Before we get started on this, I want to say that this a layman's attempt to discuss a really complicated issue. Folks who know this stuff are more than welcome to point out the flaws. Alright, let's go..
So, in between bouts of Warcraft, and a family trip to Dive Bar to watch the playoffs, I talked to some folks who were smarter than me in regards to polling, Prop 8 and black folks. The biggest takeaway was that journalists/bloggers/writers/pundits need to be a lot more careful when deploying polling data. We should be even more careful when deploying numbers about minority communities, if only because of the sample sizes. And we should be especially careful about drawing broad conclusions based on one exit poll.
There are many reasons to doubt that Prop 8 garnered 70 percent approval in the black community, and there are many more reasons to doubt that African-Americans were the ones who killed the gay marriage in California. The first thing to understand is the methodology at work. Exit Pollsters select a group of random precincts which reflect, as accurately as possible, the demographics of the state. Then they approach every nth voter as they leave the polls. Then they do some phone polling to account for absentee balloting. Then, as the returns come in, they weight the results to match the actual vote count, as well as the actual demographics of the polling area.
Almost every step introduces the possibility of error. For instance, census data is the only reliable means for understanding the racial makeup of a particular precinct. But how do you know that the racial makeup matches the makeup of eligible voters? Of registered voters? Thus it's possible to get an unrepresentative precinct.
"The precinct may or may not be representative," said Patrick Egan, NYU professor and author of the latest Prop 8 study. "A pure sample picks random people out out of hat. But an exit poll is like picking a selection of people and putting into different hats, and then trying to pick out of those hats."
Then there's actual execution. David Moore, former VP of Gallup, that refusal rates for exit polls can run as high as 50 percent. "When
you have small sample sizes in the case of minorities, exit polls aren't very
good predictors," said Moore. "There are so many people who refuse to participate, that you
have a response rate problem--and then people who do respond are different than
those who don't."
Polling, in general, is subject to some margin of error. But as sample size decreases, the chance of error increases. The CNN Exit Poll
estimated that 10 percent of California's vote was African-American.
Most professionals I talked to this weekend thought that was really
high number. (African-Americans make up 7 percent of California's
population--and they tend to be a younger 7 percent, when compare to
whites. A ten percent share would mean they were overrepresented by somewhere around 30 percent.) But let's say that 10 percent number is correct--it
means that the (weighted?) sample size for African-Americans was about
224 people.
Now, these problems are generally true of all exit polls, and polling in general. I'm not writing this to impugn anyone's credibility. Opinion pollsters know that these are the hazards built into an imperfect science. So how do they get around them? Typically you look at a group of polls (as a lot of us did during this election) and you try to get some range of where things are. That's exactly what did not happen in the reporting around Prop 8. All of our analysis and blogging was based on a single poll. Think of it this way--What if we had just one poll for every state during the general, as opposed to people like Nate Silver looking at multiple polls? How different would our impressions be?
Here's what gives me confidence in this latest study. Patrick Egan and Ken Sherrill didn't simply do another poll. Well, they did commission DBR to do another poll, but they didn't stop there. They compared DBR's poll to three other polls taken close to and after the election, and the exit poll. Then after that, they used Goodman's regression to analyze census data and precinct returns. Then after that, they used Gary King's EZI software in much the same way. In other words, instead of employing a single method (an exit poll) to analyze the Prop 8 vote, they used several.
With two exceptions, the polling put black support for Prop 8 in the 50 percent range. The two exceptions were SUSA poll which put at black support at an implausible 41 percent (Oh, if only it were true.) and the exit poll which put black support at 70 percent. Moreover the two population analysis put black support in the high 50s range also. In other words, the results corroborated each other, making them imperfect, but highly likely.
