31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates

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

    Nov 04, 2010 7:08 PM GMT
    Google "Sally Kern."
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2639

    Nov 04, 2010 7:23 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidThere is no gay reason to vote Democrat since they aren't doing anything substantial in our interest.

    Think how different the election dynamics would have been if there had been a rush of enthusiastic gays going to the polls.



    I myself just enjoyed that enthusiastic rush of conversative gay men running to the polls. I suppose had the focus of my life been soley DADT, ENDA, and the need to duplicate the insitution of marriage, then like many gay men, I'd have sat or the sideline or have sat like a little puppy dog waiting to be patted on the head by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

    But then I don't depend on others to "make me" a winner in life. Certainly not those Democrats in life who truly loath you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 9:02 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    But then I don't depend on others to "make me" a winner in life.


    I don't either. I would like a level playing field, however. The Pugs are diametrically opposed to that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 10:27 PM GMT
    OtterJoq saidSelf-loathing is tragic.


    Has nothing to do with self-loathing. It has to do with reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 10:28 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Caslon16000 saidThere is no gay reason to vote Democrat since they aren't doing anything substantial in our interest.

    Think how different the election dynamics would have been if there had been a rush of enthusiastic gays going to the polls.



    But the Republicans outright hate us.

    Also the republicans have incredibly stupid approach to environmental safety, Medicare, Medicaid, and the likes.


    No they don't. That's a generalization.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 10:36 PM GMT
    "SELF-LOATHING! SELF-LOATHING! SELF-LOATHING!"

    Agreed. But any support Gays give to the Tea Party/Republicans may just be a case of serious misinformation.

    Congressional Republicans voted unanimously AGAINST the reversal of DADT.

    Republican voters in Iowa voted out 3 judges who supported marriage equality.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 04, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    Has nothing to do with self-loathing. It has to do with reason.

    And that reason being?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 11:14 PM GMT
    GQjock saidHas nothing to do with self-loathing. It has to do with reason.

    And that reason being?


    That I care about my country's future and I don't have such foolishly myopic vision to believe that because some party tells me they "love" me more than they are overall better for the country and for freedom and for the longevity of America. We are swimming in debt, the democrats have demonstrated that they could care less. All they can think about is expanding more and more programs and raising taxes endlessly to support those programs while they destroy the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism. Our nation was founded on people hoping to succeed, not being guaranteed "success" or safety. You can't destroy the critical components of capitalism and still expect it to go on in tact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 1:32 AM GMT
    Gays do care about fiscal responsibility and national security.

    Republicans have talked a good game on both issues.

    But the fact is that Republicans have cost us a fortune in 2 failed wars and made us less secure.

    As to Southbeach's pretension that Republicans voted against reversing DADT because of immigration issues. Unlikely. And it wasn't the reason given by either of my Republican senators. In fact, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss was more concerned that allowing gays to serve in the military would result in "bestiality and body art".

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

    Nov 05, 2010 4:07 AM GMT
    I think what's really awful about this thread is that noone has bothered to question the size of the error implicit on this sort of poll. We are perpetually bombarded with statistics of this sort, and without such an error quoted they are quite meaningless.

    Let's look at the data quoted on the CNN website

    The *total* sample size of the exit poll was 17,504.

    3% of this identified as GLBT --- that's somewhere between 450 and 600 people

    31% of this 3% said they voted for the Republican party -- that's between 130 and 180 people.

    Now compare this with the 2006 poll which had:

    a total sample size of 13,251

    3% of which identified as GLBT --- that's between 330 and 450 people.

    24% of which voted Republican --- that's somewhere between 75 and 110 people.

    Now compare with the 2008 Presidential race

    total sample size: 17834

    4% of which identified as GLBT [620--800 people ]--- 27% of which voted Republican [i.e. 170--200 people]

    We would now like to know whether this change is significant between polls. To do so we need some statistics which tells us that the margin of error [that is the 95% confidence interval] on the *difference* in the vote for the same party between polls is about 7% [use formula 6.3 in the reference]. This Margin of error tells us that, for example, the difference in percentages voting republican between 2009 and 2010 is:

    (31%-27%) = (4 + or - 7) % (!) [i.e. we can be 95% confident that the TRUE difference lies somewhere between -3% and + 11%]

    I hope this is very clear to everyone. Given the sampling size of both polls, and the tiny number of LGBT people contained therein, there is not a statistically significant difference in the number of Gay people who voted Republican.

    Now, that does not diminish the fact that some Gay people voted Republican... but we already knew that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 6:21 AM GMT
    PresentMind said
    But the fact is that Republicans have cost us a fortune in 2 failed wars and made us less secure.




    Nothing factual about that statement. It is YOUR opinion -- nothing more, nothing less.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 6:32 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    PresentMind said
    But the fact is that Republicans have cost us a fortune in 2 failed wars and made us less secure.




    Nothing factual about that statement. It is YOUR opinion -- nothing more, nothing less.


    Take a second and think about every innocent man, woman and child killed in these wars.

    Then think about their ticked off family members. You think they are going to view us as peaceful liberators?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 11:31 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    PresentMind said
    But the fact is that Republicans have cost us a fortune in 2 failed wars and made us less secure.




    Nothing factual about that statement. It is YOUR opinion -- nothing more, nothing less.


    It is a matter of fact that the two wars were funded purely by deficit spending. So much for fiscal conservatism!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 12:27 PM GMT
    i voted for that good for nothin obama in 08. the dadt ordeal was the last straw. looking forward to cheering in front of the WH when he gets kicked out in 2 yrs.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13999

    Nov 05, 2010 12:39 PM GMT
    How many people who post here participated in an exit poll?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    Timberoo saidHow many people who post here participated in an exit poll?


    As I discussed above, given the numbers, it would be miraculous if anyone here participated in an exit poll.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 4:23 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 said
    Outdoormutt said
    Caslon16000 saidThere is no gay reason to vote Democrat since they aren't doing anything substantial in our interest.



    Really? Don't know about where you live, but where I live, the Democratic Party gave us marriage equality. The Republicans would repeal it in a flash, if they could.

    I keep my location secret in my profile ... icon_rolleyes.gif

    You undoubtedly know that the vast majority of gay America doesn't have any marriage rights. So your rather stupidly smug response makes you look a whole lot like an ass. And such an impression doesn't bolster the crdibility of your responses.

    And I reiterate, if the Dems are not going to take our issues seriously and act on them expeditiously, then we might as well vote our other personal interests.



    Gee... It looks like you are having a very bad day. Sorry that you have so much anger and chose to lash out, but that is your issue, not mine. Hope you find a way to deal with it. It probably isn't real healthy. Have you considered counseling?
    As I said, my comment was about where I live, not where you live, and was completely accurate.

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

    Nov 05, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    It is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 7:01 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Consider the source(s).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 9:33 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidIt is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Believe me, any proposed "cut" of a program having to do with entitlements would be deemed unacceptable to democrats no matter how big our deficit. So please, don't give me this bs about no one giving suggestions on what should be cut. We've given many of them already.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 9:41 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Believe me, any proposed "cut" of a program having to do with entitlements would be deemed unacceptable to democrats no matter how big our deficit. So please, don't give me this bs about no one giving suggestions on what should be cut. We've given many of them already.



    Theres only two things I want from the Federal Government.

    1. A military for protection
    2. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)

    Everything else they can cut the hell out of. Two cabinet positions they can eliminate right away are the Department of Energy and Department of Education (education is a local issue).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 9:45 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Believe me, any proposed "cut" of a program having to do with entitlements would be deemed unacceptable to democrats no matter how big our deficit. So please, don't give me this bs about no one giving suggestions on what should be cut. We've given many of them already.


    You have given nothing quantitative ---- that's the point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
    CHRIS6464 said
    1. A military for protection
    2. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)


    Why on earth should roads and bridges be built by the Federal government?

    Vast deficit spending on the military is one of the main reasons the public finances are in such a mess right now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Believe me, any proposed "cut" of a program having to do with entitlements would be deemed unacceptable to democrats no matter how big our deficit. So please, don't give me this bs about no one giving suggestions on what should be cut. We've given many of them already.


    You have given nothing quantitative ---- that's the point.


    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    CHRIS6464 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is interesting how this thread has died once the quantitative fallacy of the argument has been explained.

    As we see elsewhere, the majority of members on this site are interested only in vague, qualitative arguments: "less government, lower taxes, less deficit" etc, but do not offer quantitative solutions.

    Without numbers, such arguments are worthless.


    Believe me, any proposed "cut" of a program having to do with entitlements would be deemed unacceptable to democrats no matter how big our deficit. So please, don't give me this bs about no one giving suggestions on what should be cut. We've given many of them already.



    Theres only two things I want from the Federal Government.

    1. A military for protection
    2. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)

    Everything else they can cut the hell out of. Two cabinet positions they can eliminate right away are the Department of Energy and Department of Education (education is a local issue).


    Bye bye poor people, elderly, disabled, and children.