I'm curious: how did white *working class* voters split on Prop 8.?

[Smarmie Doofus]

Anyone know where to get stats on that?

I suspect that Prop 8 increased in popularity in inverse proportion to education and income levels. In other words better educated and higher income people ( those two generally go together) tended to vote NO. Less-well educated and lower income people tended to vote YES.

The 30% of AA who voted NO are probably included in group 1... and the 70% who voted YES are probably in group 2. ( assuming of course that the 70-30 exit polls split is accurate)

In other words YES or NO on Prop 8 is probably a function of social *class* and not of ethnicity/race.

That's my theory.... now prove me wrong.

[msongs]

1. That's your theory? Now...prove it true. lol nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. I'm too freaking tired and I thought that in all the back and forth....

... that's consumed the board over this issue that someone would have covered this ground before.


If not... let's put it to rest. Too me it seems highly plausible. I'm just wondering if anyone has the stats to elucidate this part of it.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

2. Had the same thought myself. I'm not sure good data exists, though.

The closest is this CNN exit poll (link below).

White people earning less than $50k were split down the middle on Prop 8: 50/50
Non-white people earning less thank $50k were similarly split: 51 Yea/49 Nay.

White people earning more than $50k: 48 Yea/52 Nay.
Non-white people earning more than $50k: 56 Yea/44 Nay

Further income breakdown (no race)
Under $15,000 (5%) - 46 Yea/54 Nay
$15-30,000 (10%) - 48 Yea/52 Nay
$30-50,000 (15%) - 54 Yea/46 Nay
$50-75,000 (19%) - 54 Yea/46 Nay
$75-100,000 (17%) - 50/50
$100-150,000 (17%) - 54 Yea/46 Nay
$150-200,000 (7%) - 47 Yea/53 Nay
$200,000 or More (9%) - 45 Yea/55 Nay

As for education...

High School Grad: 56 Yea/44 Nay
Some College: 57 Yea/43 Nay
College Grad: 50/50
Postgraduate: 40 Yea/60 Nay

White College Graduates (36%) - 43 Yea/57 Nay
Whites - No College (27%) - 58 Yea/42 Nay

Non-White College Grads (13%) - 55 Yea/45 Nay
Non-White - No College (24%) - 57 Yea/43 Nay


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Thanks. Non-whites would presumably include....

Asians and I'm guessing some if not all Hispanics... depending on how they identify and how the stats are collected. There are a *lot* of Hispanics in Cal.

It does emphatically confirm the "higher the education" the "higher the NO vote for both whites and non-whites.

I'd like to see stats on AA's alone... since they are bearing the brunt of the criticism.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

5. Yeah, me too. Plus income by race. But I don't know if we'll ever see that data

[bluedawg12]

7. Actually this shows that both non-college and college grads

voted nearly identical in the no-white group, what ever they defined that as being.

Non-White College Grads (13%) - 55 Yea/45 Nay
Non-White - No College (24%) - 57 Yea/43 Nay

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. This is pretty telling:

Whites - No College (27%) - 58 Yea/42 Nay

Non-White - No College (24%) - 57 Yea/43 Nay


I don't see a difference worth commenting upon. Again, I don't know what "non-white" means.

It seems *if* 70% of the AA electorate voted "YES" , NO would have had to score dramatically higher among Asians and other non-whites for the above stats to hold. I mean *dramatically* higher.

[bluedawg12]

8. What it tells is that an education makes a difference

with regards to attitudes among whites but when loooking at non-white with or without college they are closer to non college white.

Group A:
White College Graduates (36%) - 43 Yea/57 Nay

Group B:
Whites - No College (27%) - 58 Yea/42 Nay
Non-White College Grads (13%) - 55 Yea/45 Nay
Non-White - No College (24%) - 57 Yea/43 Nay

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Agreed... this is closer to no-college non-whites:

Non-White College Grads (13%) - 55 Yea/45 Nay

Possible conclusion: education made little difference among non-whites and a large difference among whites.

But both non- white splits ( college and non-college) are light years from 70-30.

