A different angle on the Proposition 8 result in Ca.

[Ken Burch]

Is is possible that the problem lay in the fact that you had to vote "no" to preserve the right to SSM and "yes" to take it away?

[BattyDem]

1. I've wondered about that, too.

I hate ballot initiatives because they're always confusing. Sometimes, even the interpretive statements aren't very clear.

[tblue]

2. Yes. A lot of people were confused.

I got some phone calls at the Dem office from people genuinely not sure whether voting yes meant supporting equal rights. It didn't.

It's counterintuitive that 'yes' means 'eliminate rights' and 'no' means 'preserve rights.' It was a horrendously bad bill for that reason.

I was hoping voters would be confused in equal numbers on both sides, but who the hell knows?

[silverojo]

9. They deliberately made the wording ambiguous

You can bet on that! :mad:

[ContinentalOp]

3. Not really.

We passed it before with an even bigger margin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

[endthewar]

12. But isn't the "for" and "against" the same in both the 2000 and 2008 version?

You might want to reread the original post.

[Nailzberg]

4. The problem, I feel, was a poor media strategy.

When Prop 8 came out, support against it's passage was favored. "No on 8" was 17 points up. I remember finding the first commercial I saw in the campaign extremely effective. It featured a father walking a bride from the house down the aisle, encountered all sorts of problems on the way, and ended with a tagline "What if you couldn't marry the one you loved?"

Then "Yes on 8" started airing their ads, framed on teaching gay marriage in schools. Prop 8 opponents choose to argue within the framing provided by Prop 8 proponents for the bulk of the campaign, and only changed direction with their last commercial, the one comparing the past discrimination against Japanese, Armenian, Latino, and African Americans to the current plight of same sex couples. With this ad, No on 8 had managed to reframe the argument, but it was released to late to be effective, after weeks of damage had been done.

All those weeks accepting the Yes on 8 framing and arguing within it damaged the campaign with no time to effectively repair the debate.

That's my opinion.

[IndependentDem]

5. I agree 100% and the "forcing gay marriage in schools" framing worked well.

I saw a few interviews where people said they were fine with gay marriage they just didn't think it should be taught in schools. Its all about how you frame the debate.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Yup, I think the GOP are still good at scaring the fuck out of their stupid, hateful followers. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

7. Well, let's face it...they don't have to dig far to tap that well of hatred and ignorance.

[Nailzberg]

8. Yep, and progressives are incredible good at accepting the GOP's framing and arguing within it.

We frequently like to attack the right within their framing and say "You're so wrong". When it comes to reframing the debate, we suck.

Every Democrat should buy, borrow, or steal a copy of George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" and learn why progressives lose the arguments that we should win.

[Jamastiene]

10. That is the truth and a very very good point to make.

We really need to stop letting them frame the debate then working inside their crazy off the wall notions. It hurts us every single time. Normally reasonable people hear such an off the wall type of debate and tune it out. Next thing you know, they are voting with the wrong side compared to the side they would have voted with had they heard better arguments that weren't based on falsehoods from way out in left field.

[endthewar]

13. Dems voted for this too you know

Can't blame everything on the Republicans.

[Independent_Voice]

16. About the commercial with the bride walking down the aisle...

They played that same fucking commercial OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. I remember thinking, "This commercial feels preachy. It's going to be very ineffective."

They should have run three different versions of the commercial back during those early months. One with the bride, but two other variations of it that could have appealed to different age groups and racial demos.

[POAS]

11. I agree completely.

I think this will be turned around through the courts.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. I agree. I think it will too. n/t

[lamp_shade]

15. Absolutely. I never liked the way the question was worded. I knew it would confuse people.

[nichomachus]

17. No -- most people were quite clear on the wording

The problem was the hateful bigoted clergy who violated every principle they claim to hold and spewed a vicious and relentless campaign of fear and outright lies.

This rotting corpse lies at the feet of the churches and clergy who perpetrated this. No one else.

The most accurate indicator of how someone voted was how often they attend church. That tells you everything you need to know.

DO you want to hear the garbage they were telling people. This is from a Mormon who was interviewed in our local paper:

“The people that advocate redefining marriage are saying basically that every religious and secular tradition from the recorded history of mankind is immoral."

This is such absolute nonsense that I can't believe anyone would repeat it, but this is what the Mormon leaders were feeding their cult members in church.

[shadowknows69]

18. I'm really wondering if that was a factor too

I know it was as well explained by a lot of media for and against what a yes or no vote meant but I think a significant number of votes could have been cast for prop 8 as an almost subconscious mistake. Voting YES to take away rights is intentionally confusing IMO.