Last week the Field Poll released the results of a survey about the recent California Supreme Court homosexual marriage ruling. According to the Field Poll, 51% of Californians “support” homosexual marriage. Now any political veteran knows that you can make a poll say whatever you want based on the phrasing of the questions posed. From what I’ve read, the Field Poll didn’t release the questions it posed to obtain the 51% approval rating for homosexual marriage. But another poll conducted late last week found the exact opposite of the Field Poll.
Released just this morning, ccAdvertising announced the results of a poll that directly contradicts the Field Poll. According to ccAdvertising, when asked the question “Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal and binding in America?” California respondents answered "Yes" 56.20%, and "No" 43.80%.
The company explained that "the survey was completed in one 24-hour period ending at 7:00 p.m on May 30, 2008, with 528 California respondents and was statistically balanced by population density." On Wednesday the polling company will release the results of further nationwide polling regarding the marriage issue and the presidential election.
The thing that makes ccAdvertising more accurate than the Field Poll (other than asking direct and specific, not vague, questions) is that it uses artificial intelligence calls (AIC) or automated surveys to obtain its results. These types of polls are apparently more accurate than poll that rely on a live caller posing questions. Even the uber-liberal Daily Kos blog has admitted that this type of polling is more accurate: "The reality is that Robo-pollsters like Survey USA and Rasmussen have had the best track record the past few election cycles." (Daily Kos May 28, 2008.)
So it looks like the constitutional marriage amendment initiative has a strong lead for its campaign. Even though many inaccurate polls may misreport California’s views on marriage, it is still clear that citizens support traditional marriage. In 2000, just days before Proposition 22 passed with over 61% of the vote, pollsters were reporting numbers way off of the final results. This just proves the fact that the only poll that really counts is the one on Election Day.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ms. Turney:
Thank you for sharing this very good news.
In their last pre-primary poll on Prop. 22 (dated Feb. 29, 2000)
the Field Poll showed that measure ahead by just 13 points.
It actually won the election by 23 %. (61.4 to 38.6).
This is not a knock on Mervin Field, who has set a very high
standard of excellence for decades.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
The Republicans should walk away from this issue, period.
It explains why the Rs can’t win elections – other than safe seats given them by Democrats.
Most folks don’t give a damn and just want low taxes and small government. When the Rs go into posturing over who hangs out with whom, they lose votes in areas they should otherwise own.
It would be funny to watch the R party further self-destruct in California if it didn’t mean my taxes would go up or gun rights would be further trampled upon.
Someone should tell CA Rs that Orange County Bible thumpers aren’t too popular in other areas. The moment they realize that, they’ll restore some of the Assembly & Senate seats they lost.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Wiese:
Proposition 22, defining marriage as the union of one man, and one woman,
carried 52 of California’s 58 counties…… including YOUR HOME COUNTY
of Santa Clara, and YOUR HOME CITY of San Jose. Here are the figures:
San Jose………..YES…….92,234……………..NO.. 71,630……. 56%..Yes
Santa Clara……..YES……189,644……………..NO..171,739……..53%..Yes
Apparently there are LOTS of people in your own community who care quite a
bit about the future of Marriage and Families in California, not just about the
economic issues.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Even so, in my assembly district voters rejected Republican candidates that were anti-same sex marriage and pro-same sex marriage. Voters just wanted the socialism even though Nell Soto and Gloria Negrette Mcleod were pro-same sex marriage.
Even so, its not likely that these individuals will cross over to the Republican Party. I hear proponents for the initiative state that 70% of the people in Assembly District 61 voted for the initiative, but Gloria still won with 55% of the vote.
And all the Democrats who supported same sex marriage ie: AB 43 still got re-elected.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
James,
All that proves is the uncharacteristic win of one battle
just leads to a loss in the overall war.
All the goons come out to ‘beat a queer’ – but apparently they don’t give a damn about how the party fares on the day to day issues, so the R’s end up tanking in general.
Until the CA R’s shut up about this as well as “choice” – and pick their priorities, they’re not gonna go gain any seats in Assembly or state Senate.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Wiese:
You seem to be an intelligent person. But each time you trivialize the
argument over Marriage with terms like “goons” and “beat a queer” you
effectively admit you have no real arguments of your own.
Why do you object to defining Marriage as the union of one man and
one woman?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Munson:
Your make a good case for reapportionment reform. Almost all state
legislators now have districts they cannot lose in November.
With fair district boundaries, we can have lots of competitive legislative
elections again.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
James,
> each time you trivialize the
> argument over Marriage with
> terms like “goons” and “beat
> a queer” you effectively admit
> you have no real arguments of
> your own.
No, my argument is clear. The CA Rs in general have an autism-like social disorder wherein they don’t recognize how those outside the fold feel about them.
“Nontraditional folks” as well as families who have one or more of those as members might well vote R because of limited gov’t/fiscal policies feel but they feel attacked instead.
> Why do you object to defining
> Marriage as the union of one
> man and one woman?
Mostly because I don’t give a damn and have no dog in the fight, and because I have no right to get in others’ affairs – and even more importantly because some nontraditional folks that might want this maybe would vote our way if they weren’t attacked.
I only see very insecure (or religiously biased) folks worrying about these matters. People worrying about this have too much time on their hands. I don’t care if someone wants to marry a rock or their cat, either.
A fair fraction of San Francisco is so sick of ultraleft liberalism – the dirty streets, the ineffective police, the homeless – that they’d vote Republican if they did not feel attacked for their lifestyle. These are folks with higher incomes, higher educations, and professional employment who have financial futures to worry about and should be welcomed instead of attacked. If a decade passes without Republican attacks – such as this phony ‘defense of marriage’ measure – we might get some more Republicans.
It’s called winning elections.
Something the R’s don’t seem to be able to do in CA except when occasional ‘bait’ propositions get the emotions flowing.
Bill Wiese
San Jose
July 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ms. Turney:
Another Precinct Reports on the Definition of Marriage Initiative…
* “Survey USA” polled Proposition 8 here in San Diego county
last month, and found it ahead by 20 points (53% to 33%).
In 2000, San Diego’s vote on Proposition 22 closely mirrored the
statewide totals.. (62.7% yes in San Diego, 61.4% statewide).
All the Details on the Survey USA results are available here:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bc192b59-e74c-47b7-8c9e-dee356a601ef