And if AA's are 10% of the electorate... where's all the Asians and Hispanics? In this survey "non-whites" are 13% of the total electorate. That's 3% Asian and Hispanic if you accept AA's as 10% of the total electorate.

This cannot be.

[bluedawg12]

11. We should hammer CNN for their sh*ty poll,

the one that has doubt cast on it and caused so much discord.

ETA: here's the link to their sh*ty poll:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

[dsc]

12. Not quite

AA's could be 10% of the electorate without being 10% of college grads. But also the % given is of the total electorate not college grads. Thus 13% of the electorate was non white college grads. Not 13% of college grads being non white.

[Zuiderelle]

10. I think that's a good theory. Nothing to prove it, but it makes a lot of sense.

[Duncan Grant]

13. The last field poll has interesting data (10/31/08)

White non-Hispanic voters, who comprise about two-thirds of all likely voters, are currently opposing Prop. 8 by six points – 50% to 44%. Latinos, who comprise about 19% of likely voters, are about evenly divided (48% No vs. 46% Yes). African-Americans and Asians/others hold mixed views about the initiative, with the former narrowly backing Prop. 8 and the latter narrowly opposed.

There are big differences in preferences according to a voter’s education level. Voters with no more than a high school education are favoring Prop. 8 by two and one-half to one (62% to 27%). By contrast, voters who have a post-graduate education are taking an opposite view and are voting No nearly two to one (61% to 33%).

A voter’s religious affiliation also relates to preferences on Prop. 8. Protestants are very much in favor of Prop. 8, with 60% on the Yes side and 33% voting No. Catholics are about evenly divided (48% No vs. 44% Yes). By contrast, voters affiliated with other non-Christian religions or who have no religious preference are heavily opposed to the proposed ban on same-sex marriages.

A very large majority of this state’s voters (78%) say they personally know or work with people who are gay or lesbian. These voters are inclined to be voting No on Prop. 8 (51% No vs. 43% Yes). The much smaller proportion of voters who are not personally familiar with gays or lesbians, on the other hand, are lining up on the Yes side 50% to 42%.

See page 4 and the table on page 5: http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2292.pdf

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. The Field poll breaks the AA vote down as 48-43-8.

In favor of YES.

How did that come out to 70-30 in the exit polls? And why would the exit poll ( who conducted it?) be more authoritative than the Field Poll which is supposed to be the "go-to guy" of California polls... and has been for as long as I can remember ?

48-43 sounds more plausible than 70-30.

[bluedawg12]

14. I think PaulHo hit on something here, it is a function of *class*

It's not racial in a genetic sense, in that there is:
a.) no aspertions being made about someone's inherited charecteristics
2.) Nor is there any thing such as race, genetically.

However, external appearances and ethnicity have a long history in this country.

Next, one might also argue that class is defined by ethnicity, in that forms of discrimination based on appearance of ethnicity lead to limitations and oppression.

The way this informs the debate about the "gay" community and the AA community is as follows:

On the one hand, gays did not understand any disproportionate numbers favoring Prop8, and took it as a sign of prejudice against gays.

On the other hand, AA have said that gays are a predominantly white political movement.

Some (of both groups) have said, gays did not do enough to reach out to the AA community.

Others, within the AA community have said that, for example, marriage issue is not a black gay (SGL) issue, it is a white issue.

So, I was reading some internet info and ran across an article that seemed up beat, about AA gay activism and support for marriage equality.

http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/11/attend-this-event-if-you-live-in-la.html#comments

Official Statement by leading BLACK LGBT organization on this weekend's political action supporting the repeal of Proposition 8
LOS ANGELES, CA -- Ron Buckmire, Board President of the Barbara Jordan/ Bayard Rustin Coalition, released the following statement regarding the Black GLBT March and Protest planned for Leimert Park on the morning of Sunday, November 23, 2008.


"African-American Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans have something unique to add to the multiple activities attempting to repeal Proposition 8. The Jordan/Rustin Coalition supports, endorses and will participate in any and all peaceful and lawful actions involving our own communities which support this goal. We are excited to announce our participation in the community grassroots organized rally for LGBT rights this Sunday at 11am in Leimert Park (corner of Vernon and Crenshaw).

