Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Marriage Equality Leads, Even After Adjusting for "Bradley Effect." Pollster Believes R-74 Will Likely Pass

Posted by on Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:08 PM

R-74_Crosstabs.png
  • KCTS9.org/Washington Poll

Three weeks out from the election, the top-line numbers in the new KCTS9/Washington Poll look cautiously encouraging for R-74, the referendum on the state's new marriage equality law. The poll finds R-74 leading 56.3 to 35.6 percent among registered voters (782 registered voters: +/- 3.5%), and 54.1 to 38.4 percent among likely voters (644 likely voters: +/- 3.9%). The survey was conducted October 1-16.

But what about the so-called "Bradley Effect" in which survey respondents are known to mislead pollsters on certain issues and candidates due to a "social desirability bias" (i.e. they don't want to appear prejudiced against, say, gay or black people)? For example, in 2009 the Washington Poll predicted that R-71 (domestic partnerships) would pass by a 17-point margin. It actually passed by only 6.3 points.

Pollster Matt Barreto attempted to adjust for this by asking two further questions: Did you give any answers that weren't 100 percent honest, and were there any questions that made you uncomfortable? Respondents who answered that they may have lied, and that they were uncomfortable with the marriage equality question, but who reported that they were leaning Yes on R-74, were undecided, or would not vote, were moved into the No column, as were lean-yes voters who answered a series of questions defining them as very religious conservatives. The result: An estimated 52.9 to 46.6 margin in favor of R-74 among likely voters, a 6.3 point difference.

Curiously, that's the same 6.3 point margin by which R-71 passed in 2009. Again, that's somewhat encouraging, with the one caveat that the 2009 survey was conducted during the second half of October, whereas this survey was conducted during the first. A lot can happen in two weeks, and there are still a helluva lot of Reject R-74 ads left to air.

But reached by phone, Barreto tells me that if he had to bet, he thinks R-74 will likely pass. Barreto describes the social desirability bias adjustment as "very conservative;" R-74's true support might lie closer to 54 percent. And barring a large last-minute advertising blitz, he says, there isn't much time left to move public opinion.

But even then, the survey suggests, the ads might not be very effective. For example, respondents who said they supported R-74 were asked the following question based on negative messaging drawn straight from the voters guide:

Some people say that Washington same-sex couples already enjoy full legal equality under our laws, and Referendum 74 is dangerous because it redefines traditional marriage. Traditional marriage promotes child well-being because kids need both a mother and a father. Does this make you more likely to support R-74 for same-sex marriage, less likely to support R-74, or have no effect on how you would vote?

You might recognize that messaging from the No campaign's TV ads. But only 5.8 percent of respondents said that this made them less likely to support R-74, compared to 18 percent who said it actually made them more likely to support it. "It doesn't move a lot of people," says Barreto, "and in some cases it causes people to dig their heels in."

Barreto will release a second wave of polling just days before the election, and if R-74's lead holds up, prepare to celebrate.

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Joe Szilagyi 1
If it passes what will be the next steps by NOM & co? Try to overturn it again next year?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on October 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM · Report this
2
Ha!

If R-74 and Obama win I am so going to rub it into the trolls. All the backward bigots and make-believe gays and fake disenchanted progressives who post twenty times in one thread. I'm going to call all those punks out and be, like, "Now what! Go back to your Real America."
Posted by floater on October 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 3
I hope this passes. I'm giving myself ulcers over it. I have friends from other continents asking if my partner and I will get married, and I keep telling them I don't know, and probably won't know for a week or more after the election. We have literally been waiting decades for this.

I keep remembering Prop 8 in California. That was polling ahead too, right up till the last minute. Then the Mormons and NOM spent millions of dollars on vile hateful scary ads... and it worked. We already know they're planning the same sort of negative scare tactics in ads here over the next few weeks. I just hope our lead holds up to the negative ads.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on October 18, 2012 at 7:46 PM · Report this
4
This is so sad.

The Girls all getting their hopes up and all.

Washington votes to recognize gay "marriage"
but
BOOM!
in the same election America elects Mitt
and
before you know it
the US Constitution is amended to define marriage as
man-woman
and
POW!
Camelot is over.....

Some judge comes along
and tells you to shove your gay "marriage" up your ass.

Judicial Activism.

total bitch, that.....
Posted by Eat Drink and Be Married! for tomorrow we annul on October 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM · Report this
5
hey.

did you girls notice how Mitt TOTALLY killed them tonight......
Posted by he is going to be a FUCKING AWESOME President..... on October 18, 2012 at 8:46 PM · Report this
NotSean 6
Fact check: There never was a Bradley Effect.

Just bad polling and bad pollsters.

www.onthemedia.org/2009/jul/03/ghost-of-…

Posted by NotSean on October 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM · Report this
NotSean 7
I'll try again.

http://tinyurl.com/8thwjmm
Posted by NotSean on October 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM · Report this
8
If there's a "Bradley Effect," I'll bet it's more likely to be on the marijuana question, and on the governor's race. Look, McKenna is such a rat-faced, whining, grating, irritating little carnival geek that a lot of people in the Puget Sound aren't going to want to admit that they voted for him on the grounds that Jay Inslee is obviously dumber than a fencepost and the Democrats in this state are lazy, arrogant, and drunk on taxes.

And who under the age of 50 or so wants to face the withering, self-righteous scorn of the oh-so-mellow stoners by telling them what they really think about marijuana? From the numbers as they stand, I think McKenna wins and marijuana loses. Gay marriage, on the other hand, looks like a winner to me.

The really big story of that poll is that Obama isn't even at 52%. In Washington State, for God's sakes. If that's actually true, Romney is much farther ahead than Nate Silver or the Obama campaign wants to imagine. I'm having a tough time believing that number.
Posted by Mister G on October 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 9
I would be surprised if the "str8 allies" actually vote for equality with regard to civil marriage. It is their private reserve and sharing is not a strong suit in America.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM · Report this
10
If it passes, when could marriages actually begin? 30 days for the election to be certified, and 3 day waiting period after getting a license puts it around Dec. 10th?. 12/12/12 would be a nice anniversary (but we will start counting at 24 years).
Posted by RLB on October 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 11
@9 - I told everyone I know on Facebook that if they vote against it, they better hope I never find out. I'm all ready to write off friends as dead to me.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on October 19, 2012 at 8:36 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 12
In my household, it's already passed 100 percent. Voted. Ding.

Lay on the h8 ads ... too l8!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM · Report this
13
It's pretty obvious who the real haters by reading these posts. You gay dudes won't be satified until everyones sodomizing everyone and have destroyed everything sacred. You are the worst hippocrates this world has ever seen!!
Posted by superposition on October 19, 2012 at 9:31 PM · Report this
14
#13, after you're finished getting screwed where the sun don't shine, you'd better look up "Hippocrates."
Posted by Mister G on October 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM · Report this
15
I am not Gay, but I have had friends & business associates through out my life who are Gay so I can honestly say I understand this world pretty well.

I also have an understanding of Gay history. Alan Turing for example one of the most important scientific minds of the last decade committed suicide after he was forced by a judge to take female hormones in an effort to suppress his then illegal homosexual urges.

So what I have to say I am not saying lightly.

Removing all of the emotion & Sticking to the facts; it is my educated observation that insinuating someone is “discriminating” against another who professes to be gay is completely illogical.

Why? Being gay is not the same thing as being black, white, red, disabled, male or female. Being gay no matter how you slice it, it is still a life choice. Even though you may have been born with body parts that are mismatched and or do not function correctly thereby justifying a personal choice towards adopting a personal gender other than what is on ones birth certificate. This is still an individual choice nothing more.

The purpose of Marriage is lawful procreation. Absent of procreation, gay marriage is not marriage at all it is a sterile legal Union. Gays can already form a legal Union just as any business can legally do so, sharing equal rights to each others assets and welfare, granted there are a few limitations that should be legally amended to make this work correctly. While not a traditional marriage it carries nearly the same weight.

What needs to happen to resolve the gay marriage conflict is to set aside the whole concept of marriage as a separate inalienable thing unto itself. Then re-define in plane language the length and breathe of a legal union as a legitimate alternative. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” A legal union is a contract. Do this and the problem is solved, religions don’t get burned and gays get what they want, end of story.

But since the world is full of selfish people who think that wants are needs, redefinition of legal union is not likely to happen and this is where the real problems begin;

Yes 74 does limit the ability of individuals to sue not only religious organizations who refuse to marry non heterosexual individuals on nothing more than hearsay evidence, or anyone else involved in the process. Yes 74 corrects a standing law that allows for arrests and imprisonment for refusing clergy, based upon discrimination laws which could be brought to bear in such cases. Entire churches under the current law could potential be shut down & subjected to heavy fines by the authorities for failing to provide an open door policy for gay marriage regardless of what the particular faiths doctrine dictates .

In effect such standing laws without the corrections in presented in 74 could force others to abandon their own life choices out of fear of prosecution. Therefore the balance remains unequal, which is what you should expect with life choices and why you can’t pass laws which force others to accept them.

Laws such as “gay marriage” stand upon no moral principal and therefore can be easily twisted over time.

This may sound extreme but consider this; what if someone decides that their choice to be a nudist, pedophile, sadist and so forth is being discriminated against? Don’t sneer at this, there are a great many tax paying otherwise law abiding closet nudists, pedophiles and sadists around, who believe their lifestyle choice is perfectly OK. They believe they are harming no one. Perhaps it could be scientifically proven that they were just born this way and as such they should be afforded sanctuary under some from of the law.

A few years back a scientific precedent was established that Rape is nothing more than a product of natural design, a necessary evil built in to the human male so as to ensure the survival of the specie. I am sure in time that this will end up being used as legal grounds to place the blame on the victim who will have to pay reparations to the accused.

With all of the aforementioned in mind. Should we pass laws that make it a criminal act by refusing to allow a person (who has made such a life style choice) to be an elected official, to attend a church, be a boy or Girl Scout leader, a teacher or work in a day care?

Ok, perhaps those are pretty extreme examples above, how about this instead. What if the vast nudist population decided that they should have the right to visit any store, or restaurant they so choose, ride public transportation and pick their kids up from school completely naked? Why not? It is their life choice is it not?

If gays can legally sue Pastors, wedding photographers and wedding cake makers who refuse to work with them (which they are already doing) can not nudists sue the public school system for refusing to let their child attend school naked on the basis that school policy discriminates against nudists?

But wait that would be unsanitary? Would it? I don’t know, maybe the government should be required to regularly send out paid inspectors and cleaners to make sure the surfaces we all share remain super squeaky clean so that the nudists do not get sick. It is of course their rights that are being violated if the environment is not kept safe for them.

What about people who habitually spurt out profanities? Should they have the right to sue you because you ask them to leave your establishment? Don’t laugh, people sue over things that are a lot more nonsensical and unfortunately they win a great deal of the time.

The bottom line is, that the more laws that are passed specifically supporting an individuals personal life choice, the more ammo dishonest lawyers have in court to spin favorable decisions supporting potentially evil things.

This is a very dangerous slope we are sliding down. What’s left of your rights may just depend on what you do right now with your Vote.

If you want to do the right thing, push for redefinition of “Legal Union” separate from “Lawful Marriage”.

More...
Posted by CitizenDave on October 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM · Report this
16
I am not Gay, but I have had friends & business associates through out my life who are Gay so I can honestly say I understand this world pretty well.

