The Gays Are Angry

And are the natives restless? Hard to top this hysterical headline Angry Gays Seek Key Role in Presidential Vote on a story that essentially confirms there is no real story here. There just aren't enough gay voters in contested states to make much of difference in the outcome.

Comments

[Josh]

Gays are already very politically active. If they want to have more impact, they need to contribute more en masse. Their income is higher than the national average, and they do not have the same sort of family commitments that straights have, so should thus have more disposable income. If they dont, frankly the democrats will not continue to lose votes for them on issues which arent viable to the general public.

[Gettysburg]

If they can't affect anything, they'll start leaving eventually.

If the defense of marriage amendment actually passes, I suspect future generations will view it the same way we view the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

[Ruthless]

Looking forward, which will have more influence on the two major parties: gays or sleeper cells?

[Fred Gillette]

When Truman won in '48 sleeper cars had more influence.

[Luisa]

Huh? Unless you've evidence that gays already vote in dramatically higher percentages than straights, they certainly could have a huge impact by turning out and voting D in even slightly higher numbers.

If the estimates of at least 10% of the population being gay are accurate, a turnout increase of a few percentage points among gays voting and voting D, could easily swing EVERY "swing state."

[Don]

"If the estimates of at least 10% of the population being gay are accurate, . . ."

They are not.

[R C Dean]

There's a joke just out reach there, trying to hook up "gay voters" and "swing state". Help me out here, guys.

[thoreau]

I very much doubt that 10% of the population is gay. I might buy that 10% of the population has at some point experimented or something, but even then I'd be skeptical.

Still, exceptionally high turnout among gay voters in Florida could be enough to help Kerry win. I have no idea if such turnout will materialize, of course.

Then again, exceptionally high turnout by ANY group could push one of the candidates over the top if that turnout was concentrated in a swing state.

[Ruthless]

RC Dean,
Help me connect swing states to sleeper cells.
'Tain't funny, but I was trying to suggest that both sleeper cells and gays are way beyond statistically significant.

I heard Michael Badnarik understands what I'm sayin'.

[Joe L.]

Uh guys, only one small point...
Dubya may be up by 10-11%, even in some battleground states. So, this "the Gays are angry" what does this mean, may very well be moot. I know, I know Rasmussen has Dubya up by 1%, but I'm going with the other polls, but I'm a Conservative Republican.

[Bill]

I don't know if gays will make a difference in this election, but if they vote for Kerry or Bush, they're fools. Neither supports gay marriage. Neither is really interested in "gay" issues. I'm afraid that gays may end up like blacks: mainly supporting one party. If one party "owns" your vote, then that party has little incentive to make concessions to gain your vote. If gays want real freedom (in the long run), they should be voting libertarian, or at least split their votes between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

I live in San Francisco. A place where gays have a huge influence on politics. Let me tell you that Gavin Newsom is a brilliant politician. He knew that allowing gay marriages in The City was a lost cause (at this point in history), but he also new that it would:

1) Win him the support of gay voters
2) Get him national and international attention
3) Secure his socially liberal bona fides

Watch Gavin Newsom. He has a good chance of being California governor and US President sometime in the future. Now, I don't want any Democrat or Republican in The White House, but a hot first lady wouldn't be all that bad. (By the way, she looks good on TV, but is scary hot in person. The closer you get, the hotter she is.)

[Douglas Fletcher]

Bill, what the hell are you talking about?

[LB]

Gays should adopt the libertarians' "Free State" model - call it the "Pink State Project" - and all move to a small/low population state to lord it up and control a three or four electoral votes.

[Meshuganer]

I agree with Josh totally. As a group, gays are much more politically active than the average American. The problem is that that a big portion (especially among activist gays) determines their politics totally on gay issues. The guy in Ohio that quit the Republican party most likely was a Log Cabin Republican (gay Republican) who are greatly dispised in the larger gay community. At least they are trying to look at the bigger political picture though getting extremely frustrated by Rep. party positions on social issues especially when used to appease the moral majority section of that party. As a gay man it's hard not to be concerned about certain issues that affect your community (even if they don't affect you as an individual). The vast number of gays and lesbians do have the time if not the money to get politically active. Do something except dishing and bitching. LB...the PINK STATE model is stupid (aren't radical Libertarians migrating to New Hampshire? and born again Christians to South Carolina?). Gays and lesbians have congregated in pink neighborhoods for years...you should see Chelsea in Manhattan. It's time for that to change......ghettoization is no good.

[ConLawFactChecker]

It has been declared in statements by most every major medical association in this country that 10% of the population is homosexual. (aside from those that are extremely christian....but they spend most of their time trying to "cure" gays rather than count them) This crosses cultural and societal boundries. About 10% of every population, no matter the country or culture is homosexual. That is a strikingly constant number for something thats supposedly a choice.