"As we await the California Supreme Court's decision on the legal status of same-sex marriages entered into between June 17 and November 4, the Jordan/Rustin Coalition will continue to work in the many communities we are part of to engage in discussion about equal rights for all LGBT Californians. We encourage our many allies in the LGBT and African American communities to join us in grassroots activism in hopes of change."
........

I was ready to post that as good news, then I ran across Jasmyne Cannick's new blog about that VERY same, "out reach", "bridge building", group as "white controlled."

At first I thought she was off the mark, but then, I thought about her point, the the Jordan/Rustin group, while named after two gay AA's, was not working in black communities, nor centered in one, it was in West Hollywood and therefore, more of a front, or prop, than a real grass roots AA -gay/SGL community based group.

http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=2864

"The gay community is using the Blacks as a scapegoat for the passing of Proposition 8—but they’re not alone—believe it or not—there are some misguided self-hating Blacks joining them in that call. This by the way is going to do nothing to soothe relations Blacks both gays and heterosexual who always seem to be caught in the middle. Are Blacks homophobic? Yes, that’s no secret. However, that’s a discussion for us to have with each other on our terms and in our community—not to be discussed in mixed company or to be confused with the racism in the white gay community, which is a separate issue all of its own. And even though I may be unhappy with the position of Blacks on gay issues—that’s our dirty laundry."

<snip>

"And in their hurriedness to promote marriage for all above all else to Black people—they failed to understand that it probably isn’t a good idea to start a Black gay group and then hire someone who is not Black to run it. But that’s just what they did.

So let’s stop and recap.

The folks in West Hollywood wanted to organize Black gays around marriage so they started a “Black gay civil rights group” and named it after two prominent Black gay people—one a lesbian woman the other a gay man—who I will add, were both involved in interracial relationships.

They set up a store front office in—where else—West Hollywood with the rest of the gay marriage mafia, but remember, this is a Black civil rights group. (PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A- Location of JRC to actual Black community 20 miles) Then they hire a non-Black person to head up the group’s efforts to mobilize Black gays by holding the occasional town hall meeting in that “safe” Black neighborhood of Leimert Park and occasionally a dinner at Derrick’s Jamaican Cuisine in LaDera Heights, another “safe” Black neighborhood."

.........

My conclusion, not being from California, is that there is some politics going on with-in the State, that are broken down along community lines, even though they share the same issues of orientation, there is a mis-communication and some bad vibes pre-dating PHate8

Then, for the rest of us GLBTQ's outside of the State, this seems pretty confusing, because much of this may be regional as opposed to national. I hope so, and I also hope that it get's worked out.

[Fresh_Start]

15. Lower income less likely to support than middle income

so I don't think you can say the working class was particularly pro prop8. Not a huge difference (1-2%) but less than the $50-100K households.

Working women were strongly against Prop 8. Most working women are probably working class.

Whites with household income over $50K voted against 52:48.
Non-whites with household income over $50K voted for 56:44.

White college graduates voted against Prop 8.
Non-white college graduates voted for Prop 8.

Much clearer ethnic and religious split than working class/non-working class split.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/05/18/prop8.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

[bluedawg12]

16. Statistics are nice, but only if they take us to the next step

which is beyond understanding who voted which way, or even why, but what do we do now?

There does not seem to be good dialog between the various gay groups in California -- I could be wrong-- but, this seems to pre-date PHate8.

I mention Ms. Cannick because she appears to be leader in her respective demographic. She was cited in a major newspaper, she has been on Faux ( of course they love division in the Progressive ranks)and she has a pretty articulate an active blog.

So now where do we go as a national gay movement and also as a local California movement?

....

http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=2864

"I am not going to say that Black gays don’t care about marriage—but to the extent that it is important to us, I think we can organize ourselves. I am not of the mindset that we need outsiders to come in and develop our agenda and talking points for us."
............

[yardwork]

17. I looked up the people in NC who contributed to Prop 8. They include a professor emeritus, attorneys

the resident of a very wealthy neighborhood - they all seem to be wealthy. Those were the North Carolinians who contributed money to make sure that California took away rights from gay people. None of them seemed to be working class.

[readmoreoften]

18. Yes on 8 voters were more likely to be wealthy. That was the breakdown on the same poll

that gave the racial/gender breakdown of the vote.

[readmoreoften]

19. Per CNN Depends on what you call "working class". Under $30K and over $150K voted no.

Vote by Income
Total
YesNo
Under $15,000 (5%)
46%
54%



$15-30,000 (10%)
48%
52%



$30-50,000 (15%)
54%
46%



$50-75,000 (19%)
54%
46%



$75-100,000 (17%)
50%
50%



$100-150,000 (17%)
54%
46%



$150-200,000 (7%)
47%
53%



$200,000 or More (9%)
45%
55%

[bluedawg12]

20. I expect this will vary by State,

as you mentioned some affluent and well educated people sent money to support Prop8.

I think the bible belt, where religion plays a bigger role perhaps, will have a different breakdown.

In terms of strategy, it will be State by State, California is probably a lot different than South Carolina, and again different than Vermont.

I bet some of the internicene battles are unique, too.

:hi:

[davidinalameda]

21. I'd like to see a breakdown of age per income group

I'm guessing that the majority of the two lowest income groups were made up of younger people

[yardwork]

24. The two income groups with the highest percentage of anti-gay bigots were the 100-$150k and $50-$75k

That's the middle class. The people who voted yes on proposition 8 and the people who vote for anti-gay measures throughout the country are neither poor nor wealthy. They're the church-going middle class who live in suburbs. Most of them are college-educated but without advanced degrees. They hold white-collar jobs in middle management or service jobs. They're Reagan Republicans. They voted for W because he seemed like a nice guy. They were proud of America's response to 9/11. They think it's ok to torture terrorists and they don't mind if the government taps their phone to keep them safe.

Throughout history, the middle class is the demographic most likely to be socially conservative. They are neither poor nor wealthy. They believe in the idea of tradition. They usually belong to a mainstream church in the religion that makes up their culture's majority. Nowadays they are more likely to belong to a non-denominational mega-church.

These are the people most susceptible to propaganda from governments, churches, and the media.

[readmoreoften]

26. They're the petit bourgeois, def. not working class. Also this is income per cap, not household.

They're not 'working class' so much as the managerial class. They have "management values" not rank-and-file union values. A two-income of $150K +$150 a year means you're likely to be management, shop owners/small business owners, or corporate lawyers. Under this system, you might also be a doctor profiting off the medical system beast.

Only those at the lowest end of this demographic--making $50K-$75 plus $50K-$75 (or a single person earning $50K)-- would I consider to be solidly middle class (although, upper middle class). These folks "might be" working class, but the represent the best paid working class: public school teachers and professors, etc.

Since households earning $60K or less (2 earners) and $30K or less (1 earner) voted against 8, in my opinion, the majority of working class and poor voters (although slight) were with us as were the very wealthy. The petit bourgeois, upper middle class was the largest demographic against us.

I sense in this OP, a belief that blue collar and poor white guys and union workers were the majority of votes against us (i.e. REDNECKS) and this is a dangerous and unfair caricature. It is the preppy, upper class, republican management-types holding us back. The petit-bourgeois.

[bluedawg12]

28. Would the petit bourgois be the most likely to support the status quo?

The so called, "working class and poor voters" would have less to loose with change and the "very wealthy" may feel secure enough to be above the fray ?

[readmoreoften]

30. In lefty thought the petit bourgeois have always been pretty much faithful to the leisure class

whereas the leisure class are both the seat of conservatism and liberalism (and even sometimes even experimental radicalism) but not usually revolutionary politics (although sometimes!)--revolutionary politics generally being the province of the working classes (but not in the US so much...) The case in the US is pretty convoluted, though, due to our propaganda about "class mobility". Of course this is impossible to read through a single poll of 2500 people broken down by income.