I also have an understanding of Gay history. Alan Turing for example one of the most important scientific minds of the last decade committed suicide after he was forced by a judge to take female hormones in an effort to suppress his then illegal homosexual urges.

So what I have to say I am not saying lightly.

Removing all of the emotion & Sticking to the facts; it is my educated observation that insinuating someone is “discriminating” against another who professes to be gay is completely illogical.

Why? Being gay is not the same thing as being black, white, red, disabled, male or female. Being gay no matter how you slice it, it is still a life choice. Even though you may have been born with body parts that are mismatched and or do not function correctly thereby justifying a personal choice towards adopting a personal gender other than what is on ones birth certificate. This is still an individual choice nothing more.

The purpose of Marriage is lawful procreation. Absent of procreation, gay marriage is not marriage at all it is a sterile legal Union. Gays can already form a legal Union just as any business can legally do so, sharing equal rights to each others assets and welfare, granted there are a few limitations that should be legally amended to make this work correctly. While not a traditional marriage it carries nearly the same weight.

What needs to happen to resolve the gay marriage conflict is to set aside the whole concept of marriage as a separate inalienable thing unto itself. Then re-define in plane language the length and breathe of a legal union as a legitimate alternative. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” A legal union is a contract. Do this and the problem is solved, religions don’t get burned and gays get what they want, end of story.

But since the world is full of selfish people who think that wants are needs, redefinition of legal union is not likely to happen and this is where the real problems begin;

Yes 74 does limit the ability of individuals to sue not only religious organizations who refuse to marry non heterosexual individuals on nothing more than hearsay evidence, or anyone else involved in the process. Yes 74 corrects a standing law that allows for arrests and imprisonment for refusing clergy, based upon discrimination laws which could be brought to bear in such cases. Entire churches under the current law could potential be shut down & subjected to heavy fines by the authorities for failing to provide an open door policy for gay marriage regardless of what the particular faiths doctrine dictates .

In effect such standing laws without the corrections in presented in 74 could force others to abandon their own life choices out of fear of prosecution. Therefore the balance remains unequal, which is what you should expect with life choices and why you can’t pass laws which force others to accept them.

Laws such as “gay marriage” stand upon no moral principal and therefore can be easily twisted over time.

This may sound extreme but consider this; what if someone decides that their choice to be a nudist, pedophile, sadist and so forth is being discriminated against? Don’t sneer at this, there are a great many tax paying otherwise law abiding closet nudists, pedophiles and sadists around, who believe their lifestyle choice is perfectly OK. They believe they are harming no one. Perhaps it could be scientifically proven that they were just born this way and as such they should be afforded sanctuary under some from of the law.

A few years back a scientific precedent was established that Rape is nothing more than a product of natural design, a necessary evil built in to the human male so as to ensure the survival of the specie. I am sure in time that this will end up being used as legal grounds to place the blame on the victim who will have to pay reparations to the accused.

With all of the aforementioned in mind. Should we pass laws that make it a criminal act by refusing to allow a person (who has made such a life style choice) to be an elected official, to attend a church, be a boy or Girl Scout leader, a teacher or work in a day care?

Ok, perhaps those are pretty extreme examples above, how about this instead. What if the vast nudist population decided that they should have the right to visit any store, or restaurant they so choose, ride public transportation and pick their kids up from school completely naked? Why not? It is their life choice is it not?

If gays can legally sue Pastors, wedding photographers and wedding cake makers who refuse to work with them (which they are already doing under the standing law) can not nudists sue the public school system for refusing to let their child attend school naked on the basis that school policy discriminates against nudists?

But wait that would be unsanitary? Would it? I don’t know, maybe the government should be required to regularly send out paid inspectors and cleaners to make sure the surfaces we all share remain super squeaky clean so that the nudists do not get sick. It is of course their rights that are being violated if the environment is not kept safe for them.

What about people who habitually spurt out profanities? Should they have the right to sue you because you ask them to leave your establishment? Don’t laugh, people sue over things that are a lot more nonsensical and unfortunately they win a great deal of the time.

