Gays Vote GOP in Record Numbers

[Amused]

My (and hopefully yours and everyone else's) attention span can focus on more than one evil at one time.



Unsuccessful now and in the past != unsuccessful in the future.

True, but while the majority of the nation supports their fiscal conservative messages, the majority does NOT support their social conservatism.

This is why their agenda has failed miserably, and will continue to do so for at least another generation. My prediction is their agenda will fail even more with each new generation.

 

[zsdersw]

True, but while the majority of the nation supports their fiscal conservative messages, the majority does NOT support their social conservatism.

This is why their agenda has failed miserably, and will continue to do so for at least another generation. My prediction is their agenda will fail even more with each new generation.

The various marriage amendments passed by many states are most troubling to me because of the hurdles needed to undo them. Public opinion may be moving in the way of not really caring if gay couples get married in the eyes of the government, but that lack of caring also translates into not caring about doing what's necessary to repeal the amendments.

 

[Amused]

The various marriage amendments passed by many states are most troubling to me because of the hurdles needed to undo them. Public opinion may be moving in the way of not really caring if gay couples get married in the eyes of the government, but that lack of caring also translates into not caring about doing what's necessary to repeal the amendments.

The right to marry was never going to be won on the state level. That much is obvious.

 

[zsdersw]

The right to marry was never going to be won on the state level. That much is obvious.

As the generational shift occurs society may view being gay and getting married as a homosexual couple with no more enmity than being left-handed, but so long as these constitutional amendments exist the RR will be able to thwart via the courts any effort legislatively to expand marriage recognition.

The apathy about being gay and/or being a married homosexual couple is the same apathy that would keep amendment repeal from getting anywhere because it would have next to no constituency.

That's the problem.

 

[fskimospy]

I just actually took a minute to look at the poll in question here, and holy shit this whole thread is a waste of time. The exit polls surveyed about 120 LGBT people, a sample size so small that under normal sampling techniques it has a margin of error of about 10 points. Considering the extra error introduced by the self selection nature of an exit poll gives that gives this whole thing an error margin of somewhere around +/- FIFTEEN points.

Ie: this result is a fluctuation within the margin of error for groups with such a small sample size and this method of polling. Fox News strikes again! (probably other news sources too)

 

[ElFenix]

I just actually took a minute to look at the poll in question here, and holy shit this whole thread is a waste of time. The exit polls surveyed about 120 LGBT people, a sample size so small that under normal sampling techniques it has a margin of error of about 10 points. Considering the extra error introduced by the self selection nature of an exit poll gives that gives this whole thing an error margin of somewhere around +/- FIFTEEN points.

Ie: this result is a fluctuation within the margin of error for groups with such a small sample size and this method of polling. Fox News strikes again! (probably other news sources too)

i was going to point out the similar (or same)

conservatives/republicans in general turned out for this election more often than liberals/democrats, particularly in relation to the 2008 election. so lower turnout amongst liberals, the same (and probably lower) turnout for conservatives, and no crap that amongst <blank> group there were a greater proportion of republican voters this election. that doesn't mean the absolute numbers are up.

so, no, the poll doesn't show record numbers of gay people voting for the GOP. more likely the same gay people that voted for repubs in 2008 voted for them again and a bunch of gay people that voted dem in 2008 didn't vote in this one.

 

[fskimospy]

i was going to point out the similar (or same)

conservatives/republicans in general turned out for this election more often than liberals/democrats, particularly in relation to the 2008 election. so lower turnout amongst liberals, the same (and probably lower) turnout for conservatives, and no crap that amongst <blank> group there were a greater proportion of republican voters this election. that doesn't mean the absolute numbers are up.

so, no, the poll doesn't show record numbers of gay people voting for the GOP. more likely the same gay people that voted for repubs in 2008 voted for them again and a bunch of gay people that voted dem in 2008 didn't vote in this one.

I think you miss my point. Your point is that lower turnout might have skewed the numbers of gay voters to give them a greater proportion. My point is is more of an attack on the entire premise that there were more gay voters at all. With that small a sample size and that large a margin of error there is no way to know that there were even a greater percentage of gay GOP voters, in fact gay people may have voted for Republicans in LOWER percentages this year than in previous years, as the margin of error is around 15 points.

To extrapolate from this data that gay people were voting for the GOP in 'record numbers' is to completely ignore the statistical validity of the numbers in the study. Ie: A load of crap.

 

[werepossum]

As the generational shift occurs society may view being gay and getting married as a homosexual couple with no more enmity than being left-handed, but so long as these constitutional amendments exist the RR will be able to thwart via the courts any effort legislatively to expand marriage recognition.

The apathy about being gay and/or being a married homosexual couple is the same apathy that would keep amendment repeal from getting anywhere because it would have next to no constituency.

That's the problem.

That's a good point. I think those fighting a ban on gay marriage would be better served to paint the issue in terms of freedom. Are you fundamentally opposed to, or in favor of, government having the power of deciding who you can and cannot marry? As we see from our progressive taxes, most people are just fine with treating others differently so long as they perceive no threat to themselves. I'd venture that most people are like myself, with no gay family or close friends. They see a benefit for themselves (preserving our traditional society) but not any cost (to themselves and those they care about) to supporting a ban on gay marriage.

As long as gay marriage connotes "them" rather than "us", these bans will be difficult to stop. This is especially true for people who have little or no interaction personally with gays but see the one percenters acting out on television.

 

[ElFenix]

I think you miss my point. Your point is that lower turnout might have skewed the numbers of gay voters to give them a greater proportion. My point is is more of an attack on the entire premise that there were more gay voters at all. With that small a sample size and that large a margin of error there is no way to know that there were even a greater percentage of gay GOP voters, in fact gay people may have voted for Republicans in LOWER percentages this year than in previous years, as the margin of error is around 15 points.

To extrapolate from this data that gay people were voting for the GOP in 'record numbers' is to completely ignore the statistical validity of the numbers in the study. Ie: A load of crap.

my post is tangential from your self selection reference. there's a big selection bias in this thing (in that people have to identify as voters first).

i got your point.

 

[Craig234]

Now that posters identified flaws in the poll, how about the next question - was this an 'accident', or propaganda, intentionally putting out false information?

If the latter, why, who is doing it, how much do they do it, what is the size and purpose of the movement doing it?

If the latter, it'd be a mistake to just say 'oh, it's wrong' and leave it at that.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe they just voted for their pocketbook. [European Handbag]

 

[Amused]

Now that posters identified flaws in the poll, how about the next question - was this an 'accident', or propaganda, intentionally putting out false information?

If the latter, why, who is doing it, how much do they do it, what is the size and purpose of the movement doing it?

If the latter, it'd be a mistake to just say 'oh, it's wrong' and leave it at that.

LOL Craig.

No one has identified any valid "flaws" in the various polls from widely different sources that show the same results. They have only voiced denial of the facts in front of them.

 

[ElFenix]

LOL Craig.

No one has identified any valid "flaws" in the various polls from widely different sources that show the same results. They have only voiced denial of the facts in front of them.

other than a margin of error which makes the poll somewhere from 50&#37; (unbelievable) to in-line with results from previous elections.

and the giant selection bias in this election because conservatives/republicans were far more fired up to get out and vote than liberals/democrats.

because those aren't "valid flaws" :hmm:

basically the poll isn't all that great from a factual perspective, but my real concern is the trumpeting headline. the poll certainly does not support the statement 'gays vote GOP in record numbers.' 'higher proportion of voting self-identifying gay people vote republican' would be more accurate with the poll results and believable.

 

[Amused]

other than a margin of error which makes the poll somewhere from 50% (unbelievable) to in-line with results from previous elections.

and the giant selection bias in this election because conservatives/republicans were far more fired up to get out and vote than liberals/democrats.

because those aren't "valid flaws" :hmm:

basically the poll isn't all that great from a factual perspective, but my real concern is the trumpeting headline. the poll certainly does not support the statement 'gays vote GOP in record numbers.' 'higher proportion of voting self-identifying gay people vote republican' would be more accurate with the poll results and believable.

Semantics.

The CNN poll I posted comes up with the same %. Their sampling was 17,504.

You gotta love how people just can't believe it's true, so they try and make up shit to show it isn't. Never mind the fact that the REST of their exit poll data is spot on...

 

[ElFenix]

Semantics.

The CNN poll I posted comes up with the same %. Their sampling was 17,504.

You gotta love how people just can't believe it's true, so they try and make up shit to show it isn't. Never mind the fact that the REST of their exit poll data is spot on...

the national media teamed up and does 1 exit poll through edison research. that's the same exit poll. they didn't have 17,000 gay people.

 

[Amused]

the national media teamed up and does 1 exit poll through edison research. that's the same exit poll. they didn't have 17,000 gay people.

Again, the exit polls are accurate enough to call races correctly the vast majority of the time, but not accurate enough to know who gay people voted for?

Are you serious?

 

[fskimospy]

Semantics.

The CNN poll I posted comes up with the same &#37;. Their sampling was 17,504.

You gotta love how people just can't believe it's true, so they try and make up shit to show it isn't. Never mind the fact that the REST of their exit poll data is spot on...

The complaints actually come from people with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. For example from this article here: (this is the article I was referring to earlier)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/gop_gay_old_party_more_gays_vo.html

But Post polling director Jon Cohen urged caution when interpreting the exit polls. "[Be] *careful* of extremely low sample sizes," he wrote to me in an e-mail. "Given the way the exit poll was divided into smaller parts, only 126 voters interviewed nationwide described themselves as gay. Sampling error margin is about + or - at least nine points for this group of voters."

So yes, the full exit poll was 17,500 people, (the reason why their numbers are all the same btw is that they all pool their resources) but the people being examined on this issue were actually a subset of 126 people, a horrible N for providing meaningful poll data. As Mr. Cohen says, at least 9%. That's not the end of the story though. The 9% margin of error is for a truly random sample, which exit polls are not. That means the ACTUAL margin of error (due to self selection bias, etc.) is much, much higher. A general rule of thumb is to double the margin of error for these sorts of polls.

So, you were saying?

EDIT: That's not even to get into the fact that the gay people there were self identified as the update says. That's a whole other problem.

 

[Amused]

The complaints actually come from people with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. For example from this article here: (this is the article I was referring to earlier)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/gop_gay_old_party_more_gays_vo.html



So yes, the full exit poll was 17,500 people, (the reason why their numbers are all the same btw is that they all pool their resources) but the people being examined on this issue were actually a subset of 126 people, a horrible N for providing meaningful poll data. As Mr. Cohen says, at least 9%. That's not the end of the story though. The 9% margin of error is for a truly random sample, which exit polls are not. That means the ACTUAL margin of error (due to self selection bias, etc.) is much, much higher. A general rule of thumb is to double the margin of error for these sorts of polls.

So, you were saying?

Exactly what I said in my last post.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly what I said in my last post.

Do you understand the difference between a question that all 17,500 people answer in a meaningful way, ie:
A.) 'who did you vote for?' N = 17,500, margin of error = 0.74%

as compared to a question that only 126 people answer in a meaningful way?

A.) Are you gay? (126 answer yes)
B.) 'who did you vote for?' N = 126, margin of error = 8.74%

Both are nonrandom samples, which add to the trouble as mentioned before.

Do you understand now?

 

[Amused]

Do you understand the difference between a question that all 17,500 people answer in a meaningful way, ie:
A.) 'who did you vote for?' N = 17,500, margin of error = 0.74%

as compared to a question that only 126 people answer in a meaningful way?

A.) Are you gay? (126 answer yes)
B.) 'who did you vote for?' N = 126, margin of error = 8.74%

Both are nonrandom samples, which add to the trouble as mentioned before.

Do you understand now?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that calling a polling system that has been correct on election outcomes the vast majority of the time flawed enough to entirely discount is rather self serving simply because you choose not to believe the outcome?

Saying it's accurate enough to call elections, but not accurate enough to tell us who gays voted for is rather LOL.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that calling a polling system that has been correct on election outcomes the vast majority of the time flawed enough to entirely discount is rather self serving simply because you choose not to believe the outcome?

Saying it's accurate enough to call elections, but not accurate enough to tell us who gays voted for is rather LOL.

it's not LOL, it's basic statistics. the sample size is large enough for 'voters' but not large for 'gay voters.'

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that calling a polling system that has been correct on election outcomes the vast majority of the time flawed enough to entirely discount is rather self serving simply because you choose not to believe the outcome?

Saying it's accurate enough to call elections, but not accurate enough to tell us who gays voted for is rather LOL.

Please read my post again, its simple math.

 

[Amused]

Please read my post again, its simple math.

I did. And, again, why the selective suspicion?

Or do you disbelieve the race results when they are called on exit polls as well?

 

[fskimospy]

I did. And, again, why the selective suspicion?

Or do you disbelieve the race results when they are called on exit polls as well?

Of course not. My math clearly spelled out my 'selective suspicion'. One of those results has an N of 17,500, the other has an N of 126. Maybe a graph will show you more clearly than I have been able to explain:

When you measure the results of the polling questions with an N of 17,500, the answers you get are highly reliable, with a 95&#37; chance of being within 1% of the actual percentages felt by the voting population. Hence, we generally get good election calling results. (although not always, remember 2004)

When you measure with an N of 126, you have a 95% chance of the answer you got being within about 9% of what you got. That means that the true percentage as measured by the poll is somewhere between 40% and 22%.

All this assumes a random sample however, which exit polls are very much not. With the self selection problems, the clustering problems etc. the margin of error gets much worse. For an interesting read on this go here: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_is_the_sam.html

The important quote from it all:

All of this brings us to the sampling error table that the NEP included in their statement of methodology, which I have copied below. These are the estimates of sampling error provided to the networks on Election Day for a range of percentages at various samples sizes. They appear to represent an increase in sampling error of at least 50% over simple random sampling. NEP intended the table as a rough guide to the appropriate sampling error for the data they have publicly released, with the additional warning that highly clustered characteristics (such as racial groups (or ones of sexual orientation-edit by eskimospy)) may have even higher error.

That means that for the specific sample we're looking at, we could easily have a margin of error of 15 points or MORE. Gay support for Republicans could reasonably be as low as 15%, a drop of 4 points. Not only is the difference between the polls not significant at the 95% level, it's likely not even particularly close to significant.

Hopefully this clears things up as to why this part of the exit poll was completely meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

Now that posters identified flaws in the poll, how about the next question - was this an 'accident', or propaganda, intentionally putting out false information?

If the latter, why, who is doing it, how much do they do it, what is the size and purpose of the movement doing it?

If the latter, it'd be a mistake to just say 'oh, it's wrong' and leave it at that.

I see no reason to believe anyone was doing anything nefarious, it's just stupid people in the media taking a sensational story without doing the requisite checking into if their story meant anything. Pretty typical, really.