Nebraska Eliminates Death Penalty By Overriding Governor's Veto!

Wow! Big progressive news out of the state of Nebraska today (there's a sentence you don't see every day!) with the elimination of the death penalty by the legislature overriding the Governor's veto of a bill.

Idaho Gov. Asks 9th Circuit To Hear His Marriage Appeal En Banc

I guess Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) apparently really wants to hear what Alex Kozinski thinks about gay marriage. He filed a motion in Iddho's appeal of the recent ruling  in Latta v Otter striking down its marriage law asking for an en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hear the case instead of the customary 3-judge panel. The only reason I can think of is that he wants to enhance the conservativeness of the panel that hears his appeal by insuring that the very conservative Kozinski be on the panel of judges that decide this case.

The 9th Circuit is considered one of the most liberal federal appellate courts, and for the first time in a looong time it has its full 29-judge complement. This means that it is probably more likely than not that a 3-judge panel will include more liberals than conservatives; however an 11-judge en banc panel must include the chief judge and 10 others. In fact, it must be true that the probability of a conservative panel goes up with an en banc than a random 3-judge panel because Otter is assured that Kozinski (a conservative) must be on the panel. I guess someone on the judge's staff knows their probability and statistics!

There are currently 20 Democratic-appointed judges and only 9 Republican-appointed judges on the 9th Circuit.

In addition to an en banc panel, Gov. Otter also wants the appellate court to reconsider the question of whether sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny or not. Currently, sexual orientation does receive heightened scrutiny, which is one important reason why bans on marriage equality in the 9th circuit are likely to be struck down. However, even using a rational basis standard, judges reviewing the Oregon and Idaho laws have ruled them unconstitutional.

Federal judges are notoriously loath to allow litigants to skip steps so it seems unlikely the 9th circuit will accede to Otter's request.

CA State Senate Abandons Attempt To Restore Race-Conscious College Admissions

Bad news today out of the Democratic state senate, where a state constitutional amendment that would place a partial repeal of Proposition 209 on the November 2014 ballot has been tabled. Proposition 209 passed in 1996 and banned the use of race, ethnicity or gender in public education, public contracts or public employment. The state senate had passed SCA 5 by a vote of 27 to 9 on January 30, 2014.

Speaker John Perez (and State Controller candidate) announced today that the Assembly would not consider the measure. According to the San Jose Mercury-News Asian-American state senators switched from support to opposition due to pressure from the community.

Last week, saying they had received thousands of calls and emails from constituents, senators Leland Yee, D-San Francisco; Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; and Carol Liu, D-La Cañada/Flintridge asked Assembly Speaker John Perez to stop the bill. 

"As lifelong advocates for the Asian-American and other communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children," they wrote in a letter to Perez. 

In 1996, California became the first state to outlaw affirmative action in public university admissions and state hiring, a policy that took effect in 1998. The amendment would have allowed voters to lift that ban, either this fall or in 2016. 

Hernandez and others have said that misinformation about what affirmative action would mean -- such as racial quotas for new freshmen -- spread quickly, stoking parents' fears about their children's chances of getting into UC, the state's public research university system. 

Using racial quotas in admissions would be unconstitutional; recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have strictly limited consideration of race in public university admissions. UC officials last week said any suggestion of quotas is irresponsible: "We have never done that, and we never would," said Nina Robinson, UC's associate president and chief policy adviser.

 Hopefully the legislature will realize that it is important to be able to use race as a factor in college admissions.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Gallup Poll Says Americans 23% Liberal, 34% Moderate, 38% Conservative

The latest Gallup poll indicates that the percentage of Americans who identify as Liberal has reached an all-time high of 23%. That's the good news, but the bad news is that the percentage who identify as conservative is still the plurality in America, at 38%, a full four percentage points ahead of the moderate fraction of the population.

Gallup summarizes the implication of the polls as reflecting the increase in political polarization we have experienced recently.

Americans' perceptions of their political views -- if not the views themselves -- are undergoing unmistakable change, contributing to greater political polarization in the country. Now, the plurality of Democrats consider themselves to be politically liberal, whereas a decade ago, Democrats were most likely to say they were moderate. That could be because Democrats are now more comfortable calling themselves "liberal" -- a term that was less popular in the recent past -- even if their current and past views on issues are similar. But it could also reflect an evolution in their views to favor more traditionally liberal issue positions.

Meanwhile, Republicans, who have always been overwhelmingly conservative, have become increasingly so. One manifestation of that may have been a series of primary election challenges for long-serving GOP members of Congress by candidates aligned with the Tea Party movement.

These data confirm the tendency for Americans who identify with the two major parties to be more ideologically homogeneous than was the case in the past, a tendency that appears to be matched by the increasing polarization between Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The changes in ideological identification among party groups has resulted in a rise in the percentage of Americans overall who call themselves liberal and a decrease in the percentage of moderates. Even though the percentage of conservatives has generally held steady, the rise in liberal identification leaves conservatives with their smallest advantage over liberals in the last two decades. If the trends in Democratic self-identification continue, that gap will likely continue to shrink over time, and could lead to further polarization in U.S. politics.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

POLL: Californians Support Marriage Equality, Marijuana Legalization, Abortion Rights

A new PPIC poll documents California's liberal bonafides on a number of "hot button" issues such as marriage equality, marijuana legalization, health care reform and comprehensive immigration reform.

Majorities of Californians support legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage and preserving access to abortion—three social issues that have been contentious across the nation. A slim majority of adults (52%) say marijuana use should be legalized—a record high and the first time support has been above 50 percent. A larger majority of likely voters (60%) favor legalization. Democrats (64%), independents (60%), and men (57%) are more likely than Republicans (45%) and women (47%) to favor legalization. Majorities (61% adults, 68% likely voters) also say the U.S. government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in the states that allow marijuana use.

Support for same-sex marriage is also at a record high, with 61 percent of adults and 64 percent of likely voters in favor. Strong majorities of Democrats (76%) and independents (67%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry, while 53 percent of Republicans are opposed. Although support continues to be higher among young Californians, a majority of those age 55 and older (55%) are also in favor for the first time. Support has increased 15 points among mainline Protestants since May (55% to 70%).

Large majorities (70% adults, 79% likely voters) say the government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. This view is held by majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups. And 69 percent say the Supreme Court should leave access to abortion the way it is now (49%) or make it more accessible (20%), compared to 27 percent who would like the court to make it less accessible.

 This is not surprising, but it is useful to see in writing just how different from the rest of the United States, California is, despite having nearly 13% of the country's population.

Hat/tip to San Diego Union-Tribune

Godless Wednesday: Young Godless Liberal Democrats Are Cool!

Hemant Mehta over at Friendly Atheist looked more closely at the recent Gallup poll about marriage equality that I blogged about yesterday and noticed that he is a member of all of the top five groups which strongly support marriage equality: Liberals (77%), "No religion" (76%), Democrats (70%), 18-34 years old (69%) and Rarely/Never attend church (67%). These are all well-above the level of support given by all American adults to marriage equality: 52%.

Since this is a Godless Wednesday® post I must also point out that the groups most opposed to marriage equality are 55 and older (58% opposed), Protestants (58% opposed), Republicans (66% opposed), Conservatives (67% opposed) and attend church weekly (73% opposed).

I think this explains why House Republicans (who as a group are widely oversampled in at least 3 of these groups) were willing to blow millions of tax payer money on defending DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court and are so virulently opposed to marriage equality.

Maryland Is 18th State To Abolish Death Penalty!

IT'S OFFICIAL!! Maryland House of Delegates has just voted to END the death penalty! The legislation was... fb.me/H2kn2Bq4
— DPFocus (@DPFocus) March 15, 2013

Great news! The Maryland legislature has just completed passage of a bill that will end the death penalty in the state.

By a vote of 82 to 56, the House agreed to replace capital punishment with a sentence of life without parole. It approved the measure a week after the Senate passed the bill.

Governor Martin O'Malley, who has pledged to sign the bill into law, will decide the fate of the five men currently on Maryland's death row.

The bill was O'Malley's second attempt to overturn capital punishment since 2009. When he introduced the legislation in January, he said the death penalty was expensive and did not work.

"Year after year, states which have a death penalty have actually had a higher murder rate than states which do not have a death penalty," he said.

Maryland will become the 18th state in the United States to abolish the death penalty.

Saturday Politics:Obama's Approval Rating Hits 60%

ABC/Washington Post poll shows that in the year between January 2012 and January 2013 Barack Obama's approval rating among all adults has gone up by 7 points (to a 3-year high), primarily fueled by a 17 point jump by Liberals, with even Conservatives increasing by +4.

The Post gives this explanation:

Two groups that voted against Obama in November are also beginning to tilt in his direction. Independents see him favorably by a 60-to-36 percent margin, compared with a 51-45 split a year ago. And 51 percent of those ages 65 and older now see Obama favorably, up 11 points from January 2012. Independent voters backed Mitt Romney over Obama by six points in November, and seniors favored Romney by 12 points, according to the national exit poll. 

Partisans’ opinions have changed the least over time. Fully 80 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Obama, similar to 78 percent last January. Even more Democrats, 92 percent, say the opposite, with favorable ratings ticking up five points from last year.

It should be VERY interesting to see where the President's approval rating is one year from now, when Immigration Reform may be a done deal. And even more interesting 3 years from now when the 2016 election campaign will be in full swing.

POLL: The Top 10 Liberal, Conservative States

Gallup has released a list of the Top 10 most conservative and most liberal states in the Union, measured by the percentage of the population who identify as either liberal or conservative. Unsurprisingly, Alabama is considered the most conservative state, with more than half of respondents identifying themselves as "conservative." Tied for second are North Dakota and Wyoming. Just this week, in fact, the Wyoming state Senate rejected any pro-gay legislation that had made it out of committee, even something as basic as including sexual orientation and gender identity in their state's employment discrimination statutes. In fact, none of the 10 most conservative states have employment non-discrimination statutes that include LGBT people.

The list of Top 10 most liberal states is headed by District of Columbia, followed by Massachusetts, Oregon and Vermont. Interestingly, California does not make the Top 10 list, and that even the most liberal jurisdiction does not have a majority of respondents identifying as liberal: 40.8% is the high-water mark. Another feature of the top 10 liberal states is that 6 of the 10 have enacted marriage equality, with the other four (Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware and Oregon) on the list of states which are expected to enact marriage equality in the near future, although Hawaii and Oregon have constitutional amendments which declare marriage is between a man and a woman.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo

POLL: Nationwide Support For Marriage Equality

A new poll from ABC News/Washington Post has progressives like myself smiling because they show majority support for the liberal position on immigration reform and marriage equality with marijuana legalization very closely split.

After last Tuesday's results which showed that in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington majorities of voters supported the pro-marriage equality position at the ballot it is not surprising that a new poll shows that 51% if respondents support marriage equality versus 47% who oppose it.

GAY MARRIAGE – Fifty-one percent of Americans support gay marriage, slightly more than half for the fifth time straight in ABC/Post polls since March 2011, and up sharply from its levels in similar questions earlier this decade, as low as 32 percent (of registered voters) in mid-2004. 

More in this survey are “opposed” to gay marriage, 47 percent, than said in recent polls that it should be “illegal” (39 percent last May), likely because making something illegal is more punitive than opposing it personally. 

While 30 states have constitutionally banned gay marriage, voters approved pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington last week, and those in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on it. Obama announced his personal support for gay marriage in May, saying individual states should decide on its legality. 

Last week’s exit poll found voters similarly divided, 49-46 percent, on gay marriage. Supporters favored Obama over Mitt Romney by 73-25 percent. And Obama won gay and lesbian voters, 5 percent of the electorate, by 76-22 percent, vs. 70-27 percent in 2008. 

Support for gay marriage in this poll tops out at more than three in four liberals and more than six in 10 young adults and Democrats. It’s opposed by a broad 81 percent of those who describe themselves as “very conservative,” and by two-thirds of senior citizens.

This is just another example of how the electorate did not just reject Mitt Romney as a candidate, but conservative ideology as a political philosophy. It will be interesting to see how they react.

POLL: Democrats Support Marriage Equality 2 to 1

The news that Democrats are putting support for marriage equality in the official 2012 DNC platform is now not as surprising (although it is still historic) as it seemed yesterday now considering a new Pew poll which again demonstrates that marriage equality has either majority or near-majority support with the general public and that Democrats overwhelmingly support the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The figure above illustrates the overwhelming difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, with the gap in presidential election years moving from +23 (2004) to +31 (2008) and now an astonishing 41 percentage point difference between Republicans and Democrats on the question of marriage equality. The key fact to note is that Independents have switched in that time period from opposition (37-53) to support (51-40).

As I have repeatedly said, the kulturkampf is basically over except for the screaming and gnashing of teeth from the heterosexual supremacists. They are now basically playing a game of delay and deception.

This last image showing the generational gap is basically the death knell for discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage:

Does anyone really think that the Millenial generation or Generation X are ever going to oppose marriage equality, even as they age? Then again, most of the opposition to marriage comes from people who think that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing old white guy in the sky (i..e "God") who listens to their pleas and individually responds to them, so a basic grip on reality is not something generally associated with heterosexual supremacists!

Why Conservatives Think Differently Than Liberals

Shutterstock

There is a new book from Chris Mooney called The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Don't Believe In Science which argues that liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) actually do think qualitatively different about science. His thesis is precisely that; and his book is about "how the left and right differ psychologically, and how this fuels a divide over reality and what’s true."

Last week I blogged about a recent sociological article which demonstrates significant differences in how liberal, moderates and conservatives view science.

One of my favorite bloggers, Kevin Drum, has recently been discussing this issue with Mooney himself at his excellent blog:

First: Kevin notes that conservatives only really bash science today on two issues, evolution and climate change. I agree that these are the two leading issues of the moment, but doesn’t Kevin remember stem cell research? It was quite prominent up until recently, and in the 2004 election it led the pack of science issues. And doesn’t contraception count as a science issue? In my book I detail numerous cases of conservatives denying science whenever it has something to do with reproductive health, contraception, or abortion. 

And for that matter, who said it was just science we’re talking about? I deliberately subtitled the book “The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality” so as to include belief that President Obama is a Muslim, or a socialist, or wasn’t born in the United States; the huge array of false claims about health care reform and the economy; falsehoods about American history, and much else. 

Precisely because we are talking about something that is partly dispositional about conservatives, there is no reason to think that their denial of reality would begin and end with science issues. Rather, there is every reason to think that this behavior—springing in part, I argue, from psychological traits like more rigidity or fixity of views, less openness to new information, more authoritarianism, and so on—would infect all areas where they had an emotional stake.

Mooney also says more about the thesis of his book at Salon,

It is important to acknowledge that authoritarianism refers to a psychological trait or disposition, not an explicit ideology. At least theoretically, it’s content neutral. So it’s conceivable that in a very different political context, authoritarians might well have lined up behind science, rather than against it. That would be an odd political case, though; especially in a democracy, it’s not very likely that authoritarianism and science will get along very well together, any more than that authoritarianism and liberalism will go together. They’re just such deeply opposed ways of thinking — and being. You could argue that the clash between science and authoritarianism dates all the way back to the time of Galileo, if not farther.

What do you think? Do you believe that conservatives and liberals are different at a psychological level, and that this explains their different views on science and fact?

STUDY: Trust Science? You're a Liberal!

Towleroad reports about a very disturbing result that public distrust of science is correlated with partisanship. In "Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010" published in the American Sociological Review (Volume 77, issue 2, pp. 167-187), Gordon Gauchat, a professor at the University of North Carolina, details the ongoing politicization of science. Conservatives mistrust science the most, with Liberals trusting science the most and Moderates are closer to conservatives than liberals in this instance.

From the graph above you can see that conservative trust of science is at an all-time low, with just 35% of self-identified conservatives saying that they have "a great deal of trust in science." The numbers for conservatives have been dropping for year while those of liberals have remained relatively steady.

In his paper, Gauchat says:

As mentioned, one interpretation of these findings is that conservatism in the United States has become a cultural domain that generates its own knowledge base that is often in conflict with the cultural authority of science. For example, on fundamental ontological questions about who we are and how we got here, conservatives are far more likely to doubt scientific theories of origins, including theories of natural selection and the Big Bang (Newport 2007, 2009). A growing number of conservatives also doubt climate change: in 2010, only a third of conservatives believed that global warming is occurring, compared to almost half in 2008 (Jones 2010). These particular opinions, coupled with the general trends examined in Table 2, suggest a growing chasm between conservatives’ ideas about “what is the case” and liberals’ willingness to trust science on these matters. 

Given the theoretical relationship between education and confidence in science, an additional explanation relates to whether conservatives’ educational composition changed over the period. Simply, if conservatives as a group are less educated than they once were, this might account for the decline in trust in the scientific community. First, according to the combined GSS data, the proportion of conservatives who received at least a high school degree is greater than the proportion for liberals. Second, the percentage of conservatives and liberals who received bachelor’s degrees is nearly identical, approximately 17 percent. Liberals, however, were more likely to receive graduate degrees compared to conservatives, and the gap between ideological groups grows over the period. Importantly, this growing gap is due to an increase in the percentage of liberals receiving graduate degrees and not a decline among conservatives. Altogether, the data provide little evidence that group-specific differences in public trust in science are attributable to changes in conservatives’ educational composition.

In other words, the increasing gap is not because conservatives are any less educated than liberals. Gauchat's overall explanation is that there has been a marked change in the distrust of science among people who are conservative and attend church frequently and this drives the overall decline in the numbers.

Do you agree with his explanation for the gap between conservatives and liberals? Do YOU trust science?

Saturday Politics: California In Red, Blue and Purple

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has a new analysis of California voters which splits the electorate not along partisan lines but along liberal-conservatives lines. Since California's electoral system is being rocked by dual political earthquakes of the incorporation of a Top 2 Primary system (the top 2 finalists in the June 2012 primary election regardless of vote totals or party affiliations will face off on the November 2012 ballot) as well as the impact of legislative districts for Assembly, Senate and U.S. House drawn by a non-partisan citizen redistricting commission The impact of these two reforms will be huge and may necessitate a change in the typical Democrat-Republican analysis of elections. PPIC used five categories of voters (loyal liberal, moderately liberal, conservative liberal, moderate conservative, committed conservative) which they define as:

Loyal Liberal: Very liberal on both social and fiscal issues (18% of the state’s population);

Moderate Liberal: Moderately liberal on both social and fiscal issues (24%);

Conservative Liberal: Conservative on social issues and moderately liberal on fiscal issues (25%);

Moderate Conservative: Moderately liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues (17%);

Committed Conservative: Conservative on both social and fiscal issues (15%).

The graphic above demonstrates the geographic distribution of these kinds of voters. In the report, PPIC notes that every geographic section of the state has drifted ideologically towards Democratic positions except for the inland sections.

The report ends with this these thoughts about 2012 and California's political future:

California may tend to vote for Democratic presidential candidates , but many places around the state espouse views that fall to the right of the Democratic Party’s typical positions. In fact, only the Bay Area is home to extraordinarily large numbers of people who hold opinions associated with the Democratic Party.

This could signal an opportunity for Republicans. Moderate Liberal and Conservative Liberal places contain half the state’s population and seem sympathetic to many conservative positions—yet they tend to support the Democratic Party. Still, altering this status quo could prove difficult. The small number of liberal Republicans in every part of the state implies that the party's electoral coalition is ideologically solid—but that may also make the party resistant to expansion efforts. Only time will tell.

Regardless, California’s 2012 election promises to be exciting and unpredictable. Given the inherent tensions between ideology and partisanship in much of California, the political geography that emerges after the election could look very different from the current landscape.

Very interesting stuff! I encourage you to read the entire thing, "California Political Geography," by Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm.

Graphic: Gas Prices Hurt Red States More Than Blue

An analysis of the rise of gas prices shows that they do not affect blue states (those that lean or vote Democratic in presidential elections) and red states (those that lean or vote Republican in presidential elections) equally. Gas prices are actually lower on average in red states than blue states, but residents in red states pay more of their income on gas.

The disparities are stark: Wyoming drivers pay $3.21 per gallon while drivers in California pay $4.34. And, oddly enough, the differences line up well with partisan patterns — Houser found that blue states pay significantly higher prices per gallon than red states.

But here’s the catch: Red states may enjoy cheaper gasoline, but they also tend to be less dense and have less-efficient vehicles, and their residents tend to drive more miles each day. Wyoming residents may pay less per gallon, but they use more gallons of gasoline. And this is a consistent pattern: Houser found that deep-red states are actually shelling out more for gasoline as an overall percentage of their income.

So, I guess the important question is which effect will have a larger impact on the presidential election and whether the salience of the "gas prices" issue in political analysis will be diminished due to this analysis.

Hat/tip to Wonk Blog

MAP: Which States Spend/Cost Federal Tax Money

From Matt Yglesias by way of The Economist here is an interesting graphic showing how much money each state in the Union gives or gets (federal taxes minus federal spending) as a percentage surplus or deficit.

Understanding Redistricting, Part 1

It matters how you draw the lines

Dante Atkins of Daily Kos has a very useful article on the importance of redistricting for progressives.

In most states, the decennial maps for congressional districts are redrawn and approved by state legislatures. Why does this matter? Because partisan state legislatures are likely to divvy up the districts in a way that benefits their party. How does this work in practice? At its most elementary, let's hypothesize a state with a population of nine people: five Democrats and four Republicans. And from those nine people, the Census Bureau required creating three districts with an equal number of people. If the state legislature were controlled by Democrats, they might make a map that carves the state in a way that has a majority of Democratic seats. But if Republicans were to control the legislature—something that happens from time to time in Democratic-voting states such as Minnesota—they just might pass a map with different districts that gives the GOP a majority of the seats. 

The 2010 elections will have long-lasting consequences for control of the House of Representatives. The problem isn't just that Republicans won so many seats; the larger problem is that they won them at exactly the right time. Incumbent representatives are hard to defeat, but unseating freshmen is generally an easier task. Unfortunately, having a wave election in a redistricting year allows the new majority party to take advantage of the redistricting process to shore up vulnerable members, usually by taking some friendlier territory from a safer, better-known incumbent—serving essentially to "lock in" that majority for the rest of the decade. In addition, less scrupulous legislators can use the redistricting process to consolidate the districts of opponents to force their members into either retirement or a bruising primary fight and removing them from their seats regardless—a process playing out right now to eliminate Democratic seats in states like North Carolina and Michigan. The GOP has also shown its willingness to use redistricting to ward off potential political disadvantages at the state legislative level as well: for example, Wisconsin Republicans are redrawing the state senate lines in a hurry before the recall elections, even though doing so right now would create a bureaucratic nightmare. Clearly, the GOP is willing to use redistricting as a political weapon in spite of any resulting collateral damage.

While most states have this concern, California no longer does. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission that removed the authority to draw legislative lines from the state legislature and put it into the hands of a supposedly non-partisan commission (in 2010, a second proposition was passed that put the authority to draw boundaries for congressional districts as well into the hands of this same body). The Democratic Party opposed this measure for obvious reasons: As Democrats have a substantial majority of seats, they control the redistricting process and could use it to maximize Democratic seats while ensuring no contentious primary battles among the state's delegation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the executive board of the California Democratic Party.)Furthermore, the commission's mandated structure is hardly representative of California's population: despite the fact that California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the commission is required to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving, with absolutely no guarantee of geographic or ethnic diversity.

The commission has had other problems, such as missed deadlines and cancellation of draft maps—and right now, the current maps are likely to face suits, especially from organizations in the Latino community who feel that the maps dilute their community's voting power and are thus illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, among Democrats the mood of uncertainty at the congressional level has yielded to a cautious optimism, as the commission's draft maps (should they hold) will likely result in Democratic gains of multiple seats, and defeat or retirement of several longtime Republican members. 

