POLL: Support For Death Penalty Hits New Low In California

California Governor Gavin Newsom made headlines a few weeks ago when he announced a moratorium on the death penalty in the state along with the dismantling of the death chamber in San Quentin. Since California voters have rejected ballot measures twice in the last decade (and as recently as November 2016) to end the state's death penalty the media characterized the move as "thwarting" the will of the populace. However, new polling shows that Gov. Newsom may be more in line with public opinion in California than expected. According to the Public Policy Institute of California's March 2019 poll, voters approve of mandatory life without parole to the death penalty by a 58% to 38% margin, and when you expand to include all Californians (not just voters) support for the death penalty falls to 31%. The only  demographic group where support for the death penalty has increased is Republicans, with support at 64% while Democrats are at 21% and Independents at 36%. Thank Zeus we have so few Republicans in Deep Blue California their share of the electorate is low and falling and their impact on public policy is negligible!

Hat/tip to CalMatters

CELEBRITY FRIDAY: Openly Gay Richard Grenell Confirmed By Senate To Become U.S. Ambassador To Germany

Richard Grenell has been confirmed by a vote of 56-42 in the United States Senate to become the next U.S. Ambassador to Germany, one day before Chancellor Angela Merkel arrives in Washington, D.C. for bilateral talks with the Trump administration. Most Democrats voted against the nomination, with most Republicans voting infavor, including known homophobes such as

The Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory T. Angelo said on Fox News:

 For the first time in history, an openly gay ambassador was not confirmed “in spite of” Republicans, or simply “with Republican support.” Grenell is now our ambassador to Germany because of Republican support.

And now the Trump administration (and its supporters) will use the existence of an openly gay ambassador to a high profile country as an example that Republicans are no longer anti-gay, all the while the Trump administration continues to be virulently anti-LGBT in multiple ways.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Toni Atkins, 1st LGBT and Female CA Senate Leader

Toni Atkins, former Speaker of the California State Assembly, has been announced as the next leader of the California State Senate when current Senate president pro tem Kevin De Leon steps down in early 2018. When that happens Atkins will become the first woman and openly LGBT person to head the United States' largest state's upper legislative house.

De León, a Los Angeles Democrat who has served as Senate leader for nearly four years, is stepping down from the leadership position as he runs against Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the 2018 election for her seat in the U.S. Senate.

“Four years ago, our caucus elected the first Latino leader in over a century to lead the California state Senate — and, next year, Sen. Atkins will become our first ever woman to be elected Senate leader,” De León said in a statement. 

“Toni is a leader of great experience, achievement and integrity, and I have every confidence that she will lead America's most accomplished legislative chamber to even greater heights,” De León added. 

Atkins, 55, brings leadership experience to the job, having previously served as speaker of the state Assembly. She will be the third person to serve both as Assembly speaker and Senate president pro tem and the first leader of the state Senate who has come out as gay. 

“Today, I am humbled by the trust my colleagues have placed in me, and I intend to earn that trust every day by working tirelessly and inclusively to keep California a place of opportunity for everyone,” Atkins said in a statement.

Congratulations to Toni!

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Most Americans Believe In Church-State Separation

A new poll from the Pew Research Center re-affirms the notion that most Americans believe that religion and government policy should be separated. This idea is usually described as a "wall between church and state." More than twice as many support church-state separation than those that think the two should be intertwined.

When it comes to religion’s role in government policy, most Americans think the two should be kept separate from one another. About two-thirds (65%) say religion should be kept separate from government policies, compared with 32% who say government policies should support religious values and beliefs. 

A narrow majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (54%) say religion should be kept separate from government policies. However, conservative Republicans are evenly split; 49% say government policies should support religious values and beliefs, while 48% think religion should be kept separate from policy. By roughly two-to-one (67% to 31%), moderate and liberal Republicans say religion should be kept separate from government policy. 

