Why the Maine people's veto attempt on gay marriage will fail

[Kulindahr]

But he's already been elected!

Politicians are ALWAYS running for election.

 

[scream4ever]

Yet another reason why the people's veto attempt will fail:

Okay, so it will say on the ballot:

Do you wish to reject the new law that allows same sex couples to marry and also allows religious institutions to deny them service? (it's not word for word but that's the gist of it)

So, one of the main concerns many have is EXPLICITLY stated in the law. This point was used a lot during the Prop. 8 campaign (remember too that the California ruling didn't explicitly state this).

 

[hotatlboi]

I read that earlier, yes Nate is a genius with statistics. Hope he is right but really this race is so close that the outcome will be decided by TURNOUT (especially on an off year), so it is critical that the message to vote be spread to as many people in Maine as possible.

 

[scream4ever]

The most remarkable breakdown of Question 1 I have ever seen has been posted in an article on FiveThirtyEight.com. You will see as you read every possible variable that effects this race. I was blown away! Nate Silver is a genius of statistical analysis. The prediction: 2/3 chance that the veto will fail and gay marriage will become law.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/analysis-gay-marriage-ban-is-underdog.html

Lets hope we come back here in a month and see that the prediction came true.

Let's not forget too that he predicted Prop 8 would pass by 52.1%, which is almost exactly what it really was!

 

[hotatlboi]

He was saying that this new model he came up with to analyze the Maine vote would predict prop 8 would pass by 54%.

Before the actual vote on it, he predicted it would fail 55/45.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/prop-8-toss-up.html

He did however get the presidential election accurate to within 1%.

 

[scream4ever]

Sorry, I meant when he did the state by state analysis as to when a gay marriage ban would fail. That method predicted Prop. 8 would pass by 52.1%.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's some near-tedious reading. It reminds me a lot of when I read Lott's book More Guns Less Crime, except that Lott just kept going and going and going with variables.

By the end here I wasn't sure if the was saying it was going to pass or fail....

 

[CaptainRush]

I think it was an interesting read, despite the election only being a month away, because I am so extremely curious to get a feel for what will happen. I am optimistic at this point.

I'm with you. I really feel a win on our side coming. October is going to feel long to me for this reason alone.

 

[CaptainRush]

The Canada effect... lol. Good one. I'll see what I can do but I have to get through 5 beaver dams just to get to the boarder. It's nuts!

 

[CaptainRush]

That's cute, I like beavers... the mammal, not the. well you get it...

Canada seems more rural and remote, sorry for that perception. Why is Canada so damn liberal? I actually like Canada, so don't take it the wrong way.

I'm not going to take it the wrong way and it can be seen as a little rural if people don't know about it. You probably have only heard of our major city: Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and of course, my city Toronto so there's not much else to hear of.

The more north you go, the less populated it is obviously for climate conditions. If you look at a globe Canada just looks cold in general and it appears to be broken apart in the northern half where as the US is one big chunk of land (although Canada is larger in mass.)

And that's just the thing, Canada is NOT that liberal. At least right now anyway. We are under a conservative party at the moment, second time in a row. Canada and the US are actually going in the reverse when it comes to politics and I'm happy because I am a Conservative.

The reason why Canada may come off as liberal other then stereotypes is because we were a hard Liberal country for quite some time and we got all the social issues out of the way such as hate crimes and same-sex marriage when the liberals were in power back in 2005. It wasn't easy, but it was done. (We never had to deal with any ridiculous DADT policies either.)

Some people blame the liberal scandals for a Conservative government and I think that may help but it could just be the way this country is flowing. Youth is voting Conservatively I believe and that includes me. Mind you, we are a minority Conservative government.

 

[CaptainRush]

As a side note many Americans need to get this through their heads. Canadians and Americans as a general people are exactly the same, it's the Government that's different. We're just more socialized (which blows).

 

[maxpowr9]

It's the Canada effect wafting over New England. Do you think you could send it over to North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho by any chance?

Lol you're funny. Considering about 60% of Maine (mostly northern) is all conservation land, meaning nobody really lives there. If you knew anything about New England geography, most of the people come to the Boston area to go to school. Many people stay around to work. After getting married and having kids, they may move to other places but stay in the New England area. This is the reason that New Hampshire flipped from being republican to democratic.

Anyways, I think the veto attempt will fail but it will still be close.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm missing something:

That pastor said their math is "Christ-centered".


Huh??????

 

[Kulindahr]

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

That doesn't fit anything in Christianity, sorry to say.

For what you're trying to aim at, it would be:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

1 * 1 * 1 = 1


But that isn't making math "Christocentric", it's just demonstrating the rationality of a doctrine by employing a mathematical illustration.

 

[CaptainRush]

You guys got it all wrong. There plus signs are actually mini crosses.

 

[CaptainRush]

In Israel they used to refrain from making whole plus signs in math class, but now that's seen as somewhat anachronistic.

Oh wow. I meant to say "They're" instead of "There" lol, whoops.

I believe that and it spooks me.

 

[scream4ever]

I just thought of something:

If the California statisical results in this new survey revealed that Prop. 8 was to have really passed by 54%, could this survey be slightly skewed against us (and thus benefit us)?

Also, I've heard reports that the Yes on 1 campaign is now simply telling it's supporters to "ignore the mainstream media". Sounds like their losing steam!

 

[NickCole]

BTW, Catania is introducing the marriage bill in DC today. I will try to get into DC to report what goes on from there.

That should sail through.

It's a local issue with no major lobbyists pressuring Democrats.

If Democrats with their huge majority can't even muster the votes for THAT, having a Dem majority is virtually meaningless.

 

[NickCole]

It's going through all the formalities of a bill, including a hearing in later weeks, and then going for a vote sometime after that. There are no doubts to my mind that it will pass because there are nine councilmen co-sponsoring this bill, while there are 13 total. The last bill covering this issue, the marriage recognition act, passed 12-1. The one guy who voted against it, Marion Barry, is actually pro-gay but one of those guys who "just isn't with us" on the marriage thing.

It'll pass the council but after that Congress gets 30 days to review it. That's the part I referred to; sorry I was unclear.

 

[NickCole]

DC laws don't need Congressional approval due to the Home Rule Act. All that is meant by "Congressional Review" is Congress has the ability to pass a resolution against any DC law 30 days after passage, upon which the President's signature is required to overturn it. There is no way Congress and the President are going to overturn this.

As I said initially:

That should sail through.

It's a local issue with no major lobbyists pressuring Democrats.

If Democrats with their huge majority can't even muster the votes for THAT, having a Dem majority is virtually meaningless.

My reference to no major lobbyists pressuring Democrats was about the National Rifle Association.