Slog
News & ArtsThursday, November 4, 2010
Homo Looks Like The Gay Vote...
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM
...can't be entirely taken for granted anymore. Via Americablog:
Exit polling commissioned by the major cable news networks has found that 31 percent of people who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual voted for Republicans on Election Day. That represents a big uptick from the 24 percent of gays who voted for the GOP in 2006 and from only 19 percent who did so in 2008. The trend appears to bear out pre-Election Day predictions from gay rights organizers that gay voters were angry and disenchanted with Democrats for not delivering on promises to the community.... (After reviewing the full data, Sherrill says there was a disproportionate drop in Democratic support among LGB voters compared to Hispanic, black, and young voters.)
Let me be clear: gay people who vote for Republicans need to have their heads examined. And, as I said after the presidential election in 2008, the difference in the gay vote for Kerry in 2004 and the gay vote for Obama in 2008 is a rough measure of just how many rabid gay racists are out and out there. In 2004 77% of the gays voted for Kerry; in 2008 70% of the gays voted for Obama. Only racial animus can explain the gay votes that the McCain/Palin ticket picked up. But if we're not going to see any progress on LGBT civil rights under Democrats—despite the promises and once-large-but-now-just-a-memory majorities—a significant chunk of gay voters are going to give up on the Dems and vote their economic self-interest, or vote Republican, because...
When we open our wallets for Democrats—and vote for them—the hope is that electing a Democratic president and Congress will result in significant progress on our issues. That's not just our delusional hope; that was an explicit promise made to us by Democrats. Once the Democrats were in power, everyone from Obama on down promised us, we would see real and significant progress on our issues: an end to DADT and DOMA, action on ENDA, a president willing to use the bully pulpit to aggressively defend our rights. But if, as we've seen, working to elect a Democratic president and give Democrats control of Congress results in no progress on our issues—no action on DADT, ENDA, or DOMA—then why the fuck should we bother?If we get no progress under Democrats (just empty promises meant to excite their base), but no regress under Republicans (just empty threats meant to excite their base), why should we waste our time—and our money—worrying about who's in charge?
A lot of elections are decided by wafer-thin margins—hello there, Patty Murray—and the Dems can no more dismiss the importance of the gay vote in tight races than they can take it for granted.
1
Yeah, thanks for all the work done by people like you on the left to drive down Dem voter enthusiasm. Best of luck with the total lack of regress you assure we'll see under our new teabagger legislators.
2
You're saying the only political considerations a gay is allowed to have, by your standards, are gay rights issues?
3
Those numbers don't mean that gay voters switched from dem to repub. It's more likely that the gay dem voters simply didn't vote at all; whereas the gay repub voters did, inflating the percentages.
If you looked at the actual numbers instead of percents, I'd guess the number of gays voting repub has stayed about the same (other than varying by normal population growth).
Still... the overall point is more or less valid. If you don't vote at all, you're not helping.
If you looked at the actual numbers instead of percents, I'd guess the number of gays voting repub has stayed about the same (other than varying by normal population growth).
Still... the overall point is more or less valid. If you don't vote at all, you're not helping.
4
I'm disenchanted with the Dems, but I'm not an idiot. They at least throw us a bone once in a while.
5
I'm with you, Very Bad. I voted, Terry voted. We're not idiots. But the idiot vote make up a significant chunk of the electorate and is represented in every possible sub-category—including the gay vote.
But, yeah, gay people who voted Republican, or didn't vote at all, are idiots.
But, yeah, gay people who voted Republican, or didn't vote at all, are idiots.
6
I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention on Slog, but three of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who supported the gay marriage decision were voted out on Tuesday. In the Iowa system, the judges are appointed but subject to "review" by voters every few years. Right-wing organizations specifically targeted these judges for their support, the first time the judgeships had been "politicized." Much has been made of gay rights at the national level this year, but we have to watch out for what's happening on the local level too.
In Dan's earlier piece, he wrote: Here's what happens to the gays and our issues when Republicans win the White House or control Congress: not a whole hell of a lot. There's no progress on our issues under Republicans—all forward momentum ceases—but things don't get appreciably worse.
That could be changing. In Iowa, state Republicans are trying to put gay marriage to a vote. The Democratic Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal, is vowing to prevent that. There is a notion that once pro-gay victories have been achieved, opponents will accept them and move on to other battles. From the Iowa story, we can see that there is a real movement to go back and take away gay rights.
In Dan's earlier piece, he wrote: Here's what happens to the gays and our issues when Republicans win the White House or control Congress: not a whole hell of a lot. There's no progress on our issues under Republicans—all forward momentum ceases—but things don't get appreciably worse.
That could be changing. In Iowa, state Republicans are trying to put gay marriage to a vote. The Democratic Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal, is vowing to prevent that. There is a notion that once pro-gay victories have been achieved, opponents will accept them and move on to other battles. From the Iowa story, we can see that there is a real movement to go back and take away gay rights.
