Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    I called my rep and senators last week and expressed my fury at the way Dems are treating us. Pissed off the Chief of Staff of my rep by saying I think the Repubs should win just to throw the Dems out of job so next time they would realize they have to do something.

    Now this article:

    "Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

    If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

    Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry - at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy - and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

    President Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago, with its large, politically and socially active gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, offers a snapshot of what some are calling the "enthusiasm gap" between voters who came out strong for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and re-energized Republican base voters, including tea party enthusiasts who say they are primed to storm the polls.

    It didn't help that the controversy over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays erupted less than two weeks before the election, when a judge overturned it, then Obama's justice department decided to fight the judge's decision. On Thursday, the Defense Department declared that "don't ask, don't tell" is official policy but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown out of the military for being openly gay.

    "It's all talk and nothing's happening, and I'm just over it," said Coatar, 62, a church business manager who said she's as concerned about health care and homelessness as about gay issues. "I don't know who to vote for and the election is a week away."

    Wyatt, 35, a maintenance worker at the Center on Halsted, a community center serving Chicago's GLBT community, said politicians only court gay voters at election time.

    "Once they're elected, they're not fighting for things like civil unions or same-sex marriage or ending 'don't ask, don't tell' because they're hot-button issues," said Wyatt, who usually supports Democrats. "We're just used as a piggyback for them to get into office. It's absurd. ... "

    More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102401490.html?hpid=sec-politics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    What gays need to understand, is that when it comes time to vote, Republicans will always vote against gay rights.

    The article is about the Illinois Senate race. Mark Kirk the Republican candidate voted against the DADT repeal. Gays would be stupid to vote for him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    "To show evidence of a claim we are just making up we decided to talk to these people who support our thesis."

    The article doesn't provide any evidence other than interviews with a few disgruntled people. Where is the beef, WaPo?

    From my connections in New York and Oregon I see the usual LGBT political groups doing what they do every single year. Endorsements, field campaigns, and fundraisers are still going on like they do. Could I find a few gay people disappointed with the administration? Well, I am one, so yeah. But does that mean somehow that queer voters are more apathetic than regular voters?

    These are mid-term elections, silly WaPo, of course voter turn out is lower than in presidential years. Wake me up when you come up with a narrative that is less lazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:24 AM GMT
    Posiden saidWhat gays need to understand, is that when it comes time to vote, Republicans will always vote against gay rights.

    funny pictures
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:29 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie said"To show evidence of a claim we are just making up we decided to talk to these people who support our thesis."

    The article doesn't provide any evidence other than interviews with a few disgruntled people. Where is the beef, WaPo?

    From my connections in New York and Oregon I see the usual LGBT political groups doing what they do every single year. Endorsements, field campaigns, and fundraisers are still going on like they do. Could I find a few gay people disappointed with the administration? Well, I am one, so yeah. But does that mean somehow that queer voters are more apathetic than regular voters?

    These are mid-term elections, silly WaPo, of course voter turn out is lower than in presidential years. Wake me up when you come up with a narrative that is less lazy.

    Yes, "doing what they do every single year," cuz nobody sees any reason to vote for the Dems again. If the Dems had done something, they wouldnt be looking at a lackluster midterm. Gays would be rejoicing with their votes.

    And the Tea partiers dont care about gay issues, so dont think they would be all up in arms. I cited a survey on that elsewhere on RJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:35 AM GMT
    Posiden saidWhat gays need to understand, is that when it comes time to vote, Republicans will always vote against gay rights.

    Most gays do understand this. What we face are alleged gays here who claim that gay rights are not important at all. An unnecessary luxury we can do without.

    They say we gays should sacrifice our civil rights for some general common good they can only poorly define, except it has something to do with rich people getting richer. And then the rest of us will see some indirect trickle-down benefit, you know, Reagonomics. If the rich are richer then they're gonna have to spend it somewhere, so their own brand of personal luxury will sustain us.

    Lucky them, poor us. Aren't you proud to make such selfless sacrifices for your country, as some here advise us? I wonder what they're willing to sacrifice themselves...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:42 AM GMT
    the funniest thing is that the rich only get rich by not spending their money unless it will make them more money. so reaganomics is inherently flawed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 2:42 AM GMT
    ...Obama Has Done 'Diddly Squat' For Gay Rights ... "We keep hearing tht Obama is an ally, that DADT will end under his watch," Cumming wrote on his blog, "but what do we actually get? Diddly squat thus far on a federal level and in addition to that some very offensive statements that would have made the Republicans look bad."



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 3:27 AM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidYes, "doing what they do every single year," cuz nobody sees any reason to vote for the Dems again. If the Dems had done something, they wouldnt be looking at a lackluster midterm. Gays would be rejoicing with their votes.

    And the Tea partiers dont care about gay issues, so dont think they would be all up in arms. I cited a survey on that elsewhere on RJ.


    Thank you for explaining to me why you are not hot on the Dems this year.

    This article is just "we have been selling a media narrative. let's see who bought it" crap. It is a thesis in search of data, and failing to find any data it used some anecdotal chatter.

    Journalism is like food. Don't eat crap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    Caslon16000 saidYes, "doing what they do every single year," cuz nobody sees any reason to vote for the Dems again. If the Dems had done something, they wouldnt be looking at a lackluster midterm. Gays would be rejoicing with their votes.

    And the Tea partiers dont care about gay issues, so dont think they would be all up in arms. I cited a survey on that elsewhere on RJ.


    Thank you for explaining to me why you are not hot on the Dems this year.

    This article is just "we have been selling a media narrative. let's see who bought it" crap. It is a thesis in search of data, and failing to find any data it used some anecdotal chatter.

    Journalism is like food. Don't eat crap.

    Ummmm....did you see I said that I held this view before the article came out? Are you calling my view crap? .... icon_evil.gif ... icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 4:02 AM GMT
    I am calling you a fascist who hates kittens. Kittens, Cas, kittens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 4:21 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidI am calling you a fascist who hates kittens. Kittens, Cas, kittens.

    cat ... icon_wink.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 25, 2010 10:24 AM GMT
    No ....... you know who are truly deranged?

    Any gay men or gay women who think that ANY republican will ever vote in the interest of gay people
    That's who's truly deranged
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 8:40 PM GMT
    GQjock saidNo ....... you know who are truly deranged?

    Any gay men or gay women who think that ANY republican will ever vote in the interest of gay people
    That's who's truly deranged


    Do you really want to stand by that statement? "ANY" republican "ever"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 8:56 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    GQjock saidNo ....... you know who are truly deranged?

    Any gay men or gay women who think that ANY republican will ever vote in the interest of gay people
    That's who's truly deranged


    Do you really want to stand by that statement? "ANY" republican "ever"?


    I don't know that I would say "ANY" but the Republican Party would have to shift back toward the center - particularly on social issues - which given that the Tea Baggers knocked out more moderate candidates in the primaries seems unlikely. And, sadly, we have people like John McCain who used to be a voice for moderation and compromise taking the hardest possible line now.

    So I think in the short-term 2011-2012 Congress GQ's statement is probably accurate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 9:02 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    GQjock saidNo ....... you know who are truly deranged?

    Any gay men or gay women who think that ANY republican will ever vote in the interest of gay people
    That's who's truly deranged


    Do you really want to stand by that statement? "ANY" republican "ever"?


    I don't know that I would say "ANY" but the Republican Party would have to shift back toward the center - particularly on social issues - which given that the Tea Baggers knocked out more moderate candidates in the primaries seems unlikely. And, sadly, we have people like John McCain who used to be a voice for moderation and compromise taking the hardest possible line now.

    So I think in the short-term 2011-2012 Congress GQ's statement is probably accurate.


    The only issue has ever been social issues, not sure why you say "particularly on". The phenomenon with the tea party is that they emerged as an anti-big government anti-tax, pro-freedom movement -- very libertarian and mostly supportive of Ron Paul. The religious movement has definitely tried to jump on the bandwagon. The problem is that you had all kinds of candidates trying to identify with the tea party in order to gain votes. The tea party candidates seem to be really the only ones wanting to do anything about fiscal matters such as cutting spending and unfortunately these same people are not very pro-gay (although I wouldn't suggest they are interested in pushing an anti-gay agenda). It's not an easy situation, but ultimately it's foolish to believe that they will start criminalizing being gay -- so all of the fear-mongering is stupid.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Oct 25, 2010 9:53 PM GMT
    The democratic party has done the exact same thing for gays as it has done with racial and ethnic minorities, promise to change things at election time and then completely forget their election promises and even go back on their word. So I don't blame gays along with blacks, Hispanics, and women for either staying at home or supporting republicans and other political candidates. The democrats performance record on achieving equality has been quite stinko at this point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 11:26 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThe democratic party has done the exact same thing for gays as it has done with racial and ethnic minorities, promise to change things at election time and then completely forget their election promises and even go back on their word. So I don't blame gays along with blacks, Hispanics, and women for either staying at home or supporting republicans and other political candidates. The democrats performance record on achieving equality has been quite stinko at this point.


    Just curious, why do you expect some form of legislation to "do something" special for any particular group of people. Do you think whoever is in the minority should have something special done for them? So in one or two generations, when whites are the minority in America (they already are with children under the age of 5), should the government do something special for whites? What ever happened to equality? Do you honestly think there's some invisible force stopping someone from achieving their goals and having a prosperous life because of their race or what they look like?

    I don't understand your line of thinking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 2:10 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    roadbikeRob saidThe democratic party has done the exact same thing for gays as it has done with racial and ethnic minorities, promise to change things at election time and then completely forget their election promises and even go back on their word. So I don't blame gays along with blacks, Hispanics, and women for either staying at home or supporting republicans and other political candidates. The democrats performance record on achieving equality has been quite stinko at this point.


    Just curious, why do you expect some form of legislation to "do something" special for any particular group of people. Do you think whoever is in the minority should have something special done for them? So in one or two generations, when whites are the minority in America (they already are with children under the age of 5), should the government do something special for whites? What ever happened to equality? Do you honestly think there's some invisible force stopping someone from achieving their goals and having a prosperous life because of their race or what they look like?

    I don't understand your line of thinking.

    Minorities often need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Especially, if there is a history of oppression. It's not doing something special for them. It is society protecting the rights, life, and pursuit of happiness that all people should enjoy.