The bottom line is, that the more laws that are passed specifically supporting an individuals personal life choice, the more ammo dishonest lawyers have in court to spin favorable decisions supporting potentially evil things.

This is a very dangerous slope we are sliding down. What’s left of your rights may just depend on what you do right now with your Vote.

More...
Posted by CitizenDave on October 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
17
@ 15/16 - I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about but there are huge holes in your arguments.

First, being gay is a sexual orientation and the APA has determined it is NOT a choice, so I think you need to double-check your history or reconnect with your friends and business associates to see if their lives is a so-called "lifestyle choice."

Second, the purpose of marriage is anything the two people who enter into it decide it to be. People who get married can choose to procreate if they want to in the same way, two people can procreate and not get married. People get married for a variety of reasons but to single out procreation as the main reason for why marriage should only be for heterosexual people is very weak.

Third, have you even read Referendum 74? The bill "preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement." That is a direct quote from the summary of the ballot measure so your whole argument that allow religious organizations to be sued or shut down and clergy to be arrested for not allowing gay couples to marry is completely moot.

Fourth, I'm not going to even waste my time about how insulting you are to compare gay people to nudists, pedophiles, and sadists. I'm sorry if this is insulting but if you don't have the capacity to distinguish between an immutable characteristic such as sexual orientation and people who enjoy choosing not to wear clothes, then I won't go to your level to explain it. We are talking about gay people and their lives, not somebody who think wearing underwear is to restrictive or somebody who molests children. Wake up!

Finally, you propose a legal alternative to marriage so that gay people can have their union recognize without changing marriage (even though marriage has been evolving for countless years) so I have a question for you. Would you be willing to give up your right to marry to settle for something less that isn't universally recognized as marriage, even though the law says it is equal to it? Think long and hard about your answer because not everyone wants to explain what a domestic partner is, especially during a time when your life partner could be dying in the hospital or other critical moments.
More...
Posted by onewithreality on October 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
18
Sorry you are having trouble reading but if you re-read what I posted you would see this;

"Yes 74 does limit the ability of individuals to sue not only religious organizations who refuse to marry non heterosexual individuals on nothing more than hearsay evidence,"

Notice the word limit!

I recognize exactly what 74 says.

I am not anti Homosexual I just want to lay the facts down

I am sorry if I insulted you, but you are wrong, The vast majority of psychologists still categorize Homosexuality as a disorder. Only a fringe pro homosexual group of scientists differ from this standing.

The problem with this law has nothing to do with personal rights it has everything to do with lifestyle choice plain and simple.

You can not create laws that endorse anyone's lifestyle choice.

Procreation is a fundamental requirement of our survival as a specie and therefore is not a lifestyle choice but a necessary component of society. therefore you can justify laws in this regard.

Laws simply supporting an individuals lifestyle choice can be manipulated by others to form legislation supporting other lifestyle choice. In other words such laws let the genie out of the bottle and then anything goes.

I am not comparing gays to nudists or pedophiles, only that people such as nudists and pedophiles can use the a law which support gay marriage as a lifestyle choice to win cases in court to benefit their own particular desire.

What I am suggesting is that existing laws should be amended so that same sex couples can form a partnership where each is afforded complete guardian ship of the other in all maters. this would resolve the medical issues you mentioned.

R74 if passed in the long run will be bad for both gays and straights.

The truth is that Gays need laws passed that specifically address their own needs rather than just piggy backing onto existing marriage laws which will lead to an onslaught of destructive law suits by evil doers, who are just waiting to manipulate this legal hole to their advantage. They can and will win on the basis that enough legitimate evidence can be presented to prove in court that being gay is a lifestyle choice and since it is a lifestyle choice anyone's lifestyle however that may look, should also be allowed some form of shelter, benefit or exclusion under the law.

More...
Posted by CitizenDave on October 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy