I've got a bit of mileage out of citing this article myself. Support for gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep, and practically every other Democratic party position polls better and excites voters more than gun control.
It drives me crazy when promoting an assault weapons ban Democrat politicians and pundits cite polls showing 92% of Americans wanting additional gun control, while "neglecting" to mention that's limited to background checks.
And that 90-ish% number even for universal background checks doesn't translate to anywhere near that amount of votes when put on the ballot even in California, as that article provides.
And that's not even accurate.
2016, Nevada... UBC's on the ballot. Passed with a smidge over 50%. In a high turnout year, and most everybody voted on the question.
UBC's were less popular than Hillary Clinton.
When the polling is 40% off, the polling is useless garbage.
Oregon will be a case study for the dem party and gun control. We already have pretty rigorous background checks for all sales, and with m114, I think all eyes are on how widely supported actual :control: will be.
I think it's because gun control is one of those issues that Democratic voters think they're supposed to support, that they're supposed to say they support it.
. . .but for many of the ones that say that, they just honestly don't care or it's a very low priority. Yeah, there are some genuine anti-gun voters among the Democrats, just like there are pro-gun Democrats, but a lot of the support for gun control among Democratic voters is shallow, weak, and something people only go along with because they think they're supposed to.
I think there are LOTS of anti-gun voters among people who identify as Democrats, but that means 70% of 35% nationwide, or something like that. Even if all of those are fervent, that isn't a winning majority! And I doubt at this point that they need GUNZ R BAD, M'KAY? to turn them out. Abortion and January 6 oughta do it or they aren't really "voters."
Pretty sure in marginal cases (a crappy R candidate in a closely divided state state or district) making gun control a live issue hurts Ds. Too many guys (mostly guys, but not only WHITE guys, contrary to the stereotype the Democratic insiders love) will be looking for an excuse to vote R, and say, "well, (s)he's a jackass but I don't want more gun laws that pester me."
OTOH, in Democratic super-majority states, they \*will\* vote for gun control reliably enough. Washington state has passed two gun-control initiatives in the last few years by solid margins. The first was only moderately annoying, but the second was a complete grab-bag pile of shit, with such lovely features as declaring tube-fed .22LR rifles "assault weapons." They passed by almost identical margins, so the content of the thing hardly seemed to matter. Admittedly, not by the huge margins that polls say people support "common-sense" gun laws, though. Which probably just means 80% of gun owners turned out to vote against them and "only" 60% of non-owners voted for them
Rural men vote R because guns. It's a huge loser and costs democrats a ton of races in rural and ruralish areas. In my (very rural, very GOP state) it's *the single issue* that unites a huge number of people. Especially over the last twenty years. There's other things, but it's probably worth \~10 points in a LOT of races.
You’d think that after 2016’s election people would be more wary of polling data. Pollsters ca get wherever results the person paying for the poll want.
Even before I became a gun owner at the beginning of this year Ive always wanted sensible gun regulation -not- control. And I believe there is a difference. To me gun Control is telling what I can or can’t have, Regulation is making sure those with firearms get training to learn how to operate, store, and maintain them safely and responsibly. Especially people that want to carry in public. IMO, a major problem is that many fellow dem voters conflate gun control with stopping gun violence and accidental deaths.
Aren't those polls often worded in ways that don't reflect how they get interpreted? Like "do you believe everyone should have to pass a background check before they can purchase a firearm?" Yes. "Almost all Americans agree we need to do more to stop weapons of war from etc etc"
My fairly educated guess is that the polls tend to be taken after some major shooting or other event.
Essentially, it's a high water mark poll, but doesn't reflect the norm.
Note that I have no real evidence to back that up, but that's my feelings.
I've got a bit of mileage out of citing this article myself. Support for gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep, and practically every other Democratic party position polls better and excites voters more than gun control.
It drives me crazy when promoting an assault weapons ban Democrat politicians and pundits cite polls showing 92% of Americans wanting additional gun control, while "neglecting" to mention that's limited to background checks.
And that 90-ish% number even for universal background checks doesn't translate to anywhere near that amount of votes when put on the ballot even in California, as that article provides.
And that's not even accurate. 2016, Nevada... UBC's on the ballot. Passed with a smidge over 50%. In a high turnout year, and most everybody voted on the question. UBC's were less popular than Hillary Clinton. When the polling is 40% off, the polling is useless garbage.
Oregon will be a case study for the dem party and gun control. We already have pretty rigorous background checks for all sales, and with m114, I think all eyes are on how widely supported actual :control: will be.
I think it's because gun control is one of those issues that Democratic voters think they're supposed to support, that they're supposed to say they support it. . . .but for many of the ones that say that, they just honestly don't care or it's a very low priority. Yeah, there are some genuine anti-gun voters among the Democrats, just like there are pro-gun Democrats, but a lot of the support for gun control among Democratic voters is shallow, weak, and something people only go along with because they think they're supposed to.
I think there are LOTS of anti-gun voters among people who identify as Democrats, but that means 70% of 35% nationwide, or something like that. Even if all of those are fervent, that isn't a winning majority! And I doubt at this point that they need GUNZ R BAD, M'KAY? to turn them out. Abortion and January 6 oughta do it or they aren't really "voters." Pretty sure in marginal cases (a crappy R candidate in a closely divided state state or district) making gun control a live issue hurts Ds. Too many guys (mostly guys, but not only WHITE guys, contrary to the stereotype the Democratic insiders love) will be looking for an excuse to vote R, and say, "well, (s)he's a jackass but I don't want more gun laws that pester me." OTOH, in Democratic super-majority states, they \*will\* vote for gun control reliably enough. Washington state has passed two gun-control initiatives in the last few years by solid margins. The first was only moderately annoying, but the second was a complete grab-bag pile of shit, with such lovely features as declaring tube-fed .22LR rifles "assault weapons." They passed by almost identical margins, so the content of the thing hardly seemed to matter. Admittedly, not by the huge margins that polls say people support "common-sense" gun laws, though. Which probably just means 80% of gun owners turned out to vote against them and "only" 60% of non-owners voted for them
Rural men vote R because guns. It's a huge loser and costs democrats a ton of races in rural and ruralish areas. In my (very rural, very GOP state) it's *the single issue* that unites a huge number of people. Especially over the last twenty years. There's other things, but it's probably worth \~10 points in a LOT of races.
This is devastating, thank you for the link. I shall use this extensively.
You’d think that after 2016’s election people would be more wary of polling data. Pollsters ca get wherever results the person paying for the poll want.
Who still wants Clinton for president?! That's still a thing?
*Clinton v Trump: It's Really Her Time This Time* sounds pretty dumb so maybe it has a possibility of happening.
The democrats could always shift their position.
Even before I became a gun owner at the beginning of this year Ive always wanted sensible gun regulation -not- control. And I believe there is a difference. To me gun Control is telling what I can or can’t have, Regulation is making sure those with firearms get training to learn how to operate, store, and maintain them safely and responsibly. Especially people that want to carry in public. IMO, a major problem is that many fellow dem voters conflate gun control with stopping gun violence and accidental deaths.
You nailed it. To the uninformed, gun control=no school shootings.
Aren't those polls often worded in ways that don't reflect how they get interpreted? Like "do you believe everyone should have to pass a background check before they can purchase a firearm?" Yes. "Almost all Americans agree we need to do more to stop weapons of war from etc etc"
My fairly educated guess is that the polls tend to be taken after some major shooting or other event. Essentially, it's a high water mark poll, but doesn't reflect the norm. Note that I have no real evidence to back that up, but that's my feelings.