7
All of your projections are based on republicans not screwing us over, but how did that work out for you in 1994 and 2004? Yeah, there you go.
8
While I'm not pleased with the asshats who vote for the most actively hostile candidates available, it's nice to see that, as you stated at the top of the article, our votes can't be taken for granted.
9
Bravo Dan. Continue to advocate people voting against their interests. Dumb schmuck. If you think the cause of gay rights is going to be furthered by anyone except democrats, I'm afraid you need to get your head examined.
And Obama did a shitload, or at least certainly more than the sum total of the Republican party combined, to further the cause for gay rights in his first year and a half. Stop being such an impatient halfwit, or move to Massachusetts where, need I remind you, is the only state intelligent enough to have elected Democrats into every single office.
And Obama did a shitload, or at least certainly more than the sum total of the Republican party combined, to further the cause for gay rights in his first year and a half. Stop being such an impatient halfwit, or move to Massachusetts where, need I remind you, is the only state intelligent enough to have elected Democrats into every single office.
10
Okay, Dan.
"And, as I said after the presidential election in 2008, the difference in the gay vote for Kerry in 2004 and the gay vote for Obama in 2008 is a rough measure of just how many rabid gay racists are out and out there. In 2004 77% of the gays voted for Kerry; in 2008 70% of the gays voted for Obama. Only racial animus can explain the gay votes that the McCain/Palin ticket picked up."
Are you saying that it's only recently that you've noticed gay racial animus, and that it took polling results to draw your attention to it? I'm concerned.
"And, as I said after the presidential election in 2008, the difference in the gay vote for Kerry in 2004 and the gay vote for Obama in 2008 is a rough measure of just how many rabid gay racists are out and out there. In 2004 77% of the gays voted for Kerry; in 2008 70% of the gays voted for Obama. Only racial animus can explain the gay votes that the McCain/Palin ticket picked up."
Are you saying that it's only recently that you've noticed gay racial animus, and that it took polling results to draw your attention to it? I'm concerned.
11
In the long run mightn't winning our rights be a loser for Dems? They have us because they're the only ones promise to help us, but if our rights do get cemented we have no dog in the fight any more - there'll be mass defections to the Republicans. Because in the end we're no less manipulable selfish idiots than anyone else.
12
I'm with you, MacCrocodile. The boyfriend and I voted Dem even though we were furious about gay issues. There are other issues. But I can only hope that the Dems take note, and quit taking the gay vote for granted.
13
When you carp over and over because the Dems were not moving fast enough, I can see how disenchanted some folks can become. Things don't always move fast enough, sure, but to then vote for the Republicans, well, that's just suicidal if you ask me. With a great big dollop of stupid on top. And from the way the Republicans talk, it's going to be very bad for the average American.
14
When it comes to equal rights under the law versus cutting the deficit, I go for the back of the bus every time.
15
exit poll data is not very reliable in general, and especially so when you start splitting it up along the margins. self-identified gays are less than 5% of the population, so you're talking about 5% of an already small and unreliable sample size, which means the margin of error is huge. interpret with caution.
16
Let's take a view of the micro with a couple of tidbits:
-15 NOM backed statehouse takeovers succeeded, including New Hampshire where marriage equality is now under threat
-CA voters nearly elected a pro-Prop 8 AG, were it not for high turnout in the bay area
That'll learn'em!
-15 NOM backed statehouse takeovers succeeded, including New Hampshire where marriage equality is now under threat
-CA voters nearly elected a pro-Prop 8 AG, were it not for high turnout in the bay area
That'll learn'em!
17
very bad homo, I must have missed that bone!
I'm right there at the back of the bus with you tiktok.
Ok Obama did make the IGBP video, that must've been the bone.
I'm right there at the back of the bus with you tiktok.
Ok Obama did make the IGBP video, that must've been the bone.
19
@11 Probably, yeah. But equal rights are obviously more important in the end.
Dan went on national television numerous times and trashed Obama and the dems in no uncertain terms. I mean, based on that one ABC(?) interview, I literally thought you were either going Republican or never voting again. Now you say "well, of course I didn't intend to discourage Democrats from voting". What the fuck did you think would happen? I like you, man, but you're really not grasping what it means to be a public figure.
Dan went on national television numerous times and trashed Obama and the dems in no uncertain terms. I mean, based on that one ABC(?) interview, I literally thought you were either going Republican or never voting again. Now you say "well, of course I didn't intend to discourage Democrats from voting". What the fuck did you think would happen? I like you, man, but you're really not grasping what it means to be a public figure.
20
Refraining from voting is a viable choice and a political statement when there are NO suitable candidates. Democrats and Republicans suck equally, and I'm not wasting my time to write-in or vote for a third party candidate who has no way of winning in this century.
21
So if we keep voting for the Demonrats (I'm referring to the Federal ones), and they keep telling us to fuck off once they get elected, and then we vote for them again anyway, then what possible motivation would they have to ever fulfill their campaign lies?
