a few cool Mormons. If you're are Mormon you are fucking slime bag unless you

1. Protested your own church

  1. Quit  your church in disgust
  2. Donated and worked against Prop. 8

All you fucking people. Straight folks preaching calm. Oh, relax just wait. WELL FUCK  YOU TOO.  

by sacca28 2008-11-09 09:04AM | 0 recs
What is the procedure on this board

for getting offensive posts removed?

by KateG 2008-11-09 04:53AM | 0 recs
Its not the indviduals, its the organization

There is little point in directing anger toward mormons or catholics or whoever. Any sufficiently large group of individuals will have a substantial proportion of a**holes. There is not much you can do about that. There may be a point in criticizing the LDS church or the catholic church based upon their actions on an organizational level or upon actions from people in the church leadership. That is the crucial distinction.

Whether that is the most productive means of moving forward is another issue entirely.

by rkhrkh 2008-11-09 05:32AM | 0 recs
Back to red state, troll!

by psychodrew 2008-11-09 05:48AM | 0 recs
Bullshit- Bullshit - Bullshit

First of all the Mormon Church deserves every bit of scorn we can throw and then some. They pumped millions into California to convince Californians that my relationship was a threat to families and to children.  I have some close friends I work with who are Mormon - however no longer.

A good friend who I have lunch with all the time and I always considered a friend was going to door to door for Prop. 8 with his church. They were quite active. When I found out and confronted him, he felt a bit ashamed. He couldn't defend his position.

You can be friendly as you want to be, however if you advocate stripping people of their rights then we will part our ways. If you say I'm your friend but you really think I'm a second class citizen then we will part ways. And if your church is pushing to push gays and lesbians to the back of the bus with an expensive and misleading campaign and you stay silent - then fuck you too!

Yes, FUCK THE MORMON CHURCH. FUCK THE MORMON CHURCH.  My Dad always told me "never start a fight but if you get hit, don't stop punching until they hit the ground."  Well the Mormon's better cowboy up because payback is a bitch. I'm talking to you Elder Shitbag.

by sacca28 2008-11-09 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated] Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Brainde

fuck you you petty little NIGGER is that what you want well you'll get it. and thats Mr Faggot to you BOY

by tpagy 2008-11-09 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated] Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Brainde

1) Blaming the African-American community as a whole is stupid and divisive.  The "No on 8" campaign did a terrible job of outreach to minority communities.

2) Blaming Mormons on an individual level is stupid and divisive.  Pushback against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as led by President-Prophet Monson is justified.  If he wants to use his so-called church as a conservative MoveOn.org, then he chose to paint the bullseye on his entity.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-09 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated] Blaming Blacks and Mormons = Brainde
Its not just the African Americans, I blame old people in general as well as the Mormons. The Mormons spent million on the Yes vote for Prop 8, its completely fine to blame them. California now has stain of homophobia because of these groups.
This isnt about being politically correct, the facts dont lie.
by bsavage 2008-11-09 11:44AM | 0 recs
Divide and Conquer!

First of all; there is no real hard data supporting the "theory" that black people ever voted against gay and lesbian marriage. It just doesn't exist. There is a possibility that about 20% of black people voted against it. But that, even if true, is not much of a statistic. The concept that black people are anti- gay/ lesbian is currently being heavily promoted by the Nazi "right." They are aggressively promoting it in every progressive venue! Divide and conquer!

As for the Mormons, there are not very many of them. It is true that the "mainstream" Mormon church as anti-gay and lesbian. But there do exist liberal Mormons who are pro-gay and lesbian as well.

Let's not let our enemies make us enemies of each other! Please!

by blues 2008-11-09 01:42PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads