Jammie Wearing Fool and Macsmind Prove They Either Don’t Understand Polls, or Don’t Understand California

So when a good friend asks if I wanna join a fight, and we’re on the same side of that fight, you bet I’m in.  Especially when the topic at hand is as close to my heart as gay marriage.

So no one expects the right side of the blogosphere to be overly thrilled with the recent ruling that allows for gay marriages.  Who cares if some of these homosexual couples that will soon be allowed to be married have been in the same monogamous relationship for decades?  Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage far more than those who are on their third, fourth, or fifth marriage and have turned the concept of divorce into a triviality.

Two dudes exchanging vows is a FAR worse crime.

I’m just sayin’.

But that’s fine, we disagree, and that’s understandable.  In fact, that’s sort of how this country works; we all see the world through our own lenses, we argue, the majority tends to get their way, but there are concessions made to ensure that the minority don’t get trampled upon.

What’s at issue is apparently a series of recently released polls that provide something of a snapshot of public opinion, a snapshot, mind you, that does not paint a pretty picture for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

In fact, Jammie Wearing Fool appears outright steamed that now the liberals are slanting the polls to make it look as though California is more in favor of gay marriage than it really isMacranger jumps in on the fun too.

The funny bit from JWF comes in right about here:

When broken down by party, the sample is 43% Democrat, 33% Republican, 24% non-partisan. In other words, Republicans are outnumbered 67-33%. Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area comprise 46% of those polled.

In other words, this poll doesn’t even come close to a fair representation of the population. Granted, California is a blue state, but you cannot possibly claim a poll where left outnumbers right 70-30% as valid.

Now my buddy Mark over at Publius Endures caught this and tried, nicely, to point out the errors in JWF’s thinking and kinda got ridiculed for it, which is too bad because Mark delivers a pretty healthy deconstruction of Jammie Wearing Fool’s argument.  You should definitely go read it as I don’t intend to steal Mark’s thunder (he can be a bigger poll geek than me which is kind of scary actually).

But I did want to point out the obvious, or the obvious to anyone who has lived in California for… say… 18-19 years.  OF COURSE San Francisco and LA tilt the scales.  You’re talking about the two most populous regions of the state, without which California turns red really fast.

I mean, I can understand that people have this notion that from top to bottom, from Nevada to the Pacific, California’s this big honkin’ liberal Mecca with Orange County/San Diego region acting as the lone conservative outpost, but that doesn’t quite cut it.

California has a great deal of conservative regions, a lot of rural areas with plenty of conservative folks.  They just happen to be greatly outnumbered by the Bay Area and Los Angeles.  In fact a quick jaunt over the past few electoral maps tend to back this up.

Back in 2004, Bush won much of California, with Kerry clinging to the coast, but netting enormous wins in San Francisco, Alameda (Sort of the SF suburb region), and LA counties.  And taking a quick look at the populations and margins of victory county by county, Kerry could have taken the state with the nearly 900K strong margin of victory in LA alone.

We see it again in 2000 where Bush again won most of the state geographically, but still lost the coast and LA bad enough to lose California.

It’s called population density, and you would think that JWF and Macsmind would have grasped this concept by now.  It’s not really that hard to grasp.  More people, more votes, it just seems kind of natural.

Now, if we made political decisions based on geographical data, such as, I don’t know, square Republican miles vs. square Democratic miles, oh yeah, we’d be screwed.  But thankfully clumps of dirt aren’t given a say in how governance is undertaken.

But, whatever.  I suppose in six months we’ll all know for certain one way or another, but I would say that I think this gets tougher after people actually get married.  Sure, these marriage will enflame those who simply can’t sleep at night knowing that two adults of the same gender who love each other very much got to exchange rings and the whole shebang, but for the rest of the people, you know, those I like to call reasonable people, I’m pretty sure they’ll find that allowing gay marriage didn’t lead to the end of the world.  Opinions will be softened, and everything will be okay.

One thing I don’t see happening is enough support for the constitutional amendment to actually get passed, but again, we’ll find out in November.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook