Nate Silver On The Sucky Maine Marriage Equality Result

[Hissyspit]

As he states below, Silver predicted that the attempt to repeal Maine's gay marriage equality law would be defeated. He discusses some of the possible factors for why he got it wrong that the bigots would prevail:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/what-happened-and-why.html

What Happened and Why?

by Nate Silver @ 2:43 AM

- snip -

Maine -- Question 1. Maine votes Yes on Question 1 -- which means no on gay marriage -- by a margin of about 52-48. Turnout was extremely high and should eventually surpass 500,000 voters, about where it was during the 2006 midterms. This fact was initially thought to favor the pro-gay marriage side -- but, obviously, it didn't. The results showed a very strong urban-rural divide, with the initiative being rejected by a margin of about 2:1 in Portland but racking up big margins in smaller towns and rural areas, especially in the north of the state.

We had given Question 1 about a 70 percent chance of being defeated based on a combination of an analysis of the polling and a statistical model. I don't know how much time I'm supposed to spend defending being on the wrong side of a 70:30 bet -- we build in a hedge for a reason -- but here comes a little self-reflection. As for the polling, I think we have to seriously consider whether there is some sort of a Bradley Effect in the polling on gay rights issues, although one of the pollsters (PPP, which had a very bad night in NY-23) got it exactly right. As for the model, I think I'll need to look whether the urban-rural divide is a significant factor in a state in addition to its religiosity: Maine is secular, but rural. At the end of the day, it may have been too much to ask of a state to vote to approve gay marriage in an election where gay marriage itself was the headline issue on the ballot. Although the enthusiasm gap is very probably narrowing, feelings about gay marriage have traditionally been much stronger on the right than the left, and that's what gets people up off the couch in off-year elections.

I certainly don't think the No on 1 campaign can be blamed; by every indication, they ran a tip-top operation whereas the Yes on 1 folks were amateurish. But this may not be an issue where the campaign itself matters very much; people have pretty strong feelings about the gay marriage issue and are not typically open to persuasion. There's going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don't know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more.

[msongs]

1. the bible cult strikes again - 2000 years of this sort of stuff. nt

[Newsjock]

2. No on 1 was met with outright hostility from the White House

Little wonder that we lost when the "fierce advocate" wouldn't take a stand:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/some-explaining-to-do.html

It is staggering to me that the message discipline from the DNC is so tight that they even forbade OFA from telling Obama-supporters which way to vote on the referendum. It's one more sign, I fear, that the Democratic establishment's opposition to marriage equality is real; and the president's peeps are increasingly determined to do what they can keep us from the right to civil marriage.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Sadly There's A Black Problem On This Issue

Not that it had an effect in Maine, but I am sure it did in California. How ironic as two generations ago there was a similar debate over inter-racial marriage. The rub being that there are still many deep homophobic feelings that may not be apparent on the outside or even in polling, but sure do manifest themselves when it's on the ballot. When I was a kid the word "gay" was a major perjorative that I think still keeps some from viewing GLBT folks as "normal"...wrong as it may be, these seeds were planted long ago and still continue to affect how many of my generation view GLBT issues and the concept of gay marriage.

Also, as long as you mention the White House, there definitely is a problem with blacks and hispanics in accepting rights for gays that they fought for themselves...much of it based on the heavy influence of the church in their communities. Not long ago I had lunch with a black friend and the topic of GMA came up...while he is politically liberal on every other topic, there's a definite stigma when it comes to accepting gays as being "normal" and he admitted that a lot of it had to do with his upbringing and the preaching of his church. I'm curious how one overcomes these big obstacles...or does on have to wait for my generation to die off?

[rurallib]

8. I doubt Obama had much sway on this issue in Maine

here is the perspective from Bill in Portland Maine over at DailyKos:
=============================================================================================================
Postscript

"Please, sir, may I have another?"

The lesson we learned last night in Maine is pretty simple: if you want to deny the right of gay people to get married, just put it to a popular vote. Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut---I believe they'd all vote it down, too, if given the opportunity. Let's not kid ourselves...this is gay marriage. And to well over half the people in this country in late 2009, you might as well call it pig vomit.
===============================================================================================================
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/4/800205/-Cheers-and-Jeers:-Wednesday

Obama is not the lightning rod for every issue in this country.

[FLAprogressive]

3. I used to like Nate, until he started to whore for Obama. Nothing can EVER be Obama's fault.....

[Barack_America]

4. I wonder how many people thought they were voting "yes" for gay marriage.

The question of (to summarize), "Should we vote to repeal the law permitting gay marriage?" could be confusing for some people.

The whole "Yes means no" thing could have tripped some people up.

[raw oysters]

5. Some probably did but that would work in our favor (assuming we support equal rights)

nu?
I mean, if they opposed same sex marriage and thought a 'yes' vote was in favor of it, they'd vote no...
:shrug:

[Barack_America]

7. And if they supported gay marriage they would have voted "yes".

Which means "no".

Medical marijuana passed. And while I suppose there are people who support medical marijuana who don't support gay marriage, I do wonder how many people went into the booth and voted "yes" for gay marriage (which was a "no") and "yes" for medical marijuana (which was actually a "yes").

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. We had a 'people's veto' referendum..

..on an anti-discrimination bill in 2005, for which a 'no' vote was also needed to save the legislation, and it was saved, by eight per cent.

People up here know how these work. 70% or more of last night's voters were around and voting on that ballot question