When you look at the actual results (PDF), the numbers are even more striking. For instance, respondents were asked, “If Massachusetts were to permit casinos to open, would you want them to be in urban or rural areas?” Check this out:
- Those who live inside Route 128 favor rural areas over urban areas, 54 percent to 18 percent.
- Those who live between 128 and 495 favor rural areas over urban areas, 40 percent to 23 percent.
- Those who live in Central Massachusetts favor rural areas over urban areas, 45 percent to 26 percent.
- Those who live in Western Massachusetts favor urban areas over rural areas, 36 percent to 27 percent.
- Those who live in “Southern” (which I take to mean Southeastern) Massachusetts, Cape Cod and the Islands favor rural areas over urban areas, 44 percent to 24 percent.
So there you have it. In every part of the state, overwhelming majorities do not want a casino built near them.
My other favorite question: “If you had a child, would you want your son or daughter to work in a casino?” The answer: 46 percent “no,” 33 percent “yes.” This is, of course, another form of NIMBYism, and a particular pernicious one. Why is it all right for someone else’s kid to work at a casino but not your own?
In other casino-related news, efforts to recall three of Middleborough’s five selectmen fell short yesterday. (The New Bedford Standard-Times covers the story here; the Brockton Enterprise here.)
To the extent that casino opponents allowed the recall election to be portrayed as a referendum on the proposed casino in that town, this is an unfortunate development. But I suspect this will prove to be no more than a minor setback in the campaign to keep Middleborough casino-free.
Is it possible that the responses about wanting your child to work in a casino have less to do with NIMBYism and more to do with the likelihood that most of us don’t dream of raising our children to work in a casino. Do you think there would be a significant difference in the results if the question was if you wanted your kid to grow up to be a janitor or a truck driver? Perfectly respectable and highly vital professions, and I intend no disrespect to the workers in those jobs. Maybe I’m just living in an ivory tower here, but I’m just not sure if those are the dreams parents have for their kids. Well.. at least not for 46% of them.
…for those who continually ‘mean no disrespect’ towards those whose jobs they quietly sneer at.
<
p>
I have a friend who was a Chief of Staff in the State House. He quit, becuase his wife is a very talented dancer, and she was offered a job at a major casino in Las Vegas for more money than he wold ever see in prestigous legislative empoyment in state government.
<
p>
Last I heard, he had learned to deal blackjack.
<
p>
Musta missed the memo… but how does ‘more money than he would ever see’ somehow make the job respectable?
<
p>
Many lobbyists make much much more money than I would ever see, but I still don’t think that makes their job all that respectable. I still sneer at them because, well, they deserve it…
<
p>
<
p>
So, what do you do for a living?
You?
Arborist, Lawyer, EMT, CPA, any of which could be regarded as slimy or not, if you wish to judge someone solely on the basis of their profession.
Arborist, Lawyer, EMT, CPA, any of which could be regarded as slimy or not, if you wish to judge someone solely on the basis of their profession.
<
p>
I judge pimps, pickpockets, prostitutes and thieves based solely on their profession. The law does this also. Don’t you?
<
p>
I think lobbying is an inherently immoral act and anyone who choses to do so is slimy. Nor do I think any lobbyist is there against their will… I think casinos are inherently immoral and anyone who profits from them is slimy. This includes a wide range of personnel: from the card-sharp to the blackjack dealer to the Wampanoags of Mass Destruction.
<
p>
I don’t think that practicing the law is inherently immoral, but I do think that lawyers have wider margins in which to act slimy.
<
p>
I build networks and computer systems. In one sense, I make access to pornography and bad jokes easier and that would worry me only if I cut off access to everything but pornography and bad jokes.
Far from condescending, I found those comments typical of a person who is true to their moral convictions. Some people have no problem working for the defense industry and some people would not help build weapons systems out of principle, regardless of the salary.
I think most lobbyists are slimy too. Not for who they are but due to the negative effect they have had on our democratic process.
Does this outlook offend you?
The wording of the question was completely open-ended, so respondents read whatever they wanted to in it. Here’s what I read into it: “I’d rather my late-teens/early-20s child work at McDonald’s or Target instead of a casino.”
<
p>
If you interpret it as a career question, then I guess I’d agree with your interpretation.
<
p>
Peter, the problem with some blue-collar jobs is that they just don’t pay enough, and you can’t get medical insurance. I would exempt truck driver — I haven’t researched this, but I’m pretty sure they’re well paid and have decent benefits, so I wouldn’t mind if my kid had a job like that.
<
p>
But janitor? Casino worker? It’s not a matter of respect — it’s a matter of how you’re going to get by.
…janitorial services, truck driving and so forth, cannot be out-sourced to India. Neither can plumbing, electrician and a number of other “hand-worker” professions: they have to be performed in situ.
<
p>
With Internet gambling, it’s not so clear how that might impact use of casinos, but apparently it hasn’t had a major impact on casino revenues.
<
p>
As I’ve mentioned here before, with the Internet, hospitals are sending X-ray images, which used to be interpreted in the US by radiologists, to India for analysis and interpretation. The charges by the Indians were much lower than those in the US. That, it would seem, would reduce the incentives for people in the US to go into radiology.
<
p>
Let me sum this for you succinctly. What would a parent want for his/her children is pretty much irrelevant. What a parent should want for the children is a job that can’t be exported in turbulent economic times.
After I read the article in the Globe, I went online to check the full results, to see what the partisan breakdown on the casino questions were, and it was surprising to see the the levels of support and opposition were almost the exact same among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, which I think is why this is such a hot topic of debate: no one side is aligned with a partisan group, and there’s unusual allies and opponents.
Before constructing too much of a story from the results of this poll, I should warn you that there are some aspects in the data that appaear to raise some red flags.
<
p>
First, the poll appears to have undercounted independent voters. More Republicans were polled than independents, which is quite contrary to the party registration numbers. To the extent that independent voters appear to marginally support casinos more than Democracts/Republicans, this omission could be of some importance.
<
p>
Second, I am not sure how much stock to put into the regional numbers you mention. While the overall sampling error is +/- 4.4%, which is fine, the sampling error for the regional questions is bound to be far greater. After all, while a good sample of around 500 people were surveyed across the entire Commonwealth, only 69 people from Western MA and 77 from the Cape were surveyed (in fact, all the regions had a relatively low number of people surveyed).
<
p>
Of course, even if the numbers are correct, I don’t know that they warrant your statement of “in every part of the state, overwhelming majorities do not want a casino built near them.” That’s not what the question asked. It asked whether the respondent “wanted” them in urban or rural areas, not whether s/he “did not want” a casino near them. A respondent saying that s/he wanted a casino in a rural area may well simply prefer that option, but be fine with an urban casino as well.
<
p>
As a final aside, I’m also not sure that a 36%-27% or 40%-23% plurality can be characterized as an “overwhelming majority”.
Of course, you’re right, and I got carried away … except among those who live inside 128, the most urban area of all. They support putting a casino out in the sticks by an overwhelming majority of 54 percent to 18 percent.
<
p>
What this suggests, to me, is that an, uh, overwhelming majority of people voted in favor of having a casino built somewhere else. In the other parts of the state, where urban, suburban and rural co-exist, the pattern isn’t as clear because we don’t have town-by-town breakdowns.
<
p>
Of course, you’re also right about the sample sizes being too small. You’d need a sample at least 10x this size to do town-by-town.
…I haven’t read the article about the poll, but two things that you might want to consider.
<
p>
One, I don’t know whether or not you are reading raw data, but reliable polling operations weight their data based on selected variables, including political affiliation or non-affiliation. The final poll results are based on the weighted data, although the polling company might release its raw data as well. (The company will probably not release the weighting factors–they are trade secrets.)
<
p>
Two, the margin of error is determined in relation to a “confidence interval,” which tells you how confident the polling operation is that the statistic is correct within the stated margin of error. In large polls, the companies use a 95% confidence interval (hence the plus or minus 3-4%). But in small polls, the confidence interval may be much larger, and so the margin of error may be much greater.
<
p>
I frankly do not know which provides the greater uncertainty in polling, the weighting factors or the margin of error/confidence interval issue.
As Alex noted above, based on the informal Herald data, the Dems and GOP are split along similar lines. ‘Weighting’ for a non-partisan issue would make this even more impenetrable.
<
p>
And please note – Patrick has yet to file a bill on this issue. The Legislature has nothing to evaluate, support or oppose except a bunch of shifting and amorphous press releases.
…what I was responding to was Hoyapaul @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:22:08 AM EDT
<
p>
First, the poll appears to have undercounted independent voters. More Republicans were polled than independents, which is quite contrary to the party registration numbers.
<
p>
when I was referring to weighting of raw data. The raw data is weighted according to various variables to produce the final results.
<
p>
And maybe a big middle finger to rural Massachusets…
The link is to the poll, which gives the raw data. It is not weighted to the correct proportions, since there are actually fewer independents surveyed than Democrats and even Republicans (!), despite the fact that independents are a plurality in MA. It is not correct that the Dem/GOP/Indy split is exactly even — Independents appear slightly more in favor of casinos than party members. Nevertheless, it is difficult to know for sure, since independents were undercounted so severely.
<
p>
As far as margin of error goes, the problem is not with the overall margin of error of the survey (4.4%). The problem is that when you look at subgroups, such as persons on the Cape, the margin of error would be far greater, since the number surveyed is so much smaller for each subgroup than the overall number for which the 4.4% is applicable.