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 76% think religion should be kept separate from government policies. A wide 86% majority of liberal Democrats say this; a somewhat smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (69%) take this view. 

White evangelical Protestants are one group where a narrow majority says government policies should support religion: 54% say this, while 43% say religion should be kept separate from policy. In comparison, majorities of both black Protestants (55%) and white mainline Protestants (70%) think religion should be separate from government policy.

In fact the only sub-group that supports the idea that government should support religion are white Evangelical protestants. And, coincidentally, members of this group voted overwhelmingly for the Trump-Pence 2016 ticket and the Trump administration has multiple members of this group in the Cabinet (Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III and Vice-President Mike Pence). What impact this will have on public policy is extremely worrying to godless people like yours truly.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Republicans (Finally) Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted

There's a new poll out from Pew and the Press which shows that societal acceptance of homosexuality is continuing to grow, with the latest numbers showing that 70% of respondents say "homosexuality should be accepted by society" while only 24% of responded says "homosexuality should be discouraged by society."

However, in this week's episode of Saturday Politics I want to call attention to the partisan differences on this question. 83% of Democrats support societal acceptance of homosexuality. A majority of Democrats have been supportive of homosexuality since (at least) 1994 while a majority of Republicans have not ever been supportive of homosexuality until this year. In the latest poll, 54% of Republicans now say they are supportive of homosexuality.

Pew summarizes the results:

While there has been an increase in acceptance of homosexuality across all partisan and demographic groups, Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to say homosexuality should be accepted by society. 

Overall, 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while only 13% say it should be discouraged. The share of Democrats who say homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 20 points since 2006 and up from 54% who held this view in 1994. 

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, more say homosexuality should be accepted (54%) than discouraged (37%) by society. This is the first time a majority of Republicans have said homosexuality should be accepted by society in Pew Research Center surveys dating to 1994. Ten years ago, just 35% of Republicans held this view, little different than the 38% who said this in 1994.

LOOK: Easiest Visual Explanation of Gerrymandering

The United States Supreme Court had oral arguments in the case of Gill v. Whitford which is about partisan gerrymandering. This sounds boring, but it is fundamentally about the nature of Democracy itself. The image above shows how one can use gerrymandering to completely warp democratic results.

The example shows a "state" with 50 voters where 60% of voters are "blue" and 40% are "red" but through selection of district boundaries one can get results of 5 blue districts and 0 red districts to 2 Blue districts and 3 red districts even though using a "standard" redistricting one would expect 3 blue and 2 red.

This case is from Wisconsin where:

The plans, developed in 2011 by Republican leaders who controlled the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R), were effective.

In the election held after the new district maps were adopted,Republican candidates won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote but captured a 60-to-39 seat advantage in the State Assembly. 

Evidence uncovered during lawsuits over the redistricting found that models showed Democrats would have to win about 53 percent of the statewide vote to capture a bare majority of the seats.

The swing vote (as usual) is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Hat/tip to Wonk Blog

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: 24% Of Americans Are Religiously Unaffiliated

For today's Godlesss Wednesday post I want to return to the topic of how the demographics of religious identity are changing in the United States. A report from the PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) titled "America's Changing Religious Identity"  released on September 6 2017 chronicles these changes. Some of the findings are:

• White Christians, 81 percent of the population in 1976, now account for less than half the public — 43 percent of Americans identify as white Christians, and 30 percent as white Protestants.
• 92 percent of Lutherans are white, more than in any other denomination.
• White Christians are aging. About 1 in 10 white Catholics, evangelicals and mainline Protestants are under 30, compared with one-third of all Hindus and Buddhists.
• Muslims and Mormons are the youngest faith groups in the U.S., with 42 percent of all Muslims under 3o, and nearly a quarter of all Mormons.

The PRRI report is based on a survey of 101,000 Americans in all 50 states and has a margin of error of 0.5 percentage points. Another big take-away from the report is that no single religious group in the United States is larger than the group of "religiously unaffiliated," which makes up 24% of the population.

This is awesome news!

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Partisan Differences In Religious Affiliation

From Five Thirty Eight comes this interesting analysis of a report from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) which discusses the implications from looking at the differences in partisan affiliation of various religious groups. There are opportunities and challenges for Democrats:

There’s also evidence in the report that young religious voters of color in particular may feel less loyalty to the Democrats than older generations did. Only 35 percent of Hispanic Catholics under the age of 30 identify as Democrats, compared to 56 percent of Hispanic Catholic seniors. Similarly, just 58 percent of black Protestants under 30 say they’re Democrats, compared to 79 percent of black Protestants over the age of 65.

and Republicans:

So far, having a base that’s composed overwhelmingly of one demographic group hasn’t doomed Republican candidates — white, conservative Christian voters have been the bedrock of the GOP base since the 1980s and helped deliver President Trump to the White House last year. In 2016, a whopping 35 percent of Republicans were white evangelical Protestants, 18 percent were white mainline Protestants, and 16 percent were white Catholics; together, those groups account for nearly 70 percent of the Republican base.

To me, the most interesting aspect of the report is the age breakdown of the "religiously unaffiliated" (which I would call "the godless").  The results are 34% are age 18-29, 37% are 30-49, 19% are 50-64 and 10% are 65+.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Republicans View Things Very Differently Than Democrats and Independents

Of course, for the last week the political world has been buzzing over the march by white supremacists and Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia and President Trump's widely panned response. However, it should be noted that this negative response to Trump's assigning equal responsibility to white supremacists and those who oppose them for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville (despite the fact that it was an avowed racist who has been arrested and charged with driving the car that killed one of the people protesting the white supremacists) is not universal. 64% of Republicans  agree (with Trump's statements that "both [sides are] equally [to blame]" while 66% of Democrats assign responsibility to the neo-Nazis, anti-semites and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville.

However, as I have blogged about previously on Saturday Politics Republicans have views about things that are very different from others, such as viewing discrimination against groups differently based on partisan differences as well as which groups suffer more discrimination than others.

Today's blog post is about how Republicans view many institutions (colleges and universities, labor unions, national news media and churches) very differently than others.

MAP: Trump's Approval Rating Varies Greatly By Stae

It is well-known that Donald Trump has historically low approval ratings, especially for a newly elected president. However, what may not be recognized is the geographical variation in his approval ratings. There are 17 states where Trump is above majority support averaged over the first 6 months of his presidency, according to Gallup. There are also 17 states where his approval average is below 40%!

President Donald Trump, who has averaged 40% job approval since his inauguration, received approval ratings of 50% or higher in 17 states in the first half of 2017. Residents in an equal number of states gave him approval ratings below 40%. In 16 states, his ratings ranged between 40% and 49%.

Hat/tip to Axios

SATURDAY POLITICS: Party Affiliation Influences Perceptions of Bias

The topic of how different groups of people view the prevalence and salience of discrimination against various groups is a subject that I have often blogged about here. Five Thirty Eight looks at the polling data from PRRI that I had previously discussed and makes an argument about how in the Trump era notions of "civil rights" and "discrimination" and what the government should do about these issues is going to be very different than what it was in the Obama and Bush administrations.

What we can say already, however, is that in its first 100 days, Trump’s administration has in some ways redefined who the U.S. government views as facing discrimination or marginalization. 

The administration is not proposing less intervention from the federal government, which is the typical Republican approach, but rather it is seeking to wield federal power, just as Obama did. But whereas Obama’s policies focused on protecting African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, people who are gay or transgender, and other groups that most Americans view as marginalized, Trump and his team are focusing on defending different groups: Christians, police officers, victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants, and people who fear Latino immigrants are taking their jobs or redefining U.S. culture, among others. 

This approach is akin to civil rights for the Trump coalition, a shift in focus away from groups that Democrats (and the data) view as facing more discrimination and toward groups Republicans believe are more often marginalized.

This idea is part of today's discussion of Saturday Politics.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Montana House Candidate Believes In Creationsm

There has been a lot of talk in political circles over the special election in Georgia's 6th congressional district, but not much about another special election that is upcoming for Montana's at-large congressional seat which was vacated when Ryan Zinke became Secretary of the Interior.

The most prominent Republican candidate in the special election to replace Zinke is Greg Gianforte, who is a tech millionaire who has used money from his family foundation to support the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, Huffington Post reports.

Just in time for today's Godless Wednesday, The Friendly Atheist has published an excerpt of an interview with a reporter where Gianforte "doubles down" on his creationist views:

MAUK: Your position on evolution has come up in past campaigns because of your support, primarily, of the Glendive museum. Do you personally believe in evolution?
GIANFORTE: I personally believe, as many Montanans do, that God created the Earth.
MAUK: But do you believe, personally, in evolution?
GIANFORTE: I believe that God created the Earth. I wasn’t there, I don’t know how long it took. I don’t know how he did it exactly. But I look around me at the grandeur in this state and I believe that God created the Earth.
MAUK: And so evolution is not something that you believe in?
GIANFORTE: Um, I think I’ve answered your question.

I believe everyone running for public office should be asked, "Do you believe the Earth is less than 4 billion years old?" and if they give some weasly answer like "I wasn't there" or "I don't know" or "I am not a scientist" they should be asked "What other undisputed scientific facts do you not know or personally believe in? Do you believe the Earth is round? Do you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? Do you believe in the germ theory of disease? Do you believe in antibiotic resistance?"

FYI, the March for Science is happening this Saturday April 22 in Washington, DC  and around the country and the world.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Partisan Difference In Views On Discrimination Prevalence

I previously blogged about the difference in attitudes towards LGBT discrimination by various religious denominationt, as reported by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

Today I want to discuss how perceptions of the prevalence of discrimination against various groups changes with partisan identification. The PRRI summarizes their findings by discussing how Republicans and Democrats view discro,omayopmthis way:

Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian, Transgender People
More than six in ten Americans say gay and lesbian people (61%) and transgender people (64%) face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. 

However, there are sharp partisan differences on this question. Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to say gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination in the country today (79% vs. 40%, respectively). Notably, a majority (57%) of Republicans do not believe gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination. Independents largely reflect the views of the public overall. An identical number (79%) of Democrats believe transgender people face a lot of discrimination, while fewer than half (48%) of Republicans agree. Again, the views of independents generally align with Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Whites vs. Blacks
Nearly six in ten (58%) Americans say blacks face a lot of discrimination in American society today, while only three in ten (30%) say the same of whites. More Americans now say blacks face a considerable degree of discrimination in U.S. society than in 2013 when slightly more than half (52%) of the public expressed this view.² 

Notably, Republicans are significantly more likely to say that whites, rather than blacks, experience a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today (43% vs. 27%, respectively). Democrats and independents are far more likely to say blacks experience a lot of discrimination than to say the same about whites (82% vs. 19% and 59% vs. 30%, respectively). The partisan gap in perceptions of discrimination against blacks has increased substantially over the last four years, driven primarily by shifts among Democrats. In 2013, about two-thirds (66%) of Democrats compared to roughly one-third (32%) of Republicans expressed the view that discrimination against blacks in the U.S. is common. Notably, white and nonwhite Democrats recorded nearly identical changes in opinion. 

Discrimination Against Christians vs. MuslimsA similar pattern emerges in views of the relative amount of discrimination faced by Muslims and Christians in American society. Americans are twice as likely to say Muslims face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (66% vs. 33%, respectively). Again, there are sizable differences by party affiliation, religious background, and generation. 

Democrats are more than four times as likely to say Muslims (85%) face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (21%). Republicans, in contrast, are about equally as likely to say both Christians (48%) and Muslims (45%) experience a lot of discrimination in the US today. Independents’ attitudes mirror those of Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Immigrants
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans say immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today, while one-third (33%) believe they do not. Americans are sharply divided by party and generation. 

Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say immigrants face a substantial degree of discrimination in society (82% vs. 41%, respectively). Roughly two-thirds (65%) of independents also believe immigrants confront a great deal of discrimination.

There's a lot more information at the PRRI website. I encourage you to check it out!

6 Weeks Until #ElectionDay: Clinton 0.546, Trump 0.454

I've been busy all day so I didn't get to post the latest prediction by FiveThirtyEight.com about the candidates' relative chances to be president with 42 days remaining (6 weeks) before election day. Hillary Clinton has a probability of 0.546 while Donald Trump has a probability  of 0.454. Last week, Clinton had a probability of 0.589 while Trump had a probability of 0.411.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Graphic Shows Dramatic Increase In Partisanship Over Time

The above graphic is taken from the scholarly article "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives" by Andris et al appearing in PLOS One.

An excerpt from the Discussion section is perfect for today's Saturday Politics post:

The key line is "Our analysis shows that has been increasing exponentially for 60 years, and has had negative effects on Congressional productivity."

Hat/tip to Politico.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Poll Reveals Republicans Do Not Believe In Religious Liberty

Here at MadProfessah.com we are extremely interested in religious liberty, especially for those who are atheists agnostic or godless. A new exclusive poll from PPP for DailyKos.com reveals that Republicans (who seem to spend a fair amount of their time bleating about religious liberties) really don't seem to understand what taht term actually means.

Nationwide, more than a third of Republicans say that Islam should be illegal in the United States, according to a new PPP poll provided exclusively to Daily Kos Elections. Nearly half—a 44 percent plurality—say Christianity should be our official religion. 

[...] 

Lest you think this is solely confined to Republicans, smaller numbers of both Democrats and independents also admitted to wanting to outlaw Islam (15 percent of Democrats, 20 percent of independents) and make Christianity our official religion (28 and 24 percent, respectively). 

Overall, for all respondents, the share that supports freedom of religion in deed, not just in word, barely clears the halfway mark: Just 53 percent of voters oppose making Christianity the official religion of the United States, and only 56 percent think Islam should be legal.

As the post describes this result: It looks like we are "halfway to theocracy"!

POLL: Support For Marriage Equality Holds Steady In Post-Obergefell Era

Now that marriage equality is the law of the land everywhere in the United States thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, activists and pundits have been waiting to see what impact this fact would have on public opinion. One poll released earlier this month from the Associated Presss showed a decided decrease in support for marriage equality (of 6 points), but the well-respected Gallup organization is out with its new poll, which it released with the headline "U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable After High Court Ruling."

Though the Supreme Court's decision has not immediately influenced Americans' overall opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage, this is not to suggest it will not affect opinion in the long run. 

Even after a 1967 Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriages, Gallup's polling in 1968 found that only one in five Americans (20%) approved of such marriages. It took three more decades to reach a majority of support. 

The path to legality of interracial marriage differed from same-sex marriage, though, in that the Supreme Court led public opinion bylegalizing something that Americans largely disapproved of at the time. Approval of same-sex marriage, however, has ascended significantly faster, and has enjoyed majority support for a few years before the court's decision. Still, a long view of the trend on gay marriage illustrates that support for it was steady and incremental, and that the movement's big victories in statewide ballot initiatives and legislature-enacted laws had limited effect on public opinion at large.

I really do not understand how one person's civil marriage affects someone else's. Hopefully even Republican Presidential candidates will figure that out eventually!

MadProfessah Endorsements For March 3, 2015 Los Angeles Municipal Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for!  Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I will be voting in the March 3 2015 Los Angeles Municipal Primary Election, compared with endorsements from other organizations like the Los Angeles Times,  California Democratic Party, East Area Progressive Democrats and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. For more information about judicial candidates, check out the LA County Bar Association.

The Ballot is quite short. Here are my endorsements (how I am voting) along with information about how others are encouraging you to vote.

L.A. City Council        MadProf   LA TIMES LA CO DEMS

District 14              MOLINA    Molina      Yes

Citywide Measures        MadProf   LA TIMES LA CO DEMS
Charter Amendment 1       NO        Yes        Yes
Charter Amendment 2       NO        Yes        Yes

Countywide Races          MadProf  LA TIMES  CA DEMS

Comm. Coll. Board, #1     VEGA     Hoffman   ---

Comm. Coll. Board, #3     KAMLAGER Kamlager  Kamlager

Comm. Coll. Board, #5     SVONKIN* Svonkin   Svonkin

Comm. Coll. Board, #7     FONG     Fong      Fong

Tune in later this week for the results... 

SATURDAY POLITICS: Duke Mathematicians Show How Heinously NC Republicans Gerrymandered Congressional Districts

This is an interesting study from two Duke mathematicians which demonstrates the truly heinous nature of the partisan gerrymander perpetrated by North Carolina Republicans to gain a majority of the state's Congressional districts despite getting a minority of votes.

During the 2012 elections in North Carolina, Republicans took nine of the state’s 13 U.S. House seats although 51 percent of the two-party vote went to Democratic candidates. 

The gerrymandering that led to these results isn’t unique to North Carolina or any specific party. Both Democrats and Republicans have used it for political advantage over the years. However, new technology makes it possible to draw partisan districts with increasing precision.

[...] 

They used a statistical algorithm to randomly redraw the boundaries of North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts. The model produced thousands of versions of the redrawn map. All of them were based only on the legal requirements of redistricting, ensuring the districts represented roughly equal numbers of voters and were as geographically compact as possible, without accounting for race or political affiliation.

[...] 

After re-running the election 100 times, with a randomly drawn nonpartisan map each time, the average simulated election result was 7 or 8 U.S. House seats for the Democrats and 5 or 6 for Republicans. The maximum number of Republican seats that emerged from any of the simulations was eight. The actual outcome of the election -- four Democratic representatives and nine Republicans – did not occur in any of the simulations. 

Feel free to re-read that again. Using ONE HUNDRED simulations of randomly drawn district lines but the same votes cast in the 2012 election NONE of those simulations produced the results of the actual 2012 election results of 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats, while the most likely simulated result was between 7 and 8 Democrats and 6 or 5 Republicans.

This result demonstrates how heinously the Republican legislature gerrymandered North Carolina's congressional districts to thwart the political will of the majority of voters.

POLL: Americans See Michael Brown Shooting Very Differently By Race and Party

Not TOO surprisingly there are stark racial differences in how Americans of different racial backgrounds view the shooting of Michael Brown, a poll by Huffington Post reveals.

As YouGov puts it:

There is a massive racial divide between white and black Americans about whether Darren Wilson should face punishment for killing Michael Brown. While only 22% of whites say that wilson was at fault and should be punished, just under two-thirds (64%) of black Americans want the officer to be punished. 30% of whites, and 11% of blacks, say that the shooting was a tragic accident. 29% of whites say that officer Wilson was fully justified in shooting Brown, something only 4% of black Americans agree with.

Views of the Ferguson incident are not only bifurcated by racial identity but also by party identification:

Democrats were also three times more likely than Republicans to say Wilson was at fault, and to fear that he would be punished too leniently. 

Perhaps the biggest divide, however, was on whether the shooting represented an isolated incident or part of a broader pattern in how black men are treated by the police. While Americans overall were split, 74 percent of black Americans and 57 percent of Democrats, compared with 31 percent of whites and 18 percent of Republicans, saw the shooting as part of a larger pattern.

Despite this being an incident that involves a white cop and  a Black victim I would be interested in seeing data about how other racial groups (especially Latino and Asians) view the Michael Brown situation. Race in America is far more complicated than just Black and white.