There's more. Last week I noted that black support for Prop 8, among weekly church attendees, was actually lower than other ethnic groups. Timothy Kincaid noted, it was higher among those who don't attend church weekly. Doesn't that mean, as Timothy argued, that religion really didn't change anything? Well no. First, when you start slicing the pie to that level, you're down to a really small sample size, and in fact, the Support for Prop 8 among church-goers only spans about eight points. Second, those who "don't attend church weekly" is a very large group of people ranging from those who go to church monthly to militant atheists. One guess as to which group is more represented among blacks.
Lastly, Egan argues--and I agree--that blacks and Latino Democrats are, on the whole, more socially conservative. They share a lot of the social beliefs of conservative whites, and that's reflected in proposition votes. But unlike conservative whites, blacks and Latinos have other issues that exert a strong pull. Latinos, for instance, may regard the GOP as anti-immigrant. Blacks may regard the GOP as racist. Both may regard the GOP as anti-worker, or anti-poor. Thus you have a group of people who aren't particularly socially liberal, but still ID themselves as liberal or as Dems. Blacks, in the main, may oppose gay marriage--but they aren't going to support a Republican because of it.
I think that last point is at the heart of the outrage over Prop 8--we've really underestimated and simplified what it means to call yourself a liberal or a Democrat. For a lot of black and browns it means pro-common man, but doesn't necessarily mean pro-gay rights. That, for me, is really the lesson in all this data. What we need (the we being socially liberal blacks) are people in the black church, who know the church (that disqualifies yours truly) and can engage other black people in the debate. We have a very powerful incentive to do so--our silence is killing us. But there's also a moral component, an attempt to put us on the right side of history. Gay marriage is coming. Who amongst us will want to tell their grand-kids where they stood?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
TNC, I respect your attempts at trying to get to the core of this issue, but I fear that people who have long searched for a reason to point their finger at the black community without fear of bigotry allegations have finally found their reason. Black folks are homophobes. There, that's solved. Next issue please.
The Prop 8 thing was a loser all around for me, both as a supporter of gay rights and as a huge Neil Patrick Harris fan. But what has disappointed me more is the reaction from the losing side. Instead of building a coaltion and changing minds, things have devolved into a mudfight. The result will only be dirty hands for everyone.
I did another look over the weekend at the NGLTF survey, and I came to a different set of conclusions than Timothy Kincaid did.
Like you, I zeroed in on sample sizes and margins of error. While it still appears that African-Americans voted for Prop 8 in larger proportions than the electorate as a whole, I don't think the NGLTF study successfully demonstrates religiousity as the reason. It still may be true, but the study doesn't demonstrate it.
Here is my analysis and conclusions: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/12/7953
Lastly, Egan argues--and I agree--that blacks and Latino Democrats are, on the whole, more socially conservative. They share a lot of the social beliefs of conservative whites, and that's reflected in proposition votes. But unlike conservative whites, blacks and Latinos have other issues that exert a strong pull. Latinos, for instance, may regard the GOP as anti-immigrant. Blacks may regard the GOP as racist. Both may regard the GOP as anti-worker, or anti-poor. Thus you have a group of people who aren't particularly socially liberal, but still ID themselves as liberal or as Dems. Blacks, in the main, may oppose gay marriage--but they aren't going to support a Republican because of it.
This is the crux of it.Their conservatism is based, largely, in religion. Black and Latino Democrats are more RELIGIOUS than most in the Democratic Party.
I keep on going back to that this is a religious issue for Black folks.
Those who were against Prop 8 didn't do their homework. They didn't do any outreach of any substance to the Black community. They didn't reach out to the Black Gays and Lesbians in California already on the ground doing the hard work within the Black community. And, they got defeated.
When every vote counts, don't go around ignoring a slice that could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Keep on attacking Black religious folk and see where it gets you. Not where you want to be.
Black folks are homophobes. There, that's solved. Next issue please.
Is this the meme on wingnut radio? Or is this a mainstream media meme? In my circles, the Prop. 8 loss is blamed squarely on the boneheads who bungled the "No on 8" campaign. You know, the folks who had a huge lead three months before the election and managed to blow it with incompetence, disorganization, and infighting. See Matt Taibbi's recent *RS* article about this.
