Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, May 01, 2009

Iowa Update

I was watching Joe Scarborough this morning (gotta find out what the conservatives are thinking about Specter, Souter etc) and saw this ad on TV.  I think this ad nails it - at least for an Iowa audience.  I don't know if the Anti-Prop 8 people ran similar ads in California or if they did if they were effective.  My instincts tell me this will be a hugely effective ad.  And it is well timed.  The movement to change the Iowa constitution depends on energy based on anger right now.  If this can take the wind out of those sails even a little, it makes it that much more unlikely that the forces of intolerance will be able to sustain the anger for the several years (at least!) they must now wait to do anything about it.

18 comments:

Pombat said...

Good ad! I particularly like the reference to "outsiders" wanting to put discrimination into "our" constitution. I also like the mix of couples shown, as it gets the message across that this protects *everyone*. Nicely done admakers.

Raised By Republicans said...

I like conservative tone of it. It's using all the usual images and voice over styles of conservative ads. The subtext is "oppposing marriage equality is like oposing down home families, baseball and Mom...you don't hate your mom do you? If so shame on you - outsider."

The Law Talking Guy said...

Actually, many of the later California ads were very similar in their focus on anti-discrimination and, quite frankly, just as worthless as the Iowa ad. I know it's a feel-good ad if you already agree, but that's not what we need.

You need what they were afraid to do in CA and - now- apparently afraid to do in Iowa. Show pictures of happy gay couples being married and talking about how much their love means to them. Have them come right out and say "please don't vote to say that our love isn't as good as yours."

Everything else, while worth talking about, is really beside the point.

Also the 'outsiders' thing is not going to fly. The Iowa GOP is very right-wing (see Huckabee's victory) and they have plenty of home-grown intolerance in Iowa as everywhere.

Dr. Strangelove said...

I saw this ad a few days ago on the web. My reaction was mixed. Given previous discussions, I think RbR is correct that the ad will be effective with an Iowa audience. It is a good ad.

But I also strongly feel as LTG does that this is very similar to the approach that failed in California. The movie "Milk" (released after the election, unfortunately) makes a persuasive case that LTG is correct: for California, it needs to be personal. An example of this was an ad produced after the passage of Prop 8 (too late): it was simply a montage of dozens of home photographs sent in by gay and lesbian couples and their families. In each one, the happy gay and lesbian couple (or their friends, or their children) held signs that read "Please don't divorce us!" or "Please don't hurt divorce my dads!"

During the election, I thought it would be a mistake to be so open about "the gay thing" here in California. And frankly I am not sure such an ad would have made a difference in 2008 anyhow... But at any rate the failure has transformed the issue. Such ads will be essential in California for 2010 or 2012 or whenever the issue must be re-fought.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I suppose this ad may be effective with an Iowa audience at making the point about not discriminating against gays. Sure, but discrimination and marriage are different issues to a ton of people. A substantial number, perhaps a majority, think that marriage is, as a definitional matter, just between a man and a woman, so it's not discrimination to leave it that way. A lot of people think that having a marriage between two men is like allowing men to be called sisters or aunts - it just makes no sense to them. And they don't see what's wrong with civil unions.

What they need to learn is that this issue is about the equal dignity of gay and lesbian relationships not just the equal rights of gay and lesbian people. This is not really about being "personal." This Iowa ad makes the great point that it's wrong to discriminate against gays, but doesn't really connect that to marriage.

I don't think that you can really hide "the gay thing" and win the election on gay marriage.

I am 100% convinced that if the "No on 8" forces had run a "don't divorce my Moms" ad in 2008, they could have made up the bare 3% slice of the electorate they needed easily. Instead they ran ads whose subtext was "if you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigot (or, in Iowa, an "outsider"). That's not going to be very persuasive. You can't easily shame people into voting for you. To quote the movie A Few Good Men: "You have to ask me nicely."

Raised By Republicans said...

LTG, you are, happily, incorrect about what a majority of people now think with regard to marriage. Take a look at the poll linked in this post from yesterday...

http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/2009/04/even-more-gay-marriage-news.html

Raised By Republicans said...

Dr. S. and LTG, I can see your point about the need to put happy and open gay families front and center in the campaign. I absolutely think that the more mainstream gay families become the more people will realize that there is no threat to be found there.

With that in mind, I still think this ad has value in this context so I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "worthless." This is an ad running at least 3 and a half years before this can even be an issue for voters. And the state Democratic party leadership has made it pretty clear this won't be referred to voters on their watch. Since amending the constitution in Iowa is - wisely - very difficult and requires majorities in both houses in two legislative sessions separated by an election and since Assembly elections only happen every two years, every time the Democrats retain control of at least one house (or regain control of one house should they lose one of them in the next election), it postpones the constitutional reaction another two years.

So this ad is not filling the same role as the ads in California which were running weeks or even days before the vote.

Also, this ad does show pictures of several same sex couples including at least one with children (about 25 seconds in - family with kids on swing set). So this ad could be adapted to the strategy preferred by LTG and Dr. S by changing the voice over to testimonials by the families pictured in the ad.

Another thing I like about this ad is that it tries to switch the "us vs. them" dynamic from a "gays vs. straights" conflict to a "Freedom loving Iowans vs. Anti-Freedom Outsiders (code for LDS)" conflict. It says "lets join together" not "we're the future, get used to it."