22
@20,
You should still vote, even if it's just a write-in or third candidate. By not voting, you're lumping yourself in with non-voters who just don't care. By voting, at least you're still among the counted. If politicians and pundits saw sizable numbers of non-major-party votes, even if those votes don't win, they still stand up and take notice. Shit... just look at the whole teabagger movement.
The percentage of people who vote is still important, not just who they voted for.
You should still vote, even if it's just a write-in or third candidate. By not voting, you're lumping yourself in with non-voters who just don't care. By voting, at least you're still among the counted. If politicians and pundits saw sizable numbers of non-major-party votes, even if those votes don't win, they still stand up and take notice. Shit... just look at the whole teabagger movement.
The percentage of people who vote is still important, not just who they voted for.
23
Perhaps it might be a good idea to examine why they are so confused today:
Deconstructing American Political Theater
Please allow us to look behind the curtain for a brief moment, and see what really goes on there.
When Bill Clinton was elected president the first time back in 1992, he was elected with a minority of the vote (only 40 percent, or thereabouts), thanks to the spoiler Ross Perot, who entered the campaign to draw away votes from President George H.W. Bush.
Why was this? Because Bush had failed to deliver N.A.F.T.A., and the banksters were annoyed. H. Ross Perot, heavily indebted to the banksters for funding, and extremely heavily indebted to the Texas democratic political machine for his education (nomination to the Naval Academy), his early out from his military obligation, and his fortune thanks to sweetheart government contracts, answered the call.
It is crucial to explain that Perot’s brother-in-law happens to be Ramsey Clark, President Johnson’s former attorney general and a member of the highly influential Clark family of Texas, a multi-generational political family not unlike the Bush family, but to a lesser degree.
Next the republicans take over the House and Senate in the next national election, so logically, they should put forth their strongest candidate against Clinton during his re-election campaign, but that isn’t the plan.
The plan was to keep their man Clinton in as president, therefore the weakest candidate, Bob Dole, is run against him and loses handily.
Now one cannot blame the economy on President Obama; the American economy was dismantled over the preceding 35 years, but Obama has resolutely continued the economic policies of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan, while in reality what America required was a super-F.D.R. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) in the White House.
Now their obvious plan is to continue with Obama for a second term, thereby realizing their economic program of control fraud. President Obama was a majority-elected president (unlike the weaker Clinton), and in a much stronger position for a second term.
The only way to circumvent their plan is to replace Obama with an authentic democrat and an authentic progressive.
To present an idea of the ease of their manipulation of the American airwaves: a typical “news interview” show features speakers from Peter G. Peterson’s Peterson Institute, or
Peterson’s Fiscal Times, or Peterson’s Concord Coalition, or Peterson’s America Speaks, or Peterson’s Peterson Foundation.
Also featured would be speakers from David Koch’s Cato Institute, or Koch’s Heritage Foundation, or Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, or Koch’s American Enterprise Institute or the jointly financed (Koch and Peterson) Aspen Institute.
This is a loose approximation of what passes for the American corporate media today.
This political theater, just as the ancient Roman circuses and gladiator games, is for the benefit of the manipulation of the masses, and the economic elites laugh at their little enterprise and the wasted energy it consumes.
[For those who cling to Santa Claus and their fractured fables, they can rest assured that the health insurance legislation (oddly referred to as “healthcare reform”) will be subtly disassembled, leaving in place only those passages which strengthen the control and power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Further free trade agreements will be passed, hastening those remaining jobs being offshored and the continuing demise of what remains of the American economy.
Also, the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission has done remarkable work in uncovering widespread criminal malfeasance and should any justice prevail in the USA, their findings would cause members of the former Bush administration, and present Obama administration, to do jail time. But this recent election will almost certainly negate that event.]
More...
Deconstructing American Political Theater
Please allow us to look behind the curtain for a brief moment, and see what really goes on there.
When Bill Clinton was elected president the first time back in 1992, he was elected with a minority of the vote (only 40 percent, or thereabouts), thanks to the spoiler Ross Perot, who entered the campaign to draw away votes from President George H.W. Bush.
Why was this? Because Bush had failed to deliver N.A.F.T.A., and the banksters were annoyed. H. Ross Perot, heavily indebted to the banksters for funding, and extremely heavily indebted to the Texas democratic political machine for his education (nomination to the Naval Academy), his early out from his military obligation, and his fortune thanks to sweetheart government contracts, answered the call.
It is crucial to explain that Perot’s brother-in-law happens to be Ramsey Clark, President Johnson’s former attorney general and a member of the highly influential Clark family of Texas, a multi-generational political family not unlike the Bush family, but to a lesser degree.
Next the republicans take over the House and Senate in the next national election, so logically, they should put forth their strongest candidate against Clinton during his re-election campaign, but that isn’t the plan.
The plan was to keep their man Clinton in as president, therefore the weakest candidate, Bob Dole, is run against him and loses handily.
Now one cannot blame the economy on President Obama; the American economy was dismantled over the preceding 35 years, but Obama has resolutely continued the economic policies of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan, while in reality what America required was a super-F.D.R. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) in the White House.
Now their obvious plan is to continue with Obama for a second term, thereby realizing their economic program of control fraud. President Obama was a majority-elected president (unlike the weaker Clinton), and in a much stronger position for a second term.
The only way to circumvent their plan is to replace Obama with an authentic democrat and an authentic progressive.
To present an idea of the ease of their manipulation of the American airwaves: a typical “news interview” show features speakers from Peter G. Peterson’s Peterson Institute, or
Peterson’s Fiscal Times, or Peterson’s Concord Coalition, or Peterson’s America Speaks, or Peterson’s Peterson Foundation.
Also featured would be speakers from David Koch’s Cato Institute, or Koch’s Heritage Foundation, or Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, or Koch’s American Enterprise Institute or the jointly financed (Koch and Peterson) Aspen Institute.
This is a loose approximation of what passes for the American corporate media today.
This political theater, just as the ancient Roman circuses and gladiator games, is for the benefit of the manipulation of the masses, and the economic elites laugh at their little enterprise and the wasted energy it consumes.
[For those who cling to Santa Claus and their fractured fables, they can rest assured that the health insurance legislation (oddly referred to as “healthcare reform”) will be subtly disassembled, leaving in place only those passages which strengthen the control and power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Further free trade agreements will be passed, hastening those remaining jobs being offshored and the continuing demise of what remains of the American economy.
Also, the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission has done remarkable work in uncovering widespread criminal malfeasance and should any justice prevail in the USA, their findings would cause members of the former Bush administration, and present Obama administration, to do jail time. But this recent election will almost certainly negate that event.]
24
@17 It was just over a year ago when Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Also, in June of this year and last, Obama extended various benefits for gay federal workers.
Also, in June of this year and last, Obama extended various benefits for gay federal workers.
25
Another difference between 2004 and 2008 is that Bush supported the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 but McCain did not in 2008. Also, Republicans actively sought to get anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballots of several states in 2004, 11 of them passed. Ohio's was the personal brainchild of Bush campaign manager, gay Ken Mehlman, in order to juice their support. Ohio was key to Bush's victory in 2004.
26
@19 Dan stated numerous times that voting Republican was moronic for gays. And he did predict gay turnout for Dems would be lower, but not because he was making it lower, but because the Dems were being cowards. And he offered them an out every time! They just had to start fulfilling their promises, that's it! The blame doesn't lay with Dan and actual fierce advocates, it lays with the Democrats for being two-faced lil bitches who didn't have the spine to work for equal rights.
27
For the past 18 months, all I've heard from Dan is "the lousy, crappy Dems this...the lousy crappy President that", then the past two weeks he's urging us all to not shoot ourselves by not voting, or voting Rethuglican. Can't have it both ways, Dan.
The last-minute (and pathetic) get-out-the-vote campaign was laughable. I find it fascinating that the lowest voter turnout in the state is in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, with the highest over here in Bumfuckistan. Could it be that those in rural areas actually give a damn, whereas urban dwellers could care less? Puzzling.
Gay issues have ALWAYS been political suicide for any public figure until just recently. Things sure could have been better, but at least we're hearing ourselves mentioned by the Dems in public- big change. No need for anti-Dem rants now- the Rethugs are back in power after two (very short) years. Progressives never learn.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The day we hear our causes promoted by Teabagger/Rethugs is the day I might think about not voting for Dems. Until then, shooting down Dems in public, childish rants only fuels the haters and encourages idiot queers to not vote.
The last-minute (and pathetic) get-out-the-vote campaign was laughable. I find it fascinating that the lowest voter turnout in the state is in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, with the highest over here in Bumfuckistan. Could it be that those in rural areas actually give a damn, whereas urban dwellers could care less? Puzzling.
Gay issues have ALWAYS been political suicide for any public figure until just recently. Things sure could have been better, but at least we're hearing ourselves mentioned by the Dems in public- big change. No need for anti-Dem rants now- the Rethugs are back in power after two (very short) years. Progressives never learn.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The day we hear our causes promoted by Teabagger/Rethugs is the day I might think about not voting for Dems. Until then, shooting down Dems in public, childish rants only fuels the haters and encourages idiot queers to not vote.
29
@26 No one is blaming Dan and other gay advocate public figures for political promises that have failed to materialize. But did his national media ranting have an effect? I'm sure it did. One needs look no further than the IGBP to see that this is an individual who is listened to, and is influential. I don't even think that what he said was wrong. I think he doesn't want to acknowledge the power of his words. And I think that's silly.
30
Obviously, there is a lot of work to do to make up for the petulant gays that think whining is a better strategy than winning. I guess I'll have to count on my straight friends for help in defeating right wing bigots at the polls.
31
Dan actually also provided the solution. If you want to stop arguing about equal rights, provide them. Once we have them, we'll go away (or at least stop arguing that point). Meantime, yeah, it's all contingent on you fulfilling your promises.
I much prefer to have an enemy doing something egregious to fight against than have to deal with a supposed friend who promises the moon and doesn't deliver jack (or, as Obama has done, actively work against me while crying, "Oh! but I have to work against you--I just don't have any choice at all," when that is a demonstrably boldfaced lie). That's not a friend, and it's not my fault they chose not to follow through on their promises (and "you mean you believed me when I said that?" doesn't fly as an excuse either).
I much prefer to have an enemy doing something egregious to fight against than have to deal with a supposed friend who promises the moon and doesn't deliver jack (or, as Obama has done, actively work against me while crying, "Oh! but I have to work against you--I just don't have any choice at all," when that is a demonstrably boldfaced lie). That's not a friend, and it's not my fault they chose not to follow through on their promises (and "you mean you believed me when I said that?" doesn't fly as an excuse either).
32
he doesn't want to acknowledge the power of his words.
the non-stop barrage of IGBP videos and gushing media reports refutes this statement. a more correct statment is that he doesn't want to acknowledge the negative repercussions of his words.
@31 what reason do dems have to provide equal rights if the people bitching about them are going to vote dem regardless and call people idiots if they don't?
the non-stop barrage of IGBP videos and gushing media reports refutes this statement. a more correct statment is that he doesn't want to acknowledge the negative repercussions of his words.
@31 what reason do dems have to provide equal rights if the people bitching about them are going to vote dem regardless and call people idiots if they don't?
34
I don't get all the people whining about Dan and others bitching about Obama and the Democrats. Of course you can have it both ways. There's no requirement to remain silent when the people you elected don't do what they promised. But there's also nothing to be gained by voting in people who explicitly promise to work against you.
35
If you don't want to vote Democratic because they're not making enough progress, then don't vote Republican and don't sit it out. Instead vote for a third party candidate - Green or Socialist or some other left-wing party.
Me personally, I think the economic issues we face at the moment are too bad to let the Republicans get control, because they'll make things worse. If we could've held onto the House and Democrats reformed the filibuster at the beginning of the next session, the second half of Obama's first term could have made some progress too.
Now we're not likely to see much of anything big happen.
But if you want to send a message that the Democrats need to move left, the solution is to vote left, not to vote Republican or to sit it out.
Me personally, I think the economic issues we face at the moment are too bad to let the Republicans get control, because they'll make things worse. If we could've held onto the House and Democrats reformed the filibuster at the beginning of the next session, the second half of Obama's first term could have made some progress too.
Now we're not likely to see much of anything big happen.
But if you want to send a message that the Democrats need to move left, the solution is to vote left, not to vote Republican or to sit it out.
36
@31, 32 - do you think Dems purposely don't push through on our rights because they know our loyalty will evaporate once they do? I'm not saying it's a conscious thing, but the dynamic is in plain operation.
37
@35, word. Also, work on promoting more & better candidates to run in the first place, grassroots if need be & work on way up.
No fast solutions, though :-P
/part of the 69%, heh
No fast solutions, though :-P
/part of the 69%, heh
38
@29 His national media "ranting" included how the Dems were betraying the gay community. Of course that hurts the Dems with liberals, but like we both agree, it also happened to be the truth. It's not Dan's fault that the truth about the cowardly Democratic Party hurt the cowardly Democratic Party. Again, that’s solely the fault of the cowardly Democratic Party. But I can imagine one reason he may not think his words aren't as powerful as you suggest they are (if that's indeed what he thinks). Namely that the Dems in power brushed him and his requests off, and only paid lip service to the IGBP once it was determined that it could be politically advantageous. They might rethink that strategy now. We'll see.
39
35: what would be the point of that? By voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning you're essentially throwing your vote away.
40
Republicans are too afraid of their base, but Democrats aren't afraid enough. Don't spend half the cycle giving your most faithful constituencies a giant Cleveland Steamer and then expect them to move heaven and earth to save your ass on election day!
42
"a significant chunk of gay voters are going to give up on the Dems and vote their economic self-interest, or vote Republican"
In what ways do Republicans benefit gays economically? The gay community being made of of Will and Grace's is a myth, and Republican policies only benefit the wealthy.
I don't have a problem with anyone criticizing Obama or the Dems, but I do have a problem with the criticisms essentially amounting to "Obama and the Dems haven't done anything for us." A fact that plenty of people like John Avarosis are more than happy to propagate.
In what ways do Republicans benefit gays economically? The gay community being made of of Will and Grace's is a myth, and Republican policies only benefit the wealthy.
I don't have a problem with anyone criticizing Obama or the Dems, but I do have a problem with the criticisms essentially amounting to "Obama and the Dems haven't done anything for us." A fact that plenty of people like John Avarosis are more than happy to propagate.
43
@39 - But it says a whole lot more than not voting or even by voting for the candidate with the best chance of winning.
44
43: no it doesn't, because it has no actual effect. If you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning to punish the Democrats and the Republicans get in, what have you accomplished? Nothing.
45
1.) Sonia Sotomayor
2.) Elena Kagan
We need to reject this cynical media canard that if progress is too slow on certain issues that the "Base is being taken for granted". Lobby for an issue; be vociferous in your support. But when the Speaker or the Majority Leader come back and say that an issue has been tabled or doesn't have the votes, we need to resist the temptation to villianize our advocates. We need to trust that they are working within the confines of the existing political calculus. The only hope for progress is in the hands of Progressives.
2.) Elena Kagan
We need to reject this cynical media canard that if progress is too slow on certain issues that the "Base is being taken for granted". Lobby for an issue; be vociferous in your support. But when the Speaker or the Majority Leader come back and say that an issue has been tabled or doesn't have the votes, we need to resist the temptation to villianize our advocates. We need to trust that they are working within the confines of the existing political calculus. The only hope for progress is in the hands of Progressives.
46
Those 31% of gays are probably all very up-market gays who see little real-world difference in the Ds and Rs -- except that the Rs let them keep a little more of their money.
47
I agree that LGBTs who vote Republican need to have their heads examined, but then, I honestly believe I'd be a Democrat even if I wasn't gay. Many of my other values are also aligned with the Dems. I also don't believe in sitting out of elections -- with one exception, I've voted in every election and primary since I was 18, which was 24 years ago, and when I was 16 I advised my Mom as she was filling out her absentee ballot. (The one exception was a run-off with only the one run-off on the ballot, and the two candidates were equally bad.)
But in this case, I think it's not that the number of LGBT Republicans increased so much as they were more motivated to vote. I'm hoping Obama can regalvanize the youth vote in 2012, especially if the Republicans do some outrageous things that really help illustrate how much worse things will be if they're back in control of everything.
But in this case, I think it's not that the number of LGBT Republicans increased so much as they were more motivated to vote. I'm hoping Obama can regalvanize the youth vote in 2012, especially if the Republicans do some outrageous things that really help illustrate how much worse things will be if they're back in control of everything.
48
It's all very well for you to say that now, Dan Savage, but for the last six months and more you have been doing your damndest to make sure that the gay vote didn't go to the Democrats. Where, exactly, did you think it would go?
You forgot the First Law of Politics: When the right people aren't in power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get in.
Let me be clear: gay people who vote for Republicans need to have their heads examined.
It's all very well for you to say that now, Dan Savage, but for the last six months and more you have been doing your damndest to make sure that the gay vote didn't go to the Democrats. Where, exactly, did you think it would go?
You forgot the First Law of Politics: When the right people aren't in power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get in.
49
One more comment. The original source said, "If we get no progress under Democrats (just empty promises meant to excite their base), but no regress under Republicans (just empty threats meant to excite their base), why should we waste our time—and our money—worrying about who's in charge?"
The problem is that it's not fair to say that we don't regress under Republicans. The only reasons we haven't is because there've been enough Democrats, even as a minority, to stop them. If 75% of Dems support us but only 5% of Republicans (at best), why do we vilify the Dems when some of their conservatives peel away and not the Reps who did nothing? It's a typical Log Cabin Republican response to criticize the Dems for not being 100% unified on an LGBT issue when they can't deliver a single Republican vote.
The problem is that it's not fair to say that we don't regress under Republicans. The only reasons we haven't is because there've been enough Democrats, even as a minority, to stop them. If 75% of Dems support us but only 5% of Republicans (at best), why do we vilify the Dems when some of their conservatives peel away and not the Reps who did nothing? It's a typical Log Cabin Republican response to criticize the Dems for not being 100% unified on an LGBT issue when they can't deliver a single Republican vote.
50
@39 it depends on how many people do that. But correct, for the most part, it's not enough. I wish we had a parliamentary, proportional system. Germany has a very good system (which we designed in 1945!)
51
Please Dan, get your head out of your ass! I'm a Democrat, but I'm pro-life. I voted for Obama, volunteered for him, and was glad to do it. However, he has fucked us over. Let me vote as I will....
52
It has a slightly different effect. Look beyond the end of your nose. Yes, the wrongest person possible might win, but in any case, the votes that go to a third party candidate get noticed, provided they happen in any significant quantity. If I vote for a left-wing third party, it says more to the political world than if I refrain from voting altogether. When the teabaggers threatened to vote for their own candidates, the Republican party rushed right to encompass the tea party philosophy.
53
I don't think the 7% who voted for McCain can be explained as being just about race. I think it could have something to do with some of us not being one-issue voters or democratic party faithfuls and seeing through Obama's shit from the get-go. The main reason I didn't vote for McCain was because of the Palin pick.
54
I like how the gay community lashed out at the party that pretty much unanimously voted for the DADT repeal (remember Lincoln and Pryor voted yes and changed their votes when it wasn't going to pass) and the President that was prepared to sign it and NOT the assholes in the Republican party that shined them into believing they supported repeal. (Snowe, Collins, McCain, etc) They've even bought into and started repeating the excuses Republicans gave them for not supporting repeal.
One party is treating the gay community like chumps but it's not the Democratic one.
One party is treating the gay community like chumps but it's not the Democratic one.
55
I have to say, as a math and actually a statistics teacher, that you are giving way too much precision to these polls. The MOE, especially for a group as small as gays, is very large on these polls. We made up 4% of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008, and thus made up about 4% of the exit poll. Assuming that about 10,000 people were polled then about 400 gays were. The MOE on a poll of 400 people is around 5% and that goes in either direction. Thus the 77% and the 70% are actually a statistical tie. It surely isn't remotely a certain 7% differential.
56
Voted for Dems still, but Obama better start acting. Lip service is just as dangerous as crazy tea partiers. He still believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and hasn't moved on DOMA or DADT. Yes, it's important that a president say the things he's saying about anti-gay hate acts, but please Mr. President, do something for the LGTB supporters.
The only thing terrible about electing more Republicans is that they will select the next Supreme Court Justice, and unless a few of those on the right retire soon (not likely), we're in for a lot of steps backward.
The only thing terrible about electing more Republicans is that they will select the next Supreme Court Justice, and unless a few of those on the right retire soon (not likely), we're in for a lot of steps backward.
57
Not being gay or republican I know it's hard for me to put myself into the shoes of those 31% that is a growing section of the population of gay republicans voting for candidates who aim to take away their freedoms, but I'm going to try.
Say you're a kinda wealthy to almost wealthy business owner, who wants to expand but doesn't see anything good coming from the capital. Along comes Joe republican who tells them it's all the government's fault and he's going to make it right by doing nothing. That brand works cross sexual orientation, everyone gets brainwashed equally. Also, what about the people who have voted republican all their life, and don't know any better? They do it because that's how they were raised. Truth be told, a kinda wealthy gay business owner would have everything to gain from less taxes, and the right to marry might not be their top priority. They get to have as much sex as possible, but when it comes time to seal the deal, and put that giant gay sign out front their republican business that says they're gay married, they're happy they don't have to brand themselves that way.
I'm probably just crazy though, I don't see how even that person would vote against marriage equality. Most "wealthy" people I've met think in terms greater than dollars. But hey, the ballot box is that private little booth where you can vote for a personal economic interest while screwing over every other person that considers themselves part of a different, more human, brand.
Say you're a kinda wealthy to almost wealthy business owner, who wants to expand but doesn't see anything good coming from the capital. Along comes Joe republican who tells them it's all the government's fault and he's going to make it right by doing nothing. That brand works cross sexual orientation, everyone gets brainwashed equally. Also, what about the people who have voted republican all their life, and don't know any better? They do it because that's how they were raised. Truth be told, a kinda wealthy gay business owner would have everything to gain from less taxes, and the right to marry might not be their top priority. They get to have as much sex as possible, but when it comes time to seal the deal, and put that giant gay sign out front their republican business that says they're gay married, they're happy they don't have to brand themselves that way.
I'm probably just crazy though, I don't see how even that person would vote against marriage equality. Most "wealthy" people I've met think in terms greater than dollars. But hey, the ballot box is that private little booth where you can vote for a personal economic interest while screwing over every other person that considers themselves part of a different, more human, brand.
58
Dan, Andrew, Andy and Joe all helped add to this republican gay vote. You guys are leaders in the gay community, the worldwide gay community. When you guys say anything people are going to listen even when they aren't paying any attention. Gay's have many, MANY moronic racists in their midst (Read the towleroad comments)
Don't get me wrong, The people I am talking about are STUPID, and the responsibility isn't on you guys for their inability to be anything other than sheep. But you need to be aware that if you post about how shitty Obama is, a lot of very impressionable idiots are going to take "Obama is bad" to heart.
Maybe after the next civil war when gay people can try to reclaim what we already have the bloggers of tomorrow will have the appropriate tact to express disappointment in a system.
Don't get me wrong, The people I am talking about are STUPID, and the responsibility isn't on you guys for their inability to be anything other than sheep. But you need to be aware that if you post about how shitty Obama is, a lot of very impressionable idiots are going to take "Obama is bad" to heart.
Maybe after the next civil war when gay people can try to reclaim what we already have the bloggers of tomorrow will have the appropriate tact to express disappointment in a system.
59
OMFG I've seen many 'heterophobic' statements here over the years(Straight people are; weird, crazy, sexually frustrated... all of which may be true in SOME instances) I don't have e problem with anyones sexual preference, and I'm not afraid of a man who is interested in me, so I don't think I'm a homohpobe. I must point out the, well I don't want to say stupidity but can't think of a better word though it is early. OK democrats, you wanna, ahem, stiff us gay people we'll show you! We're gonna vote republican, that'll show you!!! Even IF it is because you're rich and wanna keep your money (tax cut). You're really lame because we really just need to tax the uber rich, like more than 1,000,000 a year and go back to %50 income tax and then everyone else will get to keep more of their $. Semi rich people and Christians have been hijacked by the neo-cons.
Well, have a great day, and enjoy the 2 years of congressional gridlock followed by 4 years of a republican prez. Though I HOPE they're stupid enough to put Palin up there! That would rock in a way.
Well, have a great day, and enjoy the 2 years of congressional gridlock followed by 4 years of a republican prez. Though I HOPE they're stupid enough to put Palin up there! That would rock in a way.
60
maybe you should've spent more time getting out the vote and less time trashing on obama and the party, dan. you have a large audience, and many of those people will take little with them to the polls other than that you were once a strong proponent for the obama administration and the dems, then couldn't find enough bad things to say about them in the year leading up to this election.
61
I think the original news story is misleading ... I almost barfed when I saw it on HuffPo. From what I can tell, it's talking about "percentage" of gays ... not raw numbers, and if you know anything about Tuesday, unenthused disillusioned Dems of all flavors of cockery and punanery kept their asses at home.
If there were only four homos on the planet, Dave - 2 Dems and 2 GOPs ... and the two Dems stayed home ... could you then allude that all gays are Republican? That's what this article did.
If there were only four homos on the planet, Dave - 2 Dems and 2 GOPs ... and the two Dems stayed home ... could you then allude that all gays are Republican? That's what this article did.
62
Dan- being gay is not a religion where we must all subscribe to an identical doctrine of beliefs. You do us all a disservice by saying we should all be single-issue voters.
I'm not happy with Republicans but I voted for them every time up until I voted for Obama. If you are pro-life, believe in federalism and a limited federal government and lower taxes, put national security and a strong foreign policy high on your list of priorities, why should you throw those beliefs out the window in favor of a few very narrow gay interests?
DADT was implemented by a Democratic president. The military is coming around to supporting repeal. Why can't we let this work out as it is? Do you really think Republicans are going to overrule the Joint Chiefs on this?
Gay marriage rights is a very recent phenomenon. It is wrong to claim that Democrats are pro-gay marriage and Republicans are against. Most people want equal civil partnership rights. Some of them prefer it be called something other than marriage. That doesn't make them bigots.
The Republican Congress in the 1990's did not come storming into anyone's bedrooms. In fact, they introduced ENDA. Bush massively increased HIV funding in Africa and lifted the HIV+ travel and immigration restrictions.
It's time you quit masquerading your liberal pro-big government, anti-religious faith beliefs as somehow "gay rights" beliefs for the benefit of your preferred political party.
I'm not happy with Republicans but I voted for them every time up until I voted for Obama. If you are pro-life, believe in federalism and a limited federal government and lower taxes, put national security and a strong foreign policy high on your list of priorities, why should you throw those beliefs out the window in favor of a few very narrow gay interests?
DADT was implemented by a Democratic president. The military is coming around to supporting repeal. Why can't we let this work out as it is? Do you really think Republicans are going to overrule the Joint Chiefs on this?
Gay marriage rights is a very recent phenomenon. It is wrong to claim that Democrats are pro-gay marriage and Republicans are against. Most people want equal civil partnership rights. Some of them prefer it be called something other than marriage. That doesn't make them bigots.
The Republican Congress in the 1990's did not come storming into anyone's bedrooms. In fact, they introduced ENDA. Bush massively increased HIV funding in Africa and lifted the HIV+ travel and immigration restrictions.
It's time you quit masquerading your liberal pro-big government, anti-religious faith beliefs as somehow "gay rights" beliefs for the benefit of your preferred political party.
63
@62 - "Most people want equal civil partnership rights. Some of them prefer it be called something other than marriage. That doesn't make them bigots."
Actually, it does.
Also, I'm not a single issue voter either but not supporting a party machine that is actively working to destroy my life is pretty high on my list of issues. Too many gays are caught up in the Mary Cheney life - that being rich and powerful exempts you from dealing with the problems that "the little people" have to deal with. Not giving a fuck for your fellow gays cuz you got yours is morally wrong and anti American.
Actually, it does.
Also, I'm not a single issue voter either but not supporting a party machine that is actively working to destroy my life is pretty high on my list of issues. Too many gays are caught up in the Mary Cheney life - that being rich and powerful exempts you from dealing with the problems that "the little people" have to deal with. Not giving a fuck for your fellow gays cuz you got yours is morally wrong and anti American.
64
The repulican's threats are only empty when there's a fairly sane person in charge. If a wingnut like Palin gets in charge, everyone who isn't a rich white heterosexual christian is fucked.
65
Kelo v. New London, DC v Heller, and Citizens United are enough reason for me to vote Republican. I strongly support gay rights, but that's not the only issue I care about. I also support property rights, gun ownership, and freedom of speech, which Republicans have a decent record of standing up for. I'd prefer a moderate Republican (at least one who hasn't been taken over by the religious right) to a far-left Democrat, for economic, foreign policy, and individual rights reasons.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (66) RSS