There's really two problems here with respect to the press. First is that they don't seem to understand statistics. They don't understand how they are calculated, they don't understand their reliability, and they don't understand when to disregard them. Or they at least don't ever seem to make an effort to do so (look at any article on polling during the election and you will see bad use of statistics).
The second issue is that people - and especially the press - take statistics (and "research papers") as FACT. I guess this is because statistics is hard, and so is really digging into research, so they present the conclusions from these FACTS when the world is really much more nuanced. I would think that as reporters, they should do a little more digging into whether the claims made are really valid rather than reporting them, but there you go, that's what they do.
There are also other race-related issues, obviously, but misuse of statistics always gets my goat ;)
Most "polls" are inaccurate! Poorly worded, biased, survey of small numbers, bad sources, interpretation, and other issues plague current polls and produce poor inaccurate results. The only real public "poll" that is accurate which should be "published" and considered is the actual count of large numbers of voters. Prop 8: The results are in!!! Monty Ousley Weddell Dallas, TX
but I fear that people who have long searched for a reason to point their finger at the black community without fear of bigotry allegations have finally found their reason.
I have read this sentiment from a few commentors in other threads and I am ignorant to all the interactions in the past. Is it that there is a bigotry in the homosexual community that has been under the surface and only now is being discussed in public?
I am used to hearing rednecks scapegoat black people with the affirmative action excuse or from Wall Streeters who say black people caused the housing bubble. But I am not all that used to hearing blacks scapegoated by another liberal group. I do know people who are liberal who think by definition, a liberal cannot be a racist or bigot.
Is this the meme on wingnut radio? Or is this a mainstream media meme? In my circles, the Prop. 8 loss is blamed squarely on the boneheads who bungled the "No on 8" campaign. You know, the folks who had a huge lead three months before the election and managed to blow it with incompetence, disorganization, and infighting.
Somewhere in between, I think, a blogosphere thing circulated by Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage (that I know of, and probably more).
I don't understand why black voters are taking the brunt of blame for prop 8 passing. Honestly, gay rights advocates should be happy they came as close as they did to shooting the bill down. This is a touchy issue that's going to require years - decades even - to get the public to come around on. I know that sucks for a lot of people but that's the reality. Further, black voters do not owe gay groups their solidarity and I'm not sure why they even see it that way. Is it because black voters tend to be liberal or because of the history of the civil rights movement that many gays think this is the case? Regardless, it's the white middle class majority that gays need to convince to accept their position that gay couples should be allowed to marry. Shitting all over blacks and Mormons - I don't see how that helps anybody. A little humble pie, some looking on the bright side and some 'I hope we'll convince you next time' would be much better served and might actually advance the ball.
"Latinos, for instance, may regard the GOP as anti-immigrant. Blacks may regard the GOP as racist. "
Same thing right?
Jack T, you need to broaden your sources of information, or recognize that you are filtering input in a way that makes you see only a mudfight/blame-the-blacksfest from the losing side. There's a lot more going on out there than that. Maybe the difference is I read sources like Pam's House Blend, and avoid Sullivan. Granted he's got an audience, but he's just one man, and it can get a little warped in his world.
By the way, people should start to take a look at Washington, D.C. Marriage is going to come up, sooner than people seem to expect or realize. http://www.washblade.com/2009/1-9/news/localnews/13884.cfm My guess is Catania drops it after Norton secures voting rights - so long as the voting rights proceeds in the first half of the year.
As TNC likely well knows from his time down here, the population of the city is such that these same issues are likely to come up. I for one am optimistic that the result here is going to be a good one. Either way, it's a chance for redemption, and a next step. New stuff to move us beyond the increasingly-stagnating "blame the blacks" vs. "eat the anti-Prop 8 campaigners organizers alive for failing to win a very tough election" dichotomy.
Nathan - "shitting all over blacks and Mormons."