Because Iowa's constitution is so difficult to change, there will be plenty of time to construct a sustained campaign that builds on a number of different strategies and combinations of strategies. And it looks like the national context for that campaign will be a series of mostly victories for marriage equality.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I wish I could be a sanguine about that poll as you are. First, we all know a CBS/NYTimes poll is likely to skew liberal. So when it says 18% GOP support gay marriage, what it may be really telling you is that it's got a funky sample of so-called Republicans. 42% in favor of gay marriage sounds high - and probably is. Other polls put the figure in the high 30s (sorry, no access to them now) which is to say that 60% of the public says "no" including 80-90% of the Republican party.

So it's a polarizing issue and a wedge issue to split Democrats.

The only really good news, to me, is the 'civil union' issue. The majority say marriage or civil union (60%) is okay. So that means that you've got about 20% of the public that is okay with gay people, but only wants civil unions. They are the ones that need to be reached. And calling them bigots ain't gonna do it. You have to convince them why marriage is better than civil unions - the point of my objection to this ad.

Raised By Republicans said...

OK, NYT skews left but look at the trend over time. Unless they are radically modifying their sample, I doubt a shift from 6% to 18% is due entirely to error.

Also, I think part of this depends on whether you think people who prefer civil unions have as their second choice full marriage equality or strictly "opposite marriage" as Miss California put it. I think most of the civil union backers are fairly easily convincible.

Pombat said...

Being picky, 30-something% of people saying yes to marriage equality doesn't necessarily mean 60-something% saying a hard no, I'd guess they're a mix of no and maybe. And some of the maybes are probably yes some days, no on others. So they're well worth reaching out to.

[I don't understand how you figure these numbers though LTG, can you explain please? "The majority say marriage or civil union (60%) is okay. So that means that you've got about 20% of the public that is okay with gay people, but only wants civil unions."]

Now, I know I'm at least as much of an outsider to Iowa - if not more so - as the Californian component of this blog, but from what I've heard about the state, it's legal processes, and of course the time until this can go up for a vote, I still think this ad is good, well timed and nicely made. As RbR has also said, it very much had a feel of "we're all Iowans, let's pull together", and the nice understated mix of straight and gay couples - importantly, all looking normal and happy, and all just the same - just underlines that I think, making "us" all Iowan people, and "them" anyone not Iowan, especially if they want to mess with "our" constitution. Whereas an ad that was all about gay couples, very front and centre, would feel more divisive I think - "us" would be gay Iowans, and "them" would be straight Iowans (or vice versa, depending on sexuality of the viewer).

Dr. Strangelove said...

Pombat: I think the figures are approximately 40% for gay marriage, 20% for civil unions, 40% no recognition for same-sex relationships. Recent polls show gay marriage peeking over the 40% mark while the "no recognition" falls a bit below. (LTG is pointing out that the 20% in favor of civil unions have already made the big leap that they accept gay relationships... So moving them into the marriage camp may not be that difficult.) Indeed, in surveys where only two options are offered--marriage or nothing--there is pretty much a tie between yes and no. And again, recent surveys of that type have for the first time shown the edge going to the "yes" camp.

I agree with Pombat and RbR that an ad like this one is good for Iowa. But like LTG, I feel a more direct approach is required for California.

Pombat said...

Just saw a stat in this LA Times piece that I found interesting - that whilst the number of states with marriage equality is still fairly low (what, 4 out of 50 states, so 8%?), they're home to nearly one third of the US population (so, close to 100million people, over 30%). California saying yes would add nearly another 10-12% of the population, New York another 6-7% (how likely is that?) - getting close to a majority...

Dr. Strangelove said...

Actually, the four US states that currently recognize gay marriage--Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont--have populations of 6.5 million, 3 million, 3.5 million, and 0.6 million respectively. That's 13.6 million out of 304 million, or about 4.5%. So I'm afraid the LA times figures must have been referring to something else.

If California, New York, New Jersey, and the rest of New England join in, as the article contemplated, then the figure would reach 30%--so perhaps this is what the LA Times was talking about.

Raised By Republicans said...

I think the interesting thing here is the trend too.

Nate Silver had this to say: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-by-numbers.html

and this
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/gay%20rights

The Law Talking Guy said...

RBR - I don't think the 6% to 18% change is very significant. Both are likely misreadings of 10-12%. When you see polling data where some 10% or less of the sample agrees with x, you often get this wide variation. Put another way, a 10-12% difference in polling numbers is not that great really (some polls have Obama at 68% approval, some at 58% approval - we see this all the time.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Pombat, I just found the LA Times quote. It referred to US states that recognized "same sex unions." This includes states with civil unions and domestic partnerships that are effectively the same as civil unions. And that list does include California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey...

Raised By Republicans said...

LTG, your point about the significance of a 6% to 18% jump would be stronger if I was comparing different polls with different sampling techniques etc. Your example implicitly relies on just this sort of cross poll comparison (i.e. looking at different polls by different operations about the same subject at the same time). But in this case, I was pointing to a difference over time within the same poll using the same or extremely similar sampling techniques (very likely).

I'd also point to analysis by Nate Silver on Fivethirtyeight.com that highlights a positive trend over time that is similar to what I am saying is shown in the two NYT/CBS polls. So I'm not the only one who thinks we are seeing some fairly rapid movement in public opinion on this issue.

Of course, as with any debate about the significance of polling trends, we'll know more in a month or so.

Pombat said...

Ahhh, thanks Dr.S - I was clearly getting over excited and misreading. So, not as good a stat as I thought, but still not bad...