According to a new poll from the liberal Huffington Post and YouGov, “Support for gay marriage has become the majority opinion, and voters now also say they’re more likely to reject a presidential candidate opposed to gay marriage than one who backs it—something gay marriage advocates hope marks a political tipping point for 2016.”
About 20 percent of voters overall who say opposition to gay marriage is a deal-breaker, while about 15 percent say supporting it is.
Most Democrats favor a presidential candidate who supports marriage equality (54 percent). Significantly, however, more Republicans voters say a candidate’s opinion on same-sex marriage doesn’t matter or they’re not sure (47 percent) than those who favor an anti-gay marriage candidate (41 percent), while 12 percent of Republicans would favor a candidate who supports the freedom to marry. If true, this shows progress occurring in both parties.
Some may have assumed that more than 54 percent of Democrats would favor a candidate supporting gay marriage (they are the “progressive” liberal party, aren’t they?). I assume a greater percentage of opposition to marriage equality is still among African Americans, who as a bloc have lagged behind the rest of the party, according to separate polling, although these numbers show signs of shifting in a positive direction as well.
As for voters who identify as independents, the HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that they “tend to line up more closely with Democrats in their opinions of gay marriage, saying by an 8-point margin that they’d prefer a candidate to support than to oppose gay marriage. Those who’d prefer a gay marriage supporter, though, are less likely than their Democratic peers to say the issue would be a deal-breaker.”
Daniel Cox, the research director at the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, observed: “I don’t think you’re going to see a single Republican come out in support of same-sex marriage, but you may see some downplaying it in preparation for facing a general electorate, which is by and large supportive of the issue.” I think that’s right.
Interestingly, YouGov polling in Britain now shows that throughout the UK “those people who thought homosexuality ‘morally wrong’ sat at around 15 percent,” but that “in London the number of people who said they thought homosexuality is immoral was almost double (29 percent) what it was in the rest of the country.” Turns out “diversity” and liberalism (in its true sense) don’t always go hand in hand. (Sorry, this isn’t “racist,” anti-immigrant or anti-Islam; it’s what the poll numbers show.)
More. Ted Cruz is announcing his presidential run at the Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University. His platform includes amending the U.S. Constitution to nullify court rulings on the constitutionality of unequal marriage laws. Cruz, it appears, is partying like it’s 2004. Beyond the insular Iowa caucuses, we’ll see how well that strategy plays out now.
Furthermore. David Boaz, author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, tells Bloomberg Politics:: “Cruz is announcing at the Vatican of fundamentalism. That doesn’t seem like the path to a winning coalition, even within the GOP.”
Maybe he’s trying to be the new William Jennings Bryan.
26 Comments for “Turning Point: Americans Would Rather Vote for a President Who Supports Marriage Equality”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Some may have assumed that more than 54 percent of Democrats would favor a candidate supporting gay marriage (they are the “progressive” liberal party, aren’t they?). I assume a greater percentage of opposition to marriage equality is still among African Americans, who as a bloc have lagged behind the rest of the party, according to separate polling, although these numbers show signs of shifting in a positive direction as well.
I don’t think that the poll supports that theory. Here’s why:
The most recent polls (NBC/WSJ March 1-5, 2015, CBS February 13, 2015, and CNN/ORC, February 12-5) show consistent support for marriage equality at roughly 60%-35%. The two that break down by political affiliation (CBS and CNN/ORC) both show Democrats at between 70-75% support, Independents at 60-65% support, and Republicans at 40-45% support. The numbers are significantly higher than even a couple of years ago.
The HP/YouGov poll asks a different question, which is whether support for marriage equality translates into voting patterns — that is, whether or not marriage equality is a “voting issue”, pro or con.
The results from that question show that roughly two-thirds (54%) of the 70-75% of Democrats who favor marriage equality would be “more likely to vote for a candidate who supports marriage equality” and that roughly half (15%) of the Democrats who oppose marriage equality whould be “more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes marriage equality”. For the rest, a candidate’s stance on marriage equality would not influence their vote.