Maybe the real issue is that the ruling class tends to use the fascist elements of the working class as a hammer. So we think that the fascist elements of the working class are the hammer and the arm and the will, but it is usually the elite who want to keep their status behind the hammer. The power behind the fascist religious movements definitely seems to be petit bourgeois. If you look at the donor lists, it's lawyers, land developers, financial advisors funding yes on 8. In my area the No on 8 donations were almost entirely in $100 or less increments made by working class or "middle class" (upper working class) folks without a title or business or church by their name.

Just a thought.

[yardwork]

32. It all points back to the authoritarian churches.

The income earners in this bracket in California are much more likely to belong to an authoritarian church than people in the other two income brackets.

However, it's interesting to see how close the votes were in all income brackets. It's not much different from a 50/50 split in all income brackets "for" and "against" anti-gay bigotry.

If you are a glass half full person, then that means that gay rights are edging toward acceptance. Glass half empty interpretation is that anti-gay bigotry is held by around half of people in every income bracket.

[insleeforprez]

29. Sample size?

What kind of numbers are we talking about?

[readmoreoften]

31. Same CNN poll everyone is using for everyone else. Around 2500 I believe.

[NMMNG]

22. My wife and I are very "working class",.

And only one of us is a college grad (for what that was worth). (Remember, that's why we voted for Hillary. We're old, un(der)educated, white and working class. But that's another story....)


We both voted NO. Granted we're lesbians and married, but really we would have done so even if we weren't. We both vote very progressive on just about everything and the idea of eradicating people's rights because of bigotry is repulsive to us.


Religious beliefs are the #1 factor, not education or income level.

[DarkTirade]

23. I think it's a little more roundabout than that.

The main proponants for prop H8 were right-wing religious groups. People who get the short end of the stick in life tend to find religion. So a higher percentage of the disadvantaged people are going to end up connected to right-wing religious groups or churches than those who have cushy lives. So in the end, I think the trends will follow class to an extent. But it takes a few steps to get there.

[readmoreoften]

27. But it is actually the well-off (mostly white) religious folks who organized against us.

Statistically, solid working class earners and poor earners were more against bigotry than for it. I think that the hope here that it is "working class whites" (a term often assumed to mean ignorant and uneducated) are simply uneducated and that a widespread campaign of LGBT education will help bring people around to accepting our equality.

I think that some bigotry is based on ignorance and lack of education and of course it is a good idea to continue to educate the public. However, the people most likely to vote against us were upper middle-class and upper class whites. I think it can't be ignored that many of those who hate us are socially empowered sadists who enjoy the idea of being at the top of a caste system. It's important that we don't forget this, lest we constantly berate ourselves for "not getting our message out." I've met plenty of joe six packs in my life before Brokeback Mountain or MILK (and maybe you have too) who would've voted No on 8 in a heartbeat because they intuitively would know how wrong it is.

[yardwork]

35. Some of the most hurtful comments I've read here on DU have been from privileged people

who say, with an air of boredom, that it's "our" fault that anti-gay discriminatory measures were passed because "we" didn't do a good enough job "presenting (our) side." Furthermore, they post, "we're" being so rude about the whole thing, they'll probably vote against us themselves next time. They were "on our side" until we got so nasty, supposedly.

I don't think that a working class person would ever say anything so thoughtlessly cruel. They know what it's like to have forces arrayed against them. Only privileged people would say such a thing.

[bluedawg12]

36. It's all really hurtful when we step back and look it.

The indignity of having ones self and life discussed in the media as if we were inanimate objects and to be analyzed and discussed like alien specimens, the intolerant ignorant comments of people who chirp up with their little theological talking points, the same crap now laid to rest for years, if not decades, trotted out by yet more people who just don't seem to get that they are talking about fellow human beings at their most essential -who they love.

[yardwork]

37. Exactly. You said it! That's exactly how I feel when I hear this.

[yardwork]

33. In my experience, here in the south, it's mostly upper-incom people who join authoritarian churches.

I'm talking about the folks who actually seek out a church. That's different from being raised in a particular church or with a particular set of beliefs.

