Petrelis Files

Foreman Shares Sources,
Cancels Meeting

Matt Foreman has shared with me sources and links behind nearly all of the stats and numbers he included in his essay that appeared on gay blogs last week, right before the start of the Equality Summit in LA. I thought it odd he didn't post it at the web site of where he's the program director, the Haas Jr. Fund, so of course, it's doubly odd that the only place, as far I know, where his sources are posted is on my blog.

Frankly, I think a gay leader of Matt's stature, and with all the millions of dollars his fund donates to gay causes, ought to have a blog because he wields tremendous power and influence over our agenda. Just to better stay in touch with the community, and share his thinking with us.

But at least he took the time to get me what I requested, and for that I am appreciative, and he stirred some good discussions about Prop 8 and where we go from here.

At the same time, it seemed odd he wanted to meet with the D-list gay man, after I'd left him a voice mail suggesting both the Haas Jr. Fund, and two groups it heavily endows, Equality California and National Center for Lesbian Rights, begin holding town halls in the Castro. I pushing all advocacy groups and funders in San Francisco to start public discussions, but so far my pushing hasn't led to a return to the days of Harvey Milk and community empowerment and education through open forums.

I agreed to meet with him, date and time were set, and I sent Matt a message saying I would take up only 30-minutes of his time. This was because I had a short meeting with him at Creating Change in Oakland in 2005, at which he expressed keen interest in a proposal I made to him. I followed up with emails and calls to him and his aide Roberta Sklar, and never heard back from him. Best to keep our Tuesday meeting short, not get my hopes up, I said to him.

Matt has since spoken with his communications director, learned that I spoke with him late last week, and there is now no need to meet. I don't work in the charitable world, but I would expect a program director to keep in touch with the communications guy, even when traveling, especially since if one has just had a major essay posted on lots of blogs, and people are reacting to it.

No big deal when an A-gay backs out of meeting with a D-list gay, but what is important is that Matt backs the idea of public forums with researchers to discuss their work and findings. I don't recall any gay leader in San Francisco making such an endorsement, so I applaud Matt's support of the idea.

Below are two of his emails about the meeting, potential topics to talk over, and brief views on forums.

After that are his many sources and links. Excerpts from his original essay are in bold, my comments follow in italics, then his sources appear in blue.

In a separate note, he replied to my questions about the David Binder Research he cited. Matt says the research was not either directly, or indirectly through EQCA, funded with Haas Jr. Fund grant money.

Let's hope we one day see Matt holding an open meeting in the Castro. Same goes for EQCA, NCLR and pollsters putting out all the data.


Email #1:

Michael-

Will fill you in on the summit on Tues.

I can get you more detailed responses when I get back to town. most of the stats are from the post election DBR poll. There was a presentation on it yesterday and it's supposed to be up on the EQCAI site. There was a handout on it too.

The immorality stat is from an LA Time poll (Pew has similar data). The LGB vote proportion is from past exit polls, how the lgb vot went this time is from the DBR poll and the exit poll.

Let CA ring has a site - letcaliforniaring.org

It might be a good idea to have various researchers present accumulated findings in a forum.

As to who makes the best messengers, it depends on the issue - gay people work for discrimination but not marriage. Eva gave a great speech yesterday and made a point about this from another issue perspective. Same basic principle - I think a video is supposed to be up on the Web - don't know when.

We can talk about this Tues.

Matt

Email #2:

Michael –

My responses are below in blue.

In response to your email from yesterday concerning the meeting, I have a different recollection about what happened a few years ago.

I thought a meeting would be helpful to discuss your requests of the Haas, Jr. Fund. Because I was traveling, I didn’t realize you had spoken with Denis Chicola about your request that we host community meetings about Prop 8. We don’t think that’s an appropriate role for us, as Denis explained. As stated in my email responding to the questions posted on your blog, I think it might be a good idea to find a way for researchers to share what has been learned about moving people to support marriage equality. I will explore that. Given this, I don’t think we need to meet.

Matt

Sources and links from Matt:

- While we won among all voters under 65, more than two-thirds (67%) of voters 65 or older voted for Prop 8.

Was this data from the secretary of state? I'd like to see the age breakdowns of the Prop 8 vote.

DBR post election poll; summary available at http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88}/DBR%20PROP%208%20POST-ELECTION%20SUMMARY%20REPORT%20012109%20V2.PPT#380,42,Slide 42

- More than two-thirds (70%) of people who worship at least once a week voted for Prop 8 and they make up nearly half (45%) of the electorate. Yes, our side got an equally large proportion of people who hardly ever attend church (70%), but they comprise only 29% of the vote.

You seem to be discussing both polling data and election results. Am I right?

No, polling data. Election results do not contain this kind or information.

- an astonishing 94% of "Yes" voters said "religion" or the "Bible" was most influential in deciding how to vote.

Where did this stat come from?

DBR post election poll; summary available at http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88}/DBR%20PROP%208%20POST-ELECTION%20SUMMARY%20REPORT%20012109%20V2.PPT#380,42,Slide 42

- What does combining older voters, frequent churchgoers and Republicans (81% of who voted for Prop 8) yield? A rock solid, close to 50% of the vote, that's what. How solid? Nearly three-quarters (73%) of those who voted for Prop 8 said nothing - that's right, nothing - would have changed their mind.

Same question: what the source behind the percentages?

First sentence: DBR post election poll cross-tabulation data analysis; last sentence DBR post election poll summary.

- At best, we LGBT people make up 6% of the vote and unlike the fervor from our opponents' much larger base we weren't united on marriage equality.

Who determined that 6% figure and how was it arrived at?

The 6% figure is the highest of any prior exit poll. The NEP 2008 poll said 5%; the DBR poll said 3%.

- (Two polls said 5% of the LGBT community - or 1% of the total vote - actually voted "Yes.")

I'd like to read both polls. Are they on the web?

DBR Poll and NEP (national election poll, available http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

- Going into the Prop 8 contest, only a slim majority of Californians (54%) even believed that our relationships are moral.

Fascinating point. What study determined that percentage and who paid for the study?

LA Times Poll, released 5/23/08: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll23-2008may23,0,2084360.story.

- Let California Ring conducted rigorous testing in the Santa Barbara media market last year.

I've not heard of this group before. Are they an arm of Equality California? Who are they and do they have a web site?

It is coalition and technically a project of EQCAI. It is not an “arm” of EQCAI - it has a separate executive committee that makes decisions for the coalition. Its Web site is www.letcaliforniaring.org.

Current executive committee members are:

Jim Carroll, Managing Director, EQCAI

Dr. Ignacio Castuera

Christina Cobb

Matt Foreman, Program Director, Haas, Jr. Fund

Shannon Minter, Legal Director, NCLR

Evan Wolfson, E.D., Freedom to Marry

(Vaishalee Raja was on the EC until a couple of weeks ago, when she moved from GLAAD to EQCAI. She was GLAAD’s Director of Media Field Strategy.)

- A baseline poll found that only 36% of people there supported marriage equality, 8-10 points below the state average.

Where is this baseline poll available on the web?

It is not available on the Web.

- A follow-up poll showed that support for marriage equality grew significantly, including a 16% jump among younger voters (as opposed to zero growth in markets where the campaign did not run).

Is this follow-up poll on the web somewhere?

It is not available on the Web.

- More tellingly, on Election Day, Santa Barbara defeated Prop 8 by 10 points (compared to it passing Prop 22 by 14 points in 2000).

This is a stat from the secretary of state, right?

Yes.

- Here's another painful reality all this research again showed: using gay and lesbian people as messengers not only failed to move people in our direction, it actually hurt us - driving movables against marriage equality.

"All this research"? You've discussed quite a bit of research and I'm not sure which stat exactly you're referring to. And what are movables? I don't work in polling research so I don't have a clue what a moveable is. Sure would like to know where all this research is on the web and read it.

This refers to the research conducted in California under the auspices of Let California Ring. As noted in my op ed, movables in this situation are people who oppose discrimination against LGBT people but do not support marriage equality. It might be a good idea to have some kind of public forum where research could be addressed – there are many different people who have done this in many different states.

It is important to recognize two things. First, I am talking about messengers that work in mass media campaigns. LGBT people are extremely effective in small group, one-on-one conversations. I am convinced that if each of us had those conversations with our family, friends, co-workers and neighbors we would be well over the 50% threshold on marriage in California. Second, gay and lesbian people have been shown to be effective messengers in mass media efforts focused on job discrimination. Marriage is different.

- Closer to home, nearly three years ago the Haas, Jr. Fund, Gill Foundation, the David Bohnett Foundation, Ambassador Jim Hormel and others invested nearly $500,000 to understand what would move Californians to support marriage equality and how to address the deeply conflicting views the mushy middle holds about LGBT equality. Once again, ads featuring gay people - individuals or couples or families - just did not work.

Where's the online proof to support the contention that it didn't work? You may have an absolutely legit point, I just want to read the research that allowed you to arrive at this conclusion.

This research is not online. Let me ask you this: why in the world would people who have invested their lives in advancing LGBT equality and visibility NOT want to use gay people as messengers? Think of the people who have given their all to try to defeat these ugly measures in places like Oregon, Wisconsin, Florida – none of them are in the closet, ashamed, or afraid. Michael – how long have you known me – 22 years? – don’t you think I personally would love an in-your-face-gay message? Again, it might be a good idea to have a forum where experts could talk about this in greater detail.

- What did work were messages that pushed people to think about the issue in a new way, namely, asking them how would they feel if they were in our shoes. But again, gay and lesbian people didn't work as the messengers.

Please show me the research proving that pushing people to wear my Birkenstock's was a hit with voters. I think it would grealy help further the discussion you've engendered to have the stats and sources for all the numbers and conclusions you present.

Please refer to my points about Santa Barbara and the Garden Wedding ad. Two important points here:

1. The Garden Wedding ad did NOT ask people to vote any specific way or mention Prop 8. It was a purely educational ad and designed to move public opinion, not votes. Nonetheless, the change in public opinion there had an impact on votes.
2. One thing I failed to mention was that in Santa Barbara the ad run was accompanied by field work done by staff and outstanding local leaders. I regret that omission because those local heroes deserve incredible credit for all they did in the public education campaign and later in the effort to defeat Prop 8.