Poll Reveals Post-Partisan Views On Marriage Equality

There is an interesting poll result from Pew which has tried to tease out the various groups in the Democratic and Republican coalitions and tried to identify how they split when confronted with specific public policy positions, like marriage equality. Pew calls these groups "political typologies."

Today, Staunch Conservatives take extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues – on the size and role of government, on economics, foreign policy, social issues and moral concerns. Most agree with the Tea Party and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance. A second core group of Republicans – Main Street Republicans – also is conservative, but less consistently so.

On the left, Solid Liberals express diametrically opposing views from the Staunch Conservatives on virtually every issue. While Solid Liberals are predominantly white, minorities make up greater shares of New Coalition Democrats – who include nearly equal numbers 0f whites, African Americans and Hispanics – and Hard-Pressed Democrats, who are about a third African American. Unlike Solid Liberals, both of these last two groups are highly religious and socially conservative. New Coalition Democrats are distinguished by their upbeat attitudes in the face of economic struggles.

Independents have played a determinative role in the last three national elections. But the three groups in the center of the political typology have very little in common, aside from their avoidance of partisan labels. Libertarians and Post-Moderns are largely white, well-educated and affluent. They also share a relatively secular outlook on some social issues, including homosexuality and abortion. But Republican-oriented Libertarians are far more critical of government, less supportive of environmental regulations, and more supportive of business than are Post-Moderns, most of whom lean Democratic.

Disaffecteds, the other main group of independents, are financially stressed and cynical about politics. Most lean to the Republican Party, though they differ from the core Republican groups in their support for increased government aid to the poor. Another group in the center, Bystanders, largely consign themselves to the political sidelines and for the most part are not included in this analysis.

These are the principal findings of the political typology study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which sorts Americans into cohesive groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation. The new study is based on two surveys with a combined sample of 3,029 adults, conducted Feb. 22-Mar. 14, 2011 and a smaller callback survey conducted April 7-10, 2011 with 1,432 of the same respondents

It is very notable that the Pew poll shows an almost even split on the question of marriage equality overall, 46% opposed, 45% in favor, with very strong support among Liberals (85% yes, 9% no) and Post-Moderns (80% yes, 14% No). These are the only groups that show a net support for marriage equality, but except for Staunch Conservatives (85% No, 9% Yes) most groups are more evenly split in their opposition, leading to the ultimate split overall.

POLL: 1/3 Of Americans Deny Gays' Equal Relationship Rights

Interesting poll results from PPP for DailyKos.com on legal recognition of same-sex relationships:

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos. 1/14-16. Registered voters. MoE 3.1% (No trend lines)

Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.

         Marry  Civil unions  Neither
All         34       31         33

Dem         53       24         20
Rep         11       35         52
Ind         37       34         27

Lib         78       10         12
Mod         40       38         20
Con          8       32         57

Tea Party   17       30         52
Non-TP      42       30         27

White       33       30         35
Black       32       30         30
Latino      47       32         22

18-29       52       13         33
30-45       37       31         29
46-65       31       36         31
65+         23       34         42

Notice that nearly two-thirds of respondents either support full marriage equality or civil unions for same-sex couples. A majority of Democrats support marriage equality while a functionally equal majority of Republicans support no legal recognition for a gay couple's relationship. This is limited government?

Markos says that PPP will be polling on marriage equality every four weeks in 2011, which should provide some interesting longitudinal data on attitudes of Americans on the question of how same-sex couples should be recognized under the law.

Repeat After Me. Fox News Is NOT A News Outlet

As many progressives and liberals know, Fox News is not a news outlet. It is a right-wing propaganda arm. But now we have more ammunition because the parent company of the channel, News Corporation, has decided to give one million dollars to the Republican Governors Association:

The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP. The company's highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.

[...]

UPDATE: News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."

The giant check to the RGA dwarfs low four-figure checks from Fox's PAC to Democrats including Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

hat/tip to Rod 2.0