Don't put these two groups in the same sentence, please. Black folks obviously aren't worthy of blame for Prop 8's passage. Mormon folks - and more specifically the institution behind which they hide and claim "victimhood" when confronted about their holy votes - most certainly ARE worthy of blame for Prop 8's passage. Anyone with any sense of the facts at hand would have an explicit understanding of this difference.
Rightfully holding a specific tax-exempt and bigoted church accountable for manhandling the California constitutional process is different than incorrectly (not to mention wildly unethically) scapegoating an entire ethnic group for the result of aforementioned abused process. Walk and chew gum, si?
Problem is, Seth, there are Mormons who are against Prop 8 - some at great personal cost. Just like there are Catholics who are. The majority of Mormons? Of course not. But shitting on Mormons, generally, still doesn't get results.
I do agree that it's materially different to apeak of religious and ethnic groups. Just doesn't usually help to shit on either.
Nathan, you're right, simple math is it's the white middle class majority almost by definition that's going to get you the votes and that deserves focus. But nobody is off the hook on this one. I live in DC, I'd very much like to marry LEGALLY (I'll do it either way), and here it's going to take more than white folks to get me that right. Fortunately I think this city is going to make us all proud.
Jack said: "TNC, I respect your attempts at trying to get to the core of this issue, but I fear that people who have long searched for a reason to point their finger at the black community without fear of bigotry allegations have finally found their reason. Black folks are homophobes. There, that's solved. Next issue please."
Thanks Jack, I couldn't have said it better. Next time, the GBLT should better fund, better organize and better reach out to the African American community. At last count, gay marriage has failed in 30 dayum states-- many of them with an extremely low number of minorities living in them. In the meantime, I am quite sick and tired of being called a bigot based on some badly construed and/ or executed polls.
*At last count, gay marriage has failed in 30 dayum states*
It's actually worse than that. California, Arizona, and Florida made it 29 states with constitutional amendments. There have been other states that have enacted laws via plebiscite.
Of the 29 constitutional amendments, 19--including Florida this year--have banned any recognition. Folks in FL who had domestic partner benefits provided at places like state universities can expect to have them taken away, as they were in Michigan.
Americans in general--regardless of racial/ethnic/religious affiliation--rather seem to enjoy voting against gay folks.
"...who go to church monthly to militant atheists."
not really sure what "militant atheist" means.
are they kinda like "people who go to church weekly"? like, militant churchgoers?
weird how being militant seems to be seen as a some sort of typical behavior for atheists. word is bond there are gentle atheists.
hah. sorry TNC, had to bust your balls over that one.
otherwise a very insightful, well thought-out and well researched post.
Is that the dive bar next to famous famigila on amsterdam avenue? Just curious. I grew up around the corner!
Always found the 70% very unlikely because I have followed gay rights votes closely all over the nation and Latinos and Blacks tend to vote very similar to each other and around 10% worse than Whites. By the way, the only place where that didn't happen is Miami-Dade 2002 in a 'let's discriminate against gays' vote. It was in a non-presidential, primary day an Latinos went 70% in favor of it. The reason: most of them were old Cubans. They ALL vote ALWAYS.
F-ette,
Yup. That one.
your last paragraph sounds like a discussion that would have taken place with regard to the 'white working class' 40 years ago
DougEMI asked: "Is it that there is a bigotry in the homosexual community that has been under the surface and only now is being discussed in public?"
From an admittedly anecdotal perspective, I believe so. I've lived in San Francisco for 10 years, and I've found that there's a tremendous amount of bigotry towards black people just below the surface in the gay male community (I don't know enough lesbians to comment.)
The issue which brought it to the surface here was the cancellation of Halloween festivities in the Castro. Halloween has definitely changed since 1999 - there was a lot of random violence starting in 2003 or so. And the constant refrain you heard from people in the Castro was "The troublemakers are all teenagers from the East Bay." 'East Bay' is code for 'Oakland' and 'Richmond', which is code for, well, I don't need to explain.
There was also the issue of the most popular gay bar in the Castro refusing to admit black people. One person's policy, for sure, but anecdotally, it makes me think that the bigotry runs both ways.
TNC, you made a good point about how we've simplified what it means to be a democrat. But on the other side, we've also simplified what it means to be gay. I erroneously assumed that gay people were all Democrats and part of the great rainbow coalition on the left.
Except they're not. A huge number of gay men are Republicans for reasons I've tried to determine and can't ultimately fathom. So if gay people feel let down by black people on Prop 8 (justifiably or not), I think a lot of Democrats and liberals feel really let down by the gay McCain-Palin voters.
I agree with res i. p. @2.46: I don't know ANYONE who is blaming blacks for prop8 except the MSM, based on a few hotheaded posts after the election; everyone I know is blaming the No-on-8 campaign, even more than the Mormons.
But they did not win this campaign. WE LOST IT by playing it "safe" and keeping real gay folks hidden. There was no effective outreach to ANY community that is not already disposed in our favor. HUGE huge mistake on so many fronts.
The lesson is that we should fire those guys and build support at the grassroots level.
IT
One would hope that with the election of a President who is African American, one would be able to engage in a discussion about whether people who are black voted for or against a bill without an immediate reaction that the author is either a. Trying to blame blacks or b. trying to be politically correct and thus avoid a split between voters who are gay and voters who are black.
The are a set of numbers that answer the questions: What percentage of the African American community voted for Prop 8, and whether they voted in high enough numbers to affect the result. And they are not that hard to get at.
a. The exit poll disagrees with the pre-election polls. I would discount pre-election phone polls because (historically) the black community is very hard to poll by phone (non-response is much higher in that population). Actually, exit polls do a better job.
BUT: No need to rely on polls. Because of the way Californians live, it is easy to find a set of precincts that are predominently black -- and see what the actual results were in those precincts. Is there a consistent pattern? Is the number closer to 70% or 40%? Why bat back an forth questions about exit polls, when real numbers can be found. Even though not all blacks live in predominently black areas, there is a sufficient number to be able to shoot down or confirm the exit poll numbers.
b. Did African Americans vote in higher numbers than they are represented in the population. The answer here -- across America -- is YES. Maybe it wasn't 10%, but it is very clear that Obama brought out black voters in very heavy numbers. Here again, one can check in precincts in Oakland, parts of LA, etc. and see how much higher turnout was in 2008 than in 2004.
Let's focus on real information rather than our hunches or wishes.
"a. The exit poll disagrees with the pre-election polls. I would discount pre-election phone polls because (historically) the black community is very hard to poll by phone (non-response is much higher in that population). Actually, exit polls do a better job."
I'm assuming you work in the business. I'd like you to explain why this is the case. I talked to several pollsters this weekend while reporting this out. That opinion was not widely shared. In fact, I heard the opposite.
Moreover, if you read the report--and this blog post--the analysis your asking for actually was performed. The authors of this report matched census data with precinct returns to get their figures, which mirrored most of the other polls--including phone polls. If you read the report you will see that this is a matter of poll vs. poll. It's A POLL vs a few polls plus an actual precinct level analysis.
Two things about polling to address the post and previous comments:
1. Read "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?" It's not a crackpot book; it's an academic statistical analysis of exit polling data. (The answer to the titular question, by the way [in the book], is yes.) The book can be a bit of a slog when it gets into the meat of statistical analysis, but the lesson on statistics and how they are (mis)used and (mis)interpreted is extremely valuable.
2. Yes, newspapers and media in general do a horrible job of reporting on statistics. For perspective, every baseball editor and writer worth his/her salt can calculate ERA in a flash. Period. I would bet that less than 5% of political writers and editors know how to calculate margin of error or what confidence levels are. The fact that the general population (ie, media readers) doesn't know this stuff either doesn't help because they don't know how to complain when the numbers look "off." In other words, thank bog for Nate Silver (right on to point this out, TNC) -- he may do more than anyone in the arena of numbers literacy.