Don't Panic!!: An analysis of the CA marriage decision on the 2008 Presidential Election On several mailing lists I'm on (darbnet, babn-chat, ...), on LJ, and in person, I've had several allegedly pro-same-sex-marriage folks express significant concern, sometimes even mild panic, at the ruling and/or the timing of the ruling. After some time to think about it, I've concluded that it's going to be a negligible influence. Below, I'll outline the lines of argument I've used to come to this conclusion.
(Before I do, one note.
The analysis below is moot. The die is cast, the decision is made. Moreover, claims that "this was bad strategy" on the part of (whom?) are ludicrous, the timing of this decision is very unlikely to have been planned, by ANYONE to coincide with the 2008 presidential elections, the justice system spent unpredictable numbers of
years getting this case tried. What's done is done in any case, so chill out, okay? Good.)
Okay, here're the arguments:
First, and more generally, the same-sex marriage issue is just less new, and less news, than it was four years ago. Part of this is the success the pro-same-sex marriage camp has had already in
Massachusetts, as well as civil unions in
VT, CT, NJ and
NH. The addition of California is less of a trigger, I think, that the Massachusetts was. If you don't doubt that this is just "not as big a deal" in the news, go ahead and check your favorite big news sources, the issue is already out of the headlines.
I think the "this isn't as big a change emotionally" sense would likely be particularly true outside of California.
Now, within California, one might imagine that the influence of the law would be greater, and yes, I might, just
might, concede (although you should read the rest of this argument) that this raises GOP voter turnout for the November 2008 election (when an anti-same-sex-marriage constitutional amendment will likely be on the ballot). However,
even if that's true, California is unlikely to go McCain, I don't think the Dems will have to work hard to hold California in the election (barring any big mistakes they might make going forward), and so, within California,
CA's delegates will almost certainly vote Blue in the electoral college.I'll add, in addition to this not being "new", the timing is not perfect for influencing the presidential election. It's still six months until the presidential election, I think that distance will leave other issues looking old and boring compared to whatever new stuff the parties dig up in the months to come.
I've seen the backlash arguments, and have often found them, in the fullness of time, to be overly played.
Salon took this on recently, but that's not the only case, the
2004 "Valentine's Day Marriage Revolution in SF" was the cause of panic for some local Dems on my f'list, concerned that the backlash of that would spill onto the then-fragile progress of marriage in Massachusetts. That worked out okay, too.
Finally, we turn to our good friend,
the data. The smart money was unmoved by the California decision. The leading for-money presidential betting line in the country is the
Iowa Electronic Markets. Below I include data I've consolidated from their web site. (I'd provide a direct link to the data, but a direct link isn't possible with their site design.)
| Date | Comb. Volume | Dem | Rep |
| 5/13/08 | 229 | 0.583 | 0.419 |
| 5/14/08 | 556 | 0.601 | 0.402 |
| 5/15/08 | 1733 | 0.595 | 0.420 |
| 5/16/08 | 274 | 0.600 | 0.406 |

These are the "last trades" for the day in each case, so the 5/15 data represents the first day of trading with the decision. Note the increase in volume, but also notice that the fluctuations in the predicted probabilities a Democratic victory are, right now, *higher* than they were two days before the decision, and that any effect of the decision on price is hidden within the entirely normal day-to-day fluctuations of that market.
In short, people betting their own money on the 2008 presidential race are, as a whole, entirely unconcerned about the impact of the California decision on the US Presidential race. I conclude, for all these reasons, that you should be unconcerned as well.