Initial figures of LGBT voters showed they shunned Democrats in this medterm election:
The number seemed startling: 31 percent of voters who identified as “gay, lesbian, bisexual” in a national exit poll on November 2 said they voted Republican. Just two years ago, only 19 percent voted for Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
When precinct-level data was analyzed and then weighted, these exit polls seemed to be close to the money:
Keen News Service looked at the vote November 2 in precincts in heavily gay neighborhoods in six cities around the country. That data suggests the gay vote for Republicans was 26 percent. But that 26 percent represents a seven percent increase over how those same precincts voted in the 2006 midterm elections.
And when you consider that the national exit poll data was re-weighted a few days after the election so it would correspond with actual election results – meaning the estimate of the gay vote for Republicans is now calculated at 29 percent – then the two data sets are not that far off.
Furthermore, notes Patrick Egan, a public opinion specialist and professor at New York University, both sets of data show a relatively similar shift. Between 2006 and 2010, the exit poll data showed a shift of about five points toward voting Republican. The gay precinct data showed a shift of about seven points.
The two very different polling methods produced very similar results about gay voters moving to the GOP:
The national exit poll data was collected by an independent firm, Edison Research, for a coalition of national news organizations called the National Election Pool. This year’s data was based on information collected from 17,504 voters as they left 268 polling places around the country on November 2. To collect data from the many voters who vote absentee, by mail, or early, the researchers also interviewed another 1,601 voters by phone. How the gay or lesbian voter cast his or her ballot in the House race determined how they were scored in the exit poll. The re-weighted exit polling data can be viewed at CNN’s website.
The gay precinct data was collected from election officials and/or their websites for Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Provincetown, San Francisco, and South Beach. Precincts were chosen in neighborhoods which local gay activists or newspaper editors had identified as heavily gay populated. The data covered a total of 20,882 voters in 34 precincts.
With the gay precinct data, one city, Boston, posed a problem because its House race involved an unopposed Democratic incumbent. However, a look at how gay precincts voted in the governor’s race indicated a similar increase (6.7 percent) – from 13.9 percent Republican in 2006 to 20.6 percent in 2010.
Unfortunately for Democratic candidates and officeholders who blow smoke on gay rights at election time, it looks like gay voters pay attention, and have paid attention in the past. Performance matters to this voting bloc, and we punish non-performers:
Perhaps the biggest surprise of all in gay voting data, however, comes from looking at a chart published by the New York Times of all the national exit polling data collected which included “gay, lesbian, and bisexual” voter identification. It shows that the largest gay vote for Republicans was not in 2010, but in 1998. That’s the year voters shifted away from Republicans, many believe because of the unpopularity of the Republican-led impeachment proceedings against Democratic President Bill Clinton. But that was also just two years after Congress passed – and Clinton signed – the Defense of Marriage Act, and the exit poll data showed that 33 percent of the gay vote went to Republicans.
Lisa Keen wisely wonders what lies ahead for a Democratic party that fails to deliver for a core voting bloc they may have taken for granted one too many times:
But there are questions that loom inside the data. Will the swing of gay voters toward Republicans again last for two election cycles – 2010 and 2012 – as it did in 1998 and 2000? Will the potential failure to pass repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” act like a catalyst for gay Republican voting as DOMA did in 1998? The numbers don’t say.



84 Comments

Hmmmm…
“Letters arrive regularly from the DNC, DCCC and the DSCC asking for money. They say what they will do if only we keep giving them more. Well this is their chance to prove what they can do with their congressional majorities in the lame duck session. The kind of majorities they may not see again for years to come.
Maybe the president will tell Sen. Blanche Lincoln that if she doesn’t vote yes on repeal he won’t consider offering her, or anyone she recommends, a job. Maybe he will tell the others who just eked out their reelections that if you don’t come along on this, don’t expect anything in the next two years. And just maybe the DNC, DCCC and DSCC will tell these men and women the same thing. Democrats must stand up for equality now; otherwise, don’t come to us for support next time.
The time is now for Democrats to “put up or shut up.” Time is running out to convince supporters you really mean what you say.”
- excerpt from “Democrats must put up or shut up” (by Peter Rosenstein, The Washington Blade, Nov. 24, 2010, link: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/11/24/democrats-must-put-up-or-shut-up )
Obama: chasing groups away from their formerly natural allies, some of them into the arms of the only group less interested in their chief self-interest.
As alarms sound and panic sets in at the White House political shop, slow to realize that hunkering with the GOP’s pals is not the best politics. 2012 is bleak at the moment for the President, and it’s a self-inflicted wound.
Hard to stab yourself in the back, but he’s done it. Again…and again…and again.
Hear that rumble? It’s the political landscape shifting…
Hear that rumble? It’s the political landscape shifting…
I very much doubt that. The figures that Teddy is citing makes the usual mistake of such comparisons–of assuming that set A in one election is pretty much as set B in another. You hear similar figures cited about the supposed huge shift in “independents”.
In truth, everything that I heard about this election is that Republicans, Republican-leaning independents, and conservatives of all stripes showed up to vote November 2nd. Democrats, Democratic-leaning independents, and people on the left did not in the same proportion. A figure that I have read is that among 2010 voters who also voted in 2008, *55 %* of these voted for John McCain. That’s a shift of 8 points vs the 2008 election, similar to the figure of what Teddy cites as an evaluation of precinct data. So Democrats are not popular with former McCain voters: surprise, surprise.
So whatever their background, the McCain 2008 voters showed up in greater proportions than the Obama 2008 voters–including, probably, gay McCain voters showing up more than Obama gay voters.
I am both bemused and frustrated by these types of evaluations. In my experience, political allegiances are more steady often than not–it’s not that hordes of people up and change their mind to switch in most elections. What matters instead is GOTV and whether or not the administration in power pursues policies that will aid in the GOTV efforts of their base (which Repugs always do) versus those which hinder them (which the Dems usually do, and Obama has done especially).
steawrtm
You have to be careful when reviewing data that only present percentages. Based only on the info presented here, the percentage shift toward Republicans may just be that many LGBT voters who voted for Obama/Democrats in 2006 and 2008 just didn’t bother to vote at all in 2010.
In other words, it’s not that more voted for Republicans, but that fewer voted for Democrats.
Either way, it’s a problem for Obama that he so totally turned his back on his supporters.
this was the first election I didn’t hold my nose and for for the Democrats. what it all came down to is the party’s assumption (previously correct) that I would do just that. same thing with these stats. dems are taking too damn many votes for granted. worse, they compound this mistake by continuing to do so and concluding their dismal showing means they need to move rightward to get those key, critical, swingy, independents. dopes.
A-yep.
Personally I think it has much more to do with “punishing” Democrats who have miserably failed us, especially our “fierce advocate” in chief. The problem is that punishing one party in this country ALWAYS means rewarding the other one. In this case, the Republicans are now encouraged because their hateful rhetoric and ongoing obstruction has just been richly rewarded. Ultimately punishing the Democrats is going to hurt our community much worse than it will hurt the Democrats I’m afraid.
Either way, I think it was done to “punish” Democrats, (who deserved it btw), but much to our own detriment.
I think what you are seeing here is not so much a shift, but just a lot of real Democrats sitting at home. The base has been warning every Democrat in leadership that would listen for well over a year that they would sit home on election day if Obama continued to turn his back on them. He treats the the GOP like his BFF and his base like an annoyance that can be kicked aside. It been one betrayl after another. Many Democrats and Independents simply didn’t see much difference between the Obama Adminstration and the Bush Admnistration. We got nothing from either one.
He listened to Rahm who told him that “the Progressives would come home”, instead of to the Progressives ourselves who tried to assure him that we would not. Neither he nor the Democrats have seemed to have learned anything. The new head of the DCCC is Steve Israel.
They treat people like blocs that are homogeneous. Too many of those swingy, independent voters are absolutely clueless about issues and vote out of a misguided sense of “duty”. But they vote for how they think other people are going to vote or based on what some newspaper recommends, rather than out of any belief or ideological bent. They just want to be “on the winning team”. American politicians have gotten lazy and corrupt. With only two major parties, they don;t have to practice building coalitions and working on true compromises. They treat everything as right vs left, blue vs red, Democratic vs Republican. Our system is badly broken and corrupted by money.
Propaganda from Log Cabin Republican sell-out- or pseudo-gays ???
A selling point for those who idolize Rush Limbaugh as a form of rough trade sex symbol ?
I’m sorry but there simply cannot be that many Gay KAPOS.
I certainly hope you’re not throwing accusations toward me because if you are, you are so off base you’re playing football. Criticism for Obama’s LGBT failures isn’t propaganda nor is it Limbaugh inspired. If you knew me, you’d also be aware that I was refer to them as “Log Cabin Idiots”.
If I misunderstood your comment, forgive me but I don’t yet know you well enough to know where you’re coming from or in what context to take it.
LGBT voters, female voters, young voters, old voters, almost every kind of voter are moving away from this clown and everyone associated with him — either by staying home or voting for the other party.
Simple reason? He’s a fucking idiot.
In fact, the age distribution and turnout percentages, overall, for this election explain the difference in gay voting patterns.
Obama started the process to end DADT in the Department of Defense. Credit goes to Mike MUllen for damping the usual hysteria on Capital Hill — where hypocrisy is a way of life. There is no reason to believe that DADT is going anywhere but away.
Bitching at Obama at full howl on this issue, while the GOPers pursue a full-blown Culture War to generate hatred toward gays ??? How does that make sense ?
Yes, indeed.
The GOPers’ Culture Warriors turned out their troops this time.
They also gave Log Cabin Republicans a huge amount of money to do such as filing state-level anti-discrimination law suits — appealing to gays in Red States and causing back-lash among the Fundie churchgoers. LCR is one helluva scam.
Jim White has a fresh cross-post already in progress: Washington Post Blames Brits to Protect Petraeus in Mansour Impostor Fiasco
This is really good for John McCain. A little late though, eh ?
“Clown” and “idiot” went well at times with the dry-drunk GOPer president we suffered through from 2001-2009. That SOB has convinced himself of the following:
– that violent deaths for 125,000+ Iraqis, and
– added total-extra-deaths (from all causes, collapse of the health system mainly) for at least 1,500,000 Iraqis from 2003-2008
– were not his responsibility and that Saddam threatened the U.S. with WMD attacks.
Clown/idiot is mild for that one.
Now, Obama has cut back the major craziness. The Afghanistan war is being run so that Europe is noting a major “heroin drought.” Without the heroin money, that war will wind down. The social issues are going much better than under any GOPer president.
Or do you want the authoritarians to get a 6-3 or 7-2 majority on SCOTUS ???
Ah! I get it now.
“Leave Obama aloooooooooooooooooone”.
Perfect.
It’s too simple an answer, especially if you’re not sure the question is the right one.
Are GLBT voters moving away from the Democrats? Maybe. I’m sure some are, but they were probably independents anyway. Did a lot of gay voters stay home? I’m sure of it. And how much of this was part of the “throw the bums out” midterm reaction? Not to mention the effectiveness of right-wing propaganda.
And why is any of this a surprise to anyone? There have been rumblings for nearly two years. Oh, wait — I think the sun rising in the east is probably a surprise to the White House. Lest we be accused of “unrealistic expectations,” let me ask you, who was it who raised those expectations to begin with? And has come up with feeble excuse after feeble excuse — or adopted the Tony Perkins method: just keep repeating yourself.
Although I have to confess, I feel like a non-participant here: my congressional delegation is solidly on the side of the angels — or was. We’ll see how Kirk works out on these issues — wingnuts don’t last long in Illinois.
One side says these numbers are meaningless, probably the same people who bitched at their fellow progressives for staying home because we would only be supporting the Republicans–cutting off our nose to spite our face–and life as we knew it would end. These were the same people pushing the GOTV effort in the last days of election and telling us not to be childish. It appears the American public didn’t buy that argument, thankfully, and punished the Democrats bigger than the polls even showed.
Well, we irresponsible and childish people just sent a message to the Democrats. You take our vote for granted, you lose your power.
In the coming months as the Repubs take control of the house we will again be called upon to stay strong and fight for our rights–not the HRC kind of fighting but the GetEqual kind of fighting. Because of GetEqual’s loud and obnoxious and some may say irresponsible and childish actions on Capitol Hill, the plans to strip DADT from the defense bill have been thwarted. We will still probably lose but we saw, for the very first time, this loser president step up and stop the preemptive capitulation. They are actually putting some effort into passing DADT.
You’re welcome.
Do you think that would have happened if we voted these spineless Dems back into office? Do you think that would have happened if we didn’t lose the house? Do you still think these numbers that Teddy put forth are just noise … meaningless?
The results so far don’t support that hypothesis.
I’m sorry, I thought that the Obama Justice Department associating homosexuality with pedophilia, or fighting tooth and nail to protect DADT in the court system, indicated that Obama was just as willing to participate in the so-called Culture War as any Republican president.
And they learned the wrong “lesson”. Steve Israel is now head of the DCCC. Now what?
I don’t think DADT repeal is going anywhere. I fully expect it will be stripped from the defense authorization bill at 11:59pm on the last day of this Congress. The White House has made it abundantly clear to me that they whole-heartedly buy into the LGBT-baiting portion of the southern strategy.
The list:
Obama’s DOJ, using words like “pedophelia” and “beastiality” to explain why DOMA should be continued;
Obama’s quiet efforts to pressure Nancy Pelosi into not bringing up DADT repeal;
Obama’s nearly meaningless token gesture of extending some benefits to GLBT employees in an obscure governmental office with less than 2 dozen employees (how many in that office are GLBT anyway?);
Urging Congress to leave DADT repeal in the defense authorization bill instead of making it a stand-alone bill which would qualify for passage through the reconciliation process and would thus circumvent the filibuster.
But they still want my vote – that’s why they occassionally act as if they are about to throw me a bone. Once my vote is no longer deemed important, they change their mind about throwing the bone, and just throw me the finger instead.
Damn nose! I really hate my nose! My face really pisses me off for growing this nose! Hey, I know! Pass me that straight razor, I’m going to show this face just how pissed off I am!!!
And by way of clarification, I wasn’t one of those people screaming names at people who stayed home or didn’t vote Democratic. I was the one who kept saying that punishing the Democrats would reward the Republicans and that assessment was exactly right. There can be no other outcome in our broken system. Because you can bet that the Republicans are going to go to the polls and won’t be voting for alternatives. So I’m not saying that what anybody did was “wrong” or “wrong headed”. You felt like you had to send a message or, in my case, I just couldn’t bring myself to hold my nose anymore. The trouble is that they always “learn” the wrong lesson and that seems to be the case once again. So now what? That’s not a rhetorical question. That’s a serious query about where we go now. Democrats always “learn” that they have to shift right, (wrongly I know), and Republicans “learn” that they will be rewarded for hateful rhetoric and irresponsible obstruction. What now? We’re stuck like Chuck.
It looks like a bunch of folks are going to vote for candidate X. I will vote for candidate X because if so many others are voting that way, candidate X can’t be so bad. The TV box hasn’t been talking trash about candidate X, and that makes me feel secure in my vote. Religious leaders say candidate X is on the same page as me, and I am reassured that my voting decision was correct.
“Keen News Service looked at the vote November 2 in precincts in heavily gay neighborhoods in six cities around the country.”
Which six cities? Which Congressional Districts?
This reaction to Obama’s results in dealing with LGBT issues is not surprising. But I think a broader study would show that LGBT voters in the districts that did go Republican did not vote for Republicans. And I would be curious to see the difference between the votes these LGBT voters in California in the Congressional, Senate, and Governor races. I suspect high split-ticket voting.
Cut back the major craziness? Obama has continued and even expanded on the craziness. Hiding the actions of previous admins that at nicest would be called immoral and at worst would be called criminal? Expanding executive power even more than the previous admin did? Expanding drone attacks into even more sovereign nations? Playing yo-yo with peoples hopes for health care? Calling liberals and progressives names? Making accusations against liberals and progressives in efforts to woo right-leaning voters?
Heroin drought? Afghanistan ain’t part of the golden triangle. Opium poppies are a big money-maker for some Afghans, yes, but the major supplier of heroin for Europe?
And what is that threat at the end? Some kind of pre-emptive “it’s your fault the SCOTUS is right-wing?”
We keep fighting and we keep withholding our votes from those who don’t support our cause. We get rid of this tribalism once and for all and start voting based on actions and not words. We are not Democrats or Republicans, we are voters who each have our own needs and we elect representatives who will fight for our core beliefs.
Stop supporting the Democratic party. That is my answer and my plea. We don’t support a party, we support a set of ideals. If we stay true to our ideals, as FDL has done, we will win.
I am sympathetic to your point of view Margaret, but I think you are too deep in the weeds. If you only look at who wins and who loses in the short-term, then you are absolutely right about everything you say. But if you step back and look at the bigger picture you will begin to see that this short term goal of keeping the Democrats in power is preventing us from creating progressive change. Before you build a new bridge, you have to demolish the old one.
You have misunderstood me as I was afraid you might. I only vote based on issues and never by party. The Democrats have been too right wing for me almost since I cast my very first vote. I am NOT looking at things “short term”! I do NOT support either the Democratic or Republican parties and I think that reflexive voting is the worst possible abuse of your right to vote, (and that goes for reflexively voting AGAINST a party as much as FOR one). My interest is in the good of the nation and my own prosperity, (in that order), NOT keeping Democrats in power. They can all rot as far as I’m concerned. The FACT remains though that punishing Democrats always = rewarding Republicans. ALWAYS. Until we can somehow change that, we’re fucked because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will learn the lesson we want them to.
The Tea Party has embraced a lot of those isolated “communities” that the left has worked to shove onto the sidelines and silence (only to come when called to vote, of course, here, LGBTs and black people, here, come and vote and we’ll give you a doggie treat). We love our GOProud members and absolutely support every conservative black candidate who stands for the same ideas and values that we do.
It’s always interesting to me that so many progressives think that Tea Partiers are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Latino/a, anti-every stupid label slapped on people by the left. That’s simply not the case. It was the Tea Party, not the GOP establishment, who backed Colonel Allen West and Mr. Tim Scott; it was the Tea Party who booed the lunatic gay haters off the stage at CPAC, and it’s the Tea Party who’ve rallied behind and support such amazing conservatives as Tammy Bruce and Clifton B. We also love our atheists and our agnostics; we’re not fundamentalist anything, nor are we bent on repealing Roe v. Wade (in fact, most of us agree that social issues are nothing to focus on; we’d lose too much with a socially-conservative agenda-particularly as there are so many Tea Partiers who support gay marriage and choice, like myself). We put America first, and the divisive categories and destructive isolated “communities” of the left in the bin where they belong.
We are one America, not a bunch of phony little separatists trying to “be” based on one narrow aspect of themselves (or on one issue about which they know everything, while remaining completely ignorant not only of other issues but of how their pet cause/issue intersects with others.). LGBT voters are beginning to understand this, that is why they are voting with us (it doesn’t help that many were Hillary dems and saw exactly what happened to her and why/how). PUMAs are completely done with BO and the left’s identity politics of division.
Yep. Why would LGBT vote for a candidate/party that abhors and hates them vs a party that whispers sweet nothings in their collective ear, yet does nothing for their rights.
I disagree. Can you really claim that inflicting tea party members on the Republican party is rewarding the Republicans? We have just made their lives much more difficult and they will have to incorporate even more crazy in their platform to survive … which will be directly beneficial to the Democrats when it comes time to vote in 2012.
The more we can force the Repubs to the right, the less attractive they will be to the general population and the more people will be willing to listen to what the left has to say. Punishing the Democrats does not always mean rewarding the Republicans.
Well figaro, THEY certainly seem to see it as rewarding the Republicans. At least for now. We’ll see if they can make them behave. They never had a problem keeping the religious right in line, at least for a while.
Well for me it’s the tolerance always on display during tea party rallies for signs and tee shirts and so forth that bear slogans that are anti gay, anti black, anti immigrant and so forth. Don’t want to be tarred with that brush? Stop putting up with it. The left isn’t tarring you. Other teabaggers are.
My present analysis of the DADT issue is: 1) the DoD is stilling getting away with “pretend and extend” and dictating policy to the civilian leadership and the American people, 2) it’s still a successful wedge issue for various divide and conquer strategies aimed at constituents and political rivals, 3) it successfully justified more money flows to and among Veal Penners, 4) it is one more prong of a multi-pronged campaign to suck resources away from constituents so that they don’t have those resources to put somewhere else that is more effective in furthering their interests.
When has this administration done anything to push for DADT repeal. The vote happening in Lameduck could have been held, the tax cuts issue as well, prior to the mid-term election. He did not want to go there. He makes his push after the House has been sacrificed. He will make a lame lame-duck push. There are only a couple of weeks left in this old congress before they break for the year. I believe that he wants to appear to have tried. Just like DOMA, he really doesn’t want this overturned. He wants to appear to have fought for it, and can rail against the house periodically where repeal will have no chance. He can then say he fought for it and still not have it pass. That was why they wanted to have the house in Repub hands. They can now go their establishment corporatist ways and use the Repubs as a screen.
The impact — whether of shifting allegiance or simply hurt feelings causing former supporters to stay at home — is the same, though, yes? Those who pretend to support our goals and make pretty speeches about the perfect world we might someday live in, without doing the heavy lifting like calling GOP Senators when everyone knows they are the ones who’ll make or break McCain’s filibuster on DADT (to cite only one instance of Team Obama’s non-followthrough) end up without the votes they need or depend on to survive an election cycle.
I don’t think large numbers of LGBT voters changed their allegiance. It’s entirely possible that the 2010 electorate was completely different.
However (from the linked article) there is this:
- There was virtually no change at all in voter turnout in gay precincts in 2010 compared to 2006 – 51.7 percent of registered voters in gay precincts turned out in 2010, compared to 51.5 percent in 2006.
I’d love to see links about those anti-discrimination lawsuits.
The result is the same.
Again, in the linked article, you will read that LGBT turnout was unchanged between 2006 and 2010. That must mean one of two things: either voters changed their preferences between the two parties, or different voters voted; Democratic gay voters stayed home while GOP gays turned out.
That’s harder to measure when turnout remains static. But regardless of anecdotal views of the electorate, the result is the same, and the headline remains: LGBT Voters Moved to GOP.
Even if individual voters didn’t.
This election moved no voter into a different column. A segment of the voting population simply did not vote. Quit buying into your own press.
“President Sarah Palin” is scary.
But it doesn’t mean we have to stop holding “our guy” accountable for keeping the series of promises he made to our community.
In fact, being scared of an apposite result and therefore keeping quiet sounds like a recipe for continued stalemate. If we don’t push our allies to fiercely advocate for us, who will?
Read the linked article.
For copyright reasons, I left lots of data on the cutting room floor; data which answers your questions and shows your theories to be wrong.
If turnout remained the same for gay precincts between 2006 and 2010, it matters not. Flat turnout between midterms with a different result between GOP and Democrats means “gay voters shifted to GOP” regardless of what individual voters did in the booth, or on election day at all.
If people want to have a reasonable, non-flame discussion of this issue, I suggest reading the linked article from Lisa Keen at the Bay Area Reporter. It addresses many of the questions raised by commenters here. I’m afraid we can’t really have a shared basis for discussion if folks are going to criticize my post for vagueness or lack of data when the data is available in the linked post.
Thanks.
Good analysis. I have seen several comments (on many different threads) expressing the opinion that Obama is actually working to destroy the liberal/progressive base of the Democratic party. But those comments very rarely take it to the next step: How would such a thing be accomplished?
Act like you’re about to throw a bone, to suck up the resources of the group you’re about to throw under the bus, and then yank the bone away when the resources (and/or the votes) are used up.
Was there ever a question that these democratic leaders would decide that no matter how far to the right they moved and not matter how much they were told people didn’t vote for them because they were too far right they would not listen?
“Performance matters to this voting bloc, and we punish non-performers”
by voting for republicans, how does that make sense? Is there much difference between this group of voters and any other liberal group that has been thoroughly screwed by the obama crooks? Where do you turn when there is nowhere to turn? It’s broken and no point in pretending it isn’t.
The thing is that these allegations are just not true. What signs? And how are these separated from the all-white attendance at Jon Stewarts’ rally? At the rallies that depicting President Bush in Hitler ‘stache? I invite you to attend a Tea Party rally with me. And I urge you to watch the way that any racists are treated (we ostracize them there just as we do in society). If I went by what I saw online about you progs, I’d think you all hate everyone and abhor freedom, but you know what, I forced my mind open, I read your words, and I took them to heart.
We are not anti-immigrant, we are anti-ILLEGAL immigrant, big difference. We are not anti-black, but anti-LIBERAL black who seeks only to keep black people in perpetual poverty. Research how many black people have been added to the welfare rolls during BO’s presidency, and then come back and tell me that these are great numbers. WE want everyone, everyone, to have equal access to quality education, not a dumbed-down education that any trained gerbil could accomplish (what we have now), but high standards that any intelligent person of any race of socio-economic background can meet. It’s not about lowering the bar so that all can meet it (liberal policies that are killing our nation), but a high standard that we help people meet.
We truly believe that all people should be treated equally. That gets us in trouble. I’d rather be in trouble for demanding excellence than for giving hand-outs to everyone. The right BELIEVES that black people and other minorities can excel: The left does not. Leftist thought is based exclusively in superiority, in thinking that they have abilities that “lesser” people’s don’t. This is shameful. Every black person, every minority, can meet REAL standards, they don’t need it dumbed down by well-meaning lefties who think they can’t compete. That’s insulting and frankly, more racist than anything the right puts forth.
I think it’s interesting that just the other day on HuffPo, Robert Kuttner, normally a confirmed Obama honk, described him as “more albatross than ally” in a column titled “Saving Progressivism From Obama”. Kuttner also described the Obama administration as a “dud”.
Looks to me like it’s not just the LGBT community but a whole lotta folks who are moving away from The Great Con Man.
Hey, Teddy and Margaret — How were your respective Thanksgivings? Still chilly up there in Portland, TP? (I was born there; you couldn’t pay me enough to move back.)
***”I believe that he wants to appear to have tried.”***
Obama “tries” to appear that he’s tried.
Jesus, the fool can’t even run a good scam.
And as to those mailings from the DCCC, DNC, DSCC and OFA: they get a written earful from me whenever they land in my mailbox. And they get to pay the return postage. [I am SO tempted to include a "contribution" from my dogs in the return envelope, but so far have restrained myself.]]
If you haven’t seen the signs, the spitting upon (black) lawmakers, the people who come to political events ARMED, if you haven’t heard the hateful rhetoric, the venom spewed at anybody not them at teabagger rallies, the lies that come from your puppet masters like Armey and Norquist and Limbaugh, the insanity that is entirely disconnected from reality from your candidates, then you haven’t been paying attention. Period. All I know is that I wouldn’t associate myself with a party whose face is Glenn Beck or any other such bigoted asshole. Deny it if it makes you feel better but there’s only one person who will be fooled. You.
Yeah! ‘Cause I’m dumb but won’t it mean if I don’t have a nose then I don’t have to worry anymore about the nice Democratic abuser punching me again and again and again and then making me give him money while I’m bleeding?
‘Cause that’s WAY better than trying to end this abusive, sick, relationship and standing up for myself by continuing to give my money, time, and vote to someone who whispers sweet nothin’s in my ear before elections and then kicks me in the kidneys after, all while saying “Why did you make me hit you? Why do you make me do this to you?”
If I vote for Democrats who lie to be about how much they hate and fear me, gosh darnit!, that’s way, way better than voting for someone else because the Republican boogie man might get me! Ooohhhh, I’m scared! Help me mean, hitting Democratic daddy, I’ll promise to be good this time and keep my mouth shut, I swear!
Utter. Fail.
I will leave it to history to judge the wisdom of LGBT antics, but I predict the republicans will stomp you guys into the dirt now, so if it happens remember not to come crying to us about it, since you rejected us. People often make bad decisions when they’re angry and frustrated. Maybe you will remember that too, next time.
Good lord, more abusive threats? Who is this “us” you speak of? “If you don’t shut up and sit down we will ignore you from now on.” Nice. Makes me even more comfortable with my decision that the Democratic party and its loyal members do not, have not, and will not ever have my best interests at heart. Thanks for clearing that up, fair-weather friend!
Oh, and for a little enlightenment, here’s a nice little linky to an article about pro-gay Republicans in Washington state that actually voted for my rights:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/18075/proequality-republicans-get-reelected-in-washington-state
Of course, by your logic, I should not ever consider voting for them because they don’t have a “D” after their names. Sad.
I wonder WHICH LGBT voters moved away from Obama – you think the LBGT voters of COLOR moved away from Obama? why would white LGBT voters be less immune to the racism that afflicts certain aspects of the left. We take it for granted that the tea Party movement is – at the very least, motivated by a certain amount of racism. For some reason, we seem to deny the possibility that white gays and lesbians are somehow immune to the racism that flows as an undercurrent in all other aspects of white American culture. Has this administration been as vigorous as possible in protecting gay rights? No. has it dome more than any administration – including the appointment of openly gay men and wmoen? Yes. Is there any chance in hell LBGT voters will get a better shake with the Republicans? You tell me… There’s only one answer: racism…
THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF RALLIES WITH PICS OF BUSH IN HITLER STACHE. IT IS A NEW PHENOMENON WITH OBAMA AND THE TEABAGGERS.
Yes, I’m yelling. The *only* Bush=Hitler reference in American politics was a video submitted online to a MoveOn.org contest by a supposed member, which was removed from the MoveOn website as soon as it was discovered. But not soon enough to have fed the myth-makers and their Bush=Hitler fables.
DID
NOT
HAPPEN
It warmed up, we’ve had a November colder than any since 1985 they say. I’m lovin’ it here, and I’ll keep you posted through the winter.
For more on my Thanksgiving itself, see here:
http://my.firedoglake.com/teddysanfran/2010/11/26/21st-century-potluck-etiquette-question/
Wow.
Just wow.
Wait, are you saying white gays and lesbians are moving away from Obama because they are racist and he is African-American? Really?
Wow.
More: just wow.
– There was virtually no change at all in voter turnout in gay precincts in 2010 compared to 2006 – 51.7 percent of registered voters in gay precincts turned out in 2010, compared to 51.5 percent in 2006.
Yes–but how many people who live in “gay precincts” are gay? Even if it’s 50 % or more (which I would find high) that leaves plenty of room for the voting blocs of 2006 vs 2010 from said precincts to vary in composition quite a bit.
stewartm
They are actually putting some effort into passing DADT.
I think that’s kabuki. I seriously doubt there will be any repeal of DADT this session, or until after 2012. Snowe and Collins and all the other “moderate” Repugs will find a procedural excuse to kill it, and the Repug majority in the House won’t even bring it up in the next session. Push come to shove, the Repugs stand to gain far more from their Christian Right base than from any Log Cabin’ers. They are well aware of that bit of electoral arithmetic.
And despite there being some truth to what you say, if some gay voters did deliberate punish the Dems by voting Repug, then to me that’s a clear case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
stewartm
Uh, ok, let’s look at the acknowledged Teabagger candidates. Sharon Angle? Christine O’Donnell? Joe Miller? Ken Buck?
We are not anti-immigrant, we are anti-ILLEGAL immigrant, big difference.
So that explains all those dark-skinned, menacing-looking “Canadians” in that ad. Gotcha.
We are not anti-black, but anti-LIBERAL black who seeks only to keep black people in perpetual poverty.
Instead, your program seems to be directed towards having lots and lots of people of different skin hues join them in perpetual poverty. No thankie.
not a dumbed-down education that any trained gerbil could accomplish (what we have now)
Now wait jest a cotton-pickin’ minute! I can get frustrated with the “airs” put on by those who are quick to rest their laurels on their academic pedigree rather than their actual smarts, but hey, George W. Bush did make it through Yale (somehow) and I guess that’s worth something, no?
stewartm, well isn’t it?
I will leave it to history to judge the wisdom of LGBT antics, but I predict the republicans will stomp you guys into the dirt now
As I have already said, as one of the assembled “we”s present in this thread, I doubt that “we” changed our voting patterns terribly much. For one thing, “we” are not always single-issue voters, media reports to the contrary–while I care about ENDA, and DOMA, and DADT, sure, I also if pushed come to shove would have to rank the machinations of the Catfood Commission and real health care reform (hey, gays need to retire and get quality affordable health care too!!) over the “gay” issues in importance. Of the “gay” issues, the one that gets the least press–ENDA–in my view probably stands to affect the greatest number of people.
So I agree that a gay man or woman who is not one of the top 1 % of America voting Republican isn’t voting in their best interest (and even among the top 1 %, probably not their long-term self-interest either). But that was an argument that the Dems needed to make, and forcefully. They did not and then proceeded to act in ways almost calculated to anger and demoralize gays. DADT could be in the history books *NOW* if Mr. Fierce Advocate had not seen as his constitutional duty to defend it in the courts.
And even the damage from *that* bit of foolishness might have been mitigated if Mr. Fierce Advocate, stout defender of the Constitution and due process, had been consistent in his defense of Constitutional Law. If that had been the case, we might not have liked DADT repeal, but we’d have witnessed the closing of Gitmo and we’d be watching the trials of the Bush war criminals now. The fact Obama let war crimes and torture slide then got all due-process-y over DADT simply does not compute.
stewartm
Sure, let’s stand up to the evil Dems who “punch” you by voting for the GOP! They don’t punch – they kick the crap out of you, stab you multiple times, smash your faces in with jackboots, and roll your corpses into the river with lead weights.
So instead of keeping the party that *might* do some good for LGBT rights, but aren’t doing it *fast* enough, let’s help put the party in power that HATES GAYS. That will surely result in more LGBT rights!
Your logic is simply stunning. Like a boot to the face stunning.
Go vote for them then and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. As to your baseless accusation of “abusive threats” I’m not sure what you’re on, but I was talking about what the republicans want to do to you. You do realize that they want to make homosexual acts illegal. If they could, palin and her crowd would happily stone you (and not in the way you’re thinking).
What, am I the only person who doesn’t agree with everyone else and kiss up around here? As I said, I am about reality, and anyone who thinks that, after democrats work their a**es off for you guys, at great political cost, they should reward them by staying home or voting republican deserves what they get. I guarantee you will get less now than before.
I totally agree that the democrats needed to make this argument to the gay community. They needed to say, look, we tried, and we’re sorry it didn’t work. I think they assumed that didn’t have to make that argument, and didn’t want to incur the liability of doing it publicly. But the truth there is that republicans could have made no criticisms of it that they have not already.
The hammer of anti-racism makes some people see every problem as a nail. But, while I think racism didn’t play much of a role, the general observation that gays do not tend to be uniformly liberal or even democrats. I think the flaw in the racism angle is that these people wouldn’t have voted for obama in the first place, even if he pledged to champion gay rights, because they probably wouldn’t have believed he could get it done, or even get elected.
Teddy, as my grandma used to say, “It all comes out in the wash” and here we see how our supposed allies really feel about us. We are as expendable to them as any other constituency that threatens their power base and privilege. At 50, I’ve had enough. I won’t vote for Tea Bagger idiots but I won’t automatically vote for the Democrat any more either. And I won’t man the phone banks, walk the precinct knocking on doors, register voters, or do anything else for such a sick, backstabbing party.
We’ve been called everything but American citizens on this thread by the Obama and Democratic party faithful. Fine. We had a small impact on this last election and we’ve been told to toe the line, shut up, or get out. Bye! Is my response.
And for the record, I voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and a Green in the last election and it felt pretty darn GOOD. I think I’ll do it from now on.
Teddy, why’d gays vote Republican instead of indie, Green, Socialist, etc?
I mean, don’t gay people understand that the GOP demonizes them?
I don’t get the stats results on this? Why Regthug, and not alternative to Dims if pissed at Dims.
That would be a more progressive means gays and all of we the people wouldn’t it?
If I wanna punish Dims I sure as hell don’t wanna reward ReThugs directly with my vote. That’s just too batshit crazy . . . . I don’t get it . . . thanks.
The results are only the same if gays don’t vote third party.
What’s easier to swallow . .
1) A direct vote for a rethug.
2) A third party vote which might give the office to a rethug in the end.
I’ll take MY chances with #2 as the first shot in the class war.
Fuzi, I’ve not read such rubbish since the last misogynist homophobic, racist comment I read. Nice try though.
Starve it of oxygen, it will slink away.
Teddy, I’m not gay.
I could read till I’m blue in the face and STILL not understand things.
I rely HEAVILY upon the words of you and other gays in this forum to tell me about the intricacies involved with being gay and political opinions, civil rights opinions (those I’m fairly well versed in), social and other opinions . . .
Hoss, yer a leader . . . I rely on your thoughts and interpretations, greatly. I know it’s a lot of work, but please know I can’t be the ONLY one who greatly values your details, nuances and such when you compose a thread.
I also can greatly appreciate that no matter HOW deeply you explore and share detail that there are those who will continue to twist words, mix details and in general fuck with you and your thoughts.
;-)
Yeah. Wow indeed . . . no shades of grey there . . .
Oh well, this too shall pass in the long run . . .
~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~ . . . I vote, lose.
~~~ModNote: Use the passion for the issue argument, not the insults, please.~~~
I’m not sure how reliable these polls are. In Hawaii, for this General Election, we had polls that were wildly off. The polls showed that the race for Hawaii Governor was close. The pro LGBT Democratic candidate, Neil Abercrombie, beat the anti LGBT Republican candidate, James “Duke” Aiona by 17 percentage points.
Democrat Abercrombie promised he would sign a Civil Unions bill if it got to his desk. Republican Aiona promised that he would veto a Civil Unions bill.
LGBT people did well in the November 2, 2010, Hawaii election http://bit.ly/bjY0jQ