In my experience, the people who actively seek out and join authoritarian churches like those non-denominational mega-churches that are always shrieking about homosexuals and family values are middle to upper-income professionals. They were likely raised in a mainstream Protestant church which they left years ago. They're white, hetero, married, own an SUV and a four-door sedan which they keep in the two-car garage attached to their Transitional-Colonial two story suburban house with wooden deck and gas grill. They are two-wage earners or one-wage earner with a stay-at-home mom. They have college degrees and maybe a master's degree. Their kids play soccer and youth basketball and they volunteer at their church and their kids' schools.

They are very frightened of anything that sounds "lefty." They worry about holding onto the wealth and possessions that they have acquired and they are sure that aligning themselves with anything "too liberal" will destroy their lives and their kids' opportunities. They probably know some gay people and they aren't rude in public but they don't support any kind of gay rights and they wish that gay people would just be quiet and restrain their "urges." They believe everything their ministers tell them so they routinely vote Republican and they are convinced that Muslims are terrorists coming to get us and W kept us safe, even though he trashed the economy which is why they voted for that Obama guy even though they're not very comfortable with a lot of his background. They usually tell people that they can't vote for Democrats because of abortion but when their money is really at risk they managed to find it in themselves to switch parties just this one time.

They are greatly at risk for being laid off from their jobs in middle management, so they are easily persuaded to stay away from doing or saying anything "risky." They are the army of the right wing.

[bluedawg12]

34. Great comments! I live in a blue collar area - old steel mills,etc.

I never thought of my enemies as African Americans nor blue collar workers, it was just on my experience and the way I was treated.

I always felt, intuitively, that it was the white, church going, middle Americans, the country club set, the lawyers, small business folk, physicians, that made me uncomfortable because I felt they were judgmental and self protective and tried for an air of superiority.

Of course that's even a funny notion, as I wouldn't change my life for theirs, nor do I ever give such a douche my permission to be superior.

I can shoot the shit on my front lawn standing with my partner and a so-called red neck tree trimming business owner, or plumber or HVAC repair guy and feel comfortable.

As far as African Americans, I honestly can't say I ever had anyone treat me in any way differently than I treat them, with respect and kindness and I guess I felt I had a bond - something to do with being an outsider and understanding.

The one place I felt the closest to open hate was on a job interview in a small town in Georgia, some time ago.
:rofl: WTF was I thinking? They literally told us to go to a big town ( code: with the other gays)like Savannah.

This is a big nation with many regional differences and small pockets of unique communities and that's why I can't really extrapolate a California exit poll into a national strategy.

Not that looking for understanding of root causes is not worthwhile, but, I think there is a big difference between open hostility and tolerance and acceptance.

Acceptance is the ultimate goal, but, long before that comes, we will be meeting these organized bigots and their foot soldiers in Court.

[Smarmie Doofus]

38. "Education" is a better indicator of "class" than income..

Lots of educated people are not making lots of $$$ for a number of reasons . Mainly they're young, starting out or working part time; or working in poorly compensated fields ( like education; tee-hee.) This would account for the lack of a consistent correlation in both the Field and the CNN poll between YES/NO and income. It's all over the place.

But, if you accept that premise.... education level defines "class"... social "class" is closely correlated with YES/NO in both Field and the CNN survey. The better educated one is... the more one is likely to vote NO. The less educated one is, the more likely to vote YES. This is the only thing that can be said with certainty.

How AAs in Calif. fit is hard to say without more info re. race/education breakdown. What's worth noting is there's a *huge* discrepancy between the CNN poll and the Field poll re. the AA vote. Close to even in Field becomes 70-30 yes on CNN. That's quite a swing in a four days. Since it's not reflected in any other category ( i.e. a *seismic* shift of a comparable magnitude in the last week) one has to wonder about the accuracy of one or both polls where it pertains to this particular demographic.

But this much we can say for certain: the less one knows, the more likely one is to support Prop 8.