It was a farcical display of an absence of leadership. And the data it provides is not remotely as good as a properly executed survey.
Nonetheless, it had our national attention for months and it’s over.
Here’s a Shiny app because my Facebook discussions got a little detailed. Now everyone can have a look at the data on a by-electorate basis.
Some hot takes for you:
- When thinking about outcomes in ‘electorates with a high proportion of migrants’, also think about the massively different treatment effects caused by the fact there was little to no outreach from the yes campaign to non English speaking communities, while some others targeted these communities with misinformation regarding the impact of gay marriage on schools. (That’s not a diss on the yes campaign: limited resources and all of that. They were in it to win a nation, not single electorates.)
- Remember that socioeconomic advantage is a huge confound in just about everything.
- The survey asked about changing a status quo. That’s not entirely the same thing as being actively homophobic: but I’ll agree in this case that’s a fine line to draw.
- Why didn’t areas with high migrant populations in other cities follow the same patterns?
- Did Sydney diocesan involvement, both in terms of investment and pulpit rhetoric create a different treatment effect compared to different cities?
And one thing I think we should all be constantly aware of, even as we nerds are enjoying our dissection:
- This data was generated on the backs of the suffering of many GBLTIQ+ Australians and their families.
Bring on equality.