Similar results follow with respect to Independent and Republican voters. The issue is a “voting issue” for far less voters than the voters who hold a position, pro or con, on marriage equality.
What we are seeing here, I think, is what we have known for a long time, that is, a candidate’s stance on marriage equality is not a “high priority issue for a large number of voters.
Daniel Cox, the research director at the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, observed: “I don’t think you’re going to see a single Republican come out in support of same-sex marriage, but you may see some downplaying it in preparation for facing a general electorate, which is by and large supportive of the issue.” I think that’s right.
I think so, too. A Republican presidential candidate cannot, at least in this election cycle, “come out in support of same-sex marriage” and have a prayer of winning in Republican primaries.
The question is going to be whether independents are going to be influenced in the general election cycle this time around. I don’t know the answer to that, but I suspect that a candidate who signaled support for “massive resistance” efforts (including but not limited to the so-called “religious freedom” laws) will have a tougher row to hoe than a candidate who signals “accept that the fight is over”. Well have to see how this plays out over the next year. I suspect that a majority of independents, like a majority of the American people, want to put marriage equality to bed as an issue, and will be less likely to support a candidate who wants to keep the fight going.
posted by Houndentenor on
Are we really supposed to believe that Huckabee, Santorum and the rest of the candidates are going to remain silent about gay marriage? Yes, the ones who actually have a chance at the nomination are going to be advised to dodge the issue but are they going to be able to avoid it while sharing the stage with candidates who won’t want to talk about much else, even if it’s only as part of a rant about “activist judges”? Stephen may turn out to be right. I hope we can move past gay rights as a wedge issue. I’m exhausted from the anti-gay rhetoric that makes up way too much of every political campaign here in Texas. But I don’t see it coming since I am stuck in the deep red while Stephen can easily ignore it safely in deep blue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
No, they won’t be able to avoid it, and all of them will have to say “I support traditional marriage, and have a long record to show it.”
The question is what they will say after that statement. I don’t think that any of them are going to say “I accept the Court’s decision; the fight is over …” and leave it at that.
Even Jeb Bush, who is touted as the most gay-friendly of the Republican candidates this cycle, when interviewed on the steps of the Georgia capitol last week, flipped into a statement of support for Georgia’s “religious freedom” bill.
Stephen seems to think that the current Republican “formula” — support traditional marriage, accept the Court’s decision, support “religious freedom” bills — will fly with independents and pro-equality young voters.
I wonder, given how heated (and probably ugly) the discussion about so-called “religious freedom” is likely to become over the next two years, whether the “formula” will fly or backfire.
My guess is that most Americans will quickly grasp that “religious freedom” is a code word for continued discrimination, and it will backfire.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Good post talking about whether or not we’ve reached an electoral tipping point that may make base GOP politics more problematic going forward… until you just had to go non-sequitur and try to equate British politics with American politics. British pols on the ‘right’ are all considerably center-left when compared to the U.S. – and those of us who still work in diversity circles also recognize the difference in approach and reality between the two.
In the US, we’ve worked for decades to get parity in health care coverage for our lgbt families – something that isn’t a factor in the UK because of universal health care for example. Having a national healthcare service is anathema (to be truthful, anything approaching helping the poor) to the GOP… But an accepted fact for the Tories.
posted by Houndentenor on
And the Democrats would be the center (or further) right party in most European countries. The idea that Democrats are all that liberal or even leftist is a fantasy of the American far right.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
(Sorry, this isn’t “racist,” anti-immigrant or anti-Islam; it’s what the poll numbers show.)
No, but the fact that you feel it necessary to say so suggests that you are worried about the implication that going after “diversity” might be.
There is a simpler explanation, Stephen.
The largest foriegn born populations (those above 100,000) in the UK come from the following countries (in order): India (729k), Poland (646k), Pakistan (465k), Ireland (403k), Germany (304k), Bangladesh (234k), United States (217k), and South Africa (209k), Nigeria (180k), Jamaica (145k), Kenya (142k), France (136k), Phillipines (134k), Italy (133k), Sri Lanka (131k), Australia (110k).
The common characteristic of those countries is neither race nor Islam, but the fact that only two (France, South Africa) recognize SSM and almost all are significantly more social conservative than the UK.
Perhaps the problem is in use of the word “diversity”, which is a common code word used to describe non-white and/or non-Christian. Or perhaps the problem is sloppy thinking on the part of the author of the Spectator article which snarked:
”
Don’t be taken in by Douglas Murray’s sloppy thinking, Stephen.
posted by Houndentenor on
If someone has to make a point of explaining that they aren’t racist, they probably are. At least just a little bit.
posted by Jorge on
Well I think we’re all at least a little bit racist. But that aside, it depends on who starts the conversation. If you have to make a point of saying you’re not racist (in a big way) in response to an accusation of racism, it says more about your disdain toward the person or their argument than whether you’re racist.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you have to make a point of saying you’re not racist (in a big way) in response to an accusation of racism, it says more about your disdain toward the person or their argument than whether you’re racist.
So who do you suppose Stephen was responding to? It seems to me that he is the one who raised the question. Nobody accused him of being either racist or anti-Islam. If anything gives rise to the question, it is his defensiveness.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t *always* cover for Stephen, Tom 😉
posted by Francis on
@Jorge
You don’t seem to do much cross-examination of the man either, señor.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I want to be clear, with respect to my “sloppy thinking” remarks above, that I am not suggesting that Stephen is either “racist, anti-immigrant or anti-Islam”. I do think that he has bought into some sloppy thinking on Douglas Murray’s part without critical examination.
Murray suggests the “diversity” (“ Or is it possible that the ‘diversity’ of our capital city is precisely the cause of this ‘un-progressive’ fact?“) accounts for the higher percentage of people in London who think that homosexuality is immoral, and Stephen gives voice to the hidden assumptions behind Murray’s suggestion that “diversity” is the issue (“Sorry, this isn’t “racist,” anti-immigrant or anti-Islam; it’s what the poll numbers show.“).
The problem with this is that none of it is supported by hard facts. The actual survey breaks down by age, party affiliation, region (five regions – London, Rest of South, Midlands/Wales, North, Scotland), and something called “Social Grade”. The survey shows the usual demographic patterns with respect to age and party affiliation, but the survey does not offer any hard evidence explaining the reason why London’s attitudes differ significantly from the other regions.
The survey provides no information about the relative percentages of foreign-born versus native-born in the regions (although other studies suggest that the foreign-born population of the UK, as is the case in the US, settle in the larger metro regions for the first and perhaps second generation), and no information breaking down attitudes by native-born versus foreign-born. The survey provides no information about other demographic factors (e.g. age demographics) that might correlate with the different attitudes. The study provides no information regarding other urban areas (e.g. Birmingham of Jindal-designated “No Go” fame) that might be used to correlate or compare results. And so on. The survey reports a difference in result, but gives no information beyond that fact.
It may well be that London has a higher percentage of foreign-born than the other regions, because the London region is urban rather than mixed urban-rural. And it may well be that the foreign-born population of the UK is more socially conservative than the native-born population, for the reason I pointed out in my “sloppy thinking” remarks — almost all of the countries contributing the highest number of foreign-born to the UK’s population are significantly more socially conservative than the UK. But no hard facts back that up. To equate the different attitudes with “diversity” a significant number of blanks have to be filled in, and this Murray does not do. He just charges ahead with his polemic.
Murray’s article in the Spectator is itself interesting. It is a response to two Spectator posts (Alex Massie’s “The children of migrants are just as British as anyone else”, and Matthew Parris’s “Anti-Muslim prejudice is real, and it’s scary”), and it is puerile response. In response to the two posts (one of which points out that the UK’s experience with immigrants is similar to that of the US, in the sense that the first generation holds on to the old ways and old attitudes, but the second and subsequent generations do not, and the other of which points out that recent events in Europe have led to an increase in anti-Muslim prejudice), Murray posts an article which suggests, but does not directly say and certainly does not back up with facts, the idea that “diversity” (that is, the immigrants) have different attitudes toward homosexuality than the rest of the county.
And then we get to the question of “diversity” itself. Apparently, “diversity” in UK conservative circles is a code word that means “Black and/or Muslim”, essentially a take-off on the old term “wog”. In US conservative circles, “diversity” is a code word that means “non-white (Black, Hispanic, Asian) and non-Christian (more specifically, non-Protestant)”, with a sniff of non-conformity (e.g. gays and lesbians). In both countries, apparently, the terms are used similarly to describe “the other”, and is used to drum up fear scenarios (the “____” are taking over and ruining what is good about “____”).
Stephen suggests that the two uses of the word “diversity” can be conflated (“Turns out “diversity” and liberalism (in its true sense) don’t always go hand in hand.“), and maybe he’s right, but only in the sense that the idea that “the other” might influence our culture in a significant way scares the bejesus out of conservatives.
If pointing out the differences in the survey between the London region and the rest of the UK is “racist, anti-immigrant or anti-Islam”, it is “racist, anti-immigrant or anti-Islam” solely because of the lazy assumptions behind the assertion that “diversity” is the cause.
Mostly, though, the problem is incredibly sloppy thinking.
posted by Jorge on
All good points.
I don’t even know enough about the United Kingdom to know if the idea that London is progressive is accurate. Certainly cities in the US are contrasted to rural areas, and then suburbia, which is a more modern development than cities. Does London even have suburbs, or are what we would call suburbs considered part of London? What happened in London in place of what happened in our cities?
posted by Jorge on
…I assume a greater percentage of opposition to marriage equality is still among African Americans, who as a bloc have lagged behind the rest of the party, according to separate polling, although these numbers show signs of shifting in a positive direction as well.
True. But it’s not just about race. You also have the blue collar or working class vote. How many social liberals would say that a candidate’s position on unions is a make or break issue? Such a voting bloc exists–there is a small but very vocal minority of community office seekers in my community who are absolutely unyielding in placing the interests of union labor over all other considerations. No one ever speaks out against them in principle, only against the extent of their fervor.
In spite of these divisions, Democrats are very good at running candidates who can explain what economic issues have in common with social issues.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Really? Polling data just tells the gospel truth and can’t be manipulated, misinterpreted or just plain ‘fudged?’ Wow. I like to see what Stephen is smoking.
Immigrants coming from developing/third world nations to a post industrial, democratic nation almost ALWAYS more traditional/religious then say, people who grew up in the industrial, democratic nation.
In America, attacks on Catholic immigrants frequently argued that these folks had very parochial attitudes and were not compatible with a liberal, republican form of government. A similar affair is going on with Muslim immigrants.
Religious fundamentalism – of any stripe – tends to be patriarchal, male dominated and, yes, homophobic. Yet, that doesn’t mean that Catholicism is incompatible with democratic norms.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
As for U.S presidential election, the proof oaught to be in the pooding, as they say.
Their is certainly the possibility of substantial change within the GOP (majority of candidates and office holders) concerning gay rights.
Right now, the ‘mainstream’ GOP primary candidates are not promising to support equality, but they are trying to craft a position in such a way so as to seem like it is something substantive. Basically, trying to turn nothing into something.
Granted, lots of politicians do this (in both parties and probably the minor new as well) but it would be nice if a major nominee for “leader of the free world” wasn’t trying to half-ass his views this early in the campaign trail.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was a little excited to hear that Cruz was officially announcing that he was running for president. And then I realized that he wouldn’t be resigning from the Senate to do so. My senators are Cruz and Cornyn. How embarrassing. If the GOP has any sense Cruz won’t last past South Carolina. But as I keep saying, anyone thinking that the GOP is going to drop gay marriage in 2016 is kidding themselves. I will be happy to be proven wrong but assuming the worst about politicians is almost always a safe bet.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ted Cruz is announcing his presidential run at the Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University. His platform includes passing a constitutional amendment to prevent courts from ruling on the constitutionality of unequal marriage laws. Cruz, it appears, is partying like it’s 2004. Beyond the insular Iowa caucuses, we’ll see how well that strategy plays out now.
The Houston Chronicle reports on the Cruz strategy, which is interesting because it contemplates working up support in “the party’s libertarian wing” while running a low-budget campaign: “Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party’s libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.”
As you suggest, we’ll see how it works out. It is, indeed, a throwback to 2004. Ron Paul, you will remember, was a prime mover for the “Marriage Protection Act” (HR 3313), a law removing federal court issues over “culture war” issues. The constitutional amendment proposed by Cruz is a direct descendant.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. David Boaz, author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, tells Bloomberg Politics:: “Cruz is announcing at the Vatican of fundamentalism. That doesn’t seem like the path to a winning coalition, even within the GOP.”
Well, sure. But Cruz is not, apparently, trying to put together a “winning coalition within the GOP”, but instead to become everyone’s “second choice”, so that when it becomes clear that Jeb Bush can’t get past the conservative base, when Scott Walker fumbles as too dumb, and when Rand Paul falters as too flaky to make a credible run, Cruz will be still standing, can pick up the pieces and run along the lines he outlined at CPAC:
.
Cruz’s path is a narrow path, and depends on other candidates falling by the wayside before the convention. Because the path is narrow and depends on events beyond his control, he is unlikely to be successful. But it could work out for him. Whether it does or not, it is his only option.
While David Boaz’s observation is astute, I wouldn’t infer from his observation the Cruz’s social conservatism will be an impediment to getting support from the so-called “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party in the general election.
Republican “libertarians” have a long and unbroken record of supporting hard-core social conservative candidates if the candidate is sufficiently anti-government and supportive of critical “libertarian” goals, such as deregulating business and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
Cruz, unlike Huckabee and Carson, is not just a social conservative. Cruz has positioned himself over the years to appeal to both the social conservative and “libertarian” wings of the party. It could work out, although he’s a long shot.
posted by Jorge on
Well, sure. But Cruz is not, apparently, trying to put together a “winning coalition within the GOP”, but instead to become everyone’s “second choice”, so that when it becomes clear that Jeb Bush can’t get past the conservative base, when Scott Walker fumbles as too dumb, and when Rand Paul falters as too flaky to make a credible run, Cruz will be still standing, can pick up the pieces and run along the lines he outlined at CPAC…
Didn’t work for Rick Santorum.
(He wasn’t as well known.)
Then it didn’t work for any of 2012’s better-known also-rans!
posted by Kosh III on
Funny, I thought Stephen was recently saying that only the “outliers” in the GOP were still gay-hostile but here we have all the GOP candidates still spouting the same old hate and division. Cruz is Pat Buchanan Plus.
posted by Francis on
Funny that Falwell, from what we know of him and his ideology, would call it “Liberty” University. Makes me remember my Lincoln: “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.”
posted by Jorge on
Oh, so you’re mentioning Ted Cruz, are you?
“Cruz is announcing at the Vatican of fundamentalism. That doesn’t seem like the path to a winning coalition, even within the GOP.”
Oh, I don’t know. I like the Vatican, and a lot of people think it’s wacky. People respect faith and conviction in this country.
Just not enough that it overrides their concern for results. If all that holiness leads to someone wanting to shut down the government and making life miserable for everyone but a select few, most voters will ignore him.
posted by Francis on
As to the Vatican, it has its ups and downs like any other country. I have a favourable view of Pope Francis and I definitely take his side against the Cardinals challenging his authority (though I may disagree with him on certain matters), but that doesn’t mean I consider theocracy to be a good form of government.
As to Cruz, can we really afford to take the chance that most voters will ignore him? The right-wing media industrial complex are doing everything they can to make sure this bastard gets into power. Not to mention the measures Republican governors are taking to make voting harder to do, coupled with apathy from a concerning number of the populace.
posted by Doug on
Just to be clear, this ‘people’ has no respect for right wing fundamentalist. There is precious little difference between them and the Taliban.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And now Rand Paul is calling for another “Great Awakening” in response to gay marriage… so much for the “libertarians” like Boaz and company… http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-moral-crisis-gay-marraige-revival