Exit polling shows 1/3rd gays voted Republicans.

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut

kokonut

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
16,001
Reaction score
2
Exit polling reveals that gay and lesbian voters played a critical role in the Republican Party’s historic gains in the U.S. House on Tuesday night. According to CNN, 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House. This number is a dramatic increase from the 19% GOP House candidates won among gay voters in 2008. “Exit polling makes it clear gay voters played an important role in bringing conservative leadership to Congress,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies. “It also proves something we have been saying for months now – that the Tea Party’s message of limiting government is something that appeals to many gay Americans.”

“The gay left would have you believe that gay conservatives don’t exist. Now we see that almost a third of self-identified gay voters cast ballots for Republican candidates for Congress in this year’s mid-term,” continued LaSalvia. “This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch so-called leadership of Gay, Inc. in Washington, D.C., which has become little more than a subsidiary of the Democrat Party.”
Click to expand...
» Exit Polling Shows Gay Voters Played Important Role in Republican Victories in the U.S. House
 
Another one of these? Holy smokes, only 2/3rds of gay voters voted against Republicans! Stop the presses!
 
Means nothing - There are more democrats than republicans. It doesn't mean they'll always be the "majority."
 
30% is a hefty slice of that pie. No one can deny that.
 
netrox said:
Means nothing - There are more democrats than republicans. It doesn't mean they'll always be the "majority."
Click to expand...
Actually, it does means a lot.

First off, most reasonable people don't have sworn party loyalty; they are not going to be a Republican or Democrat for life. Second off, it has been roughly four years since the gay marriage legality and DADT policy was on the table of political issues. Yes, it's still an issue now, but it's no longer a hot topic since the Supreme Courts are addressing those issues at the moment. Now the hot button issue is about the economy, immigrations and the upcoming healthcare.

When we see the issue of gay rights being the center of political campaigns, we will see more gays and gay supporters being involved... but now it is on the backburners for many people.

So 30%? All it tells us is that people are not loyal to a party for life. Let not turn this into a "minority" or "majority" debate.
 
kokonut said:
30% is a hefty slice of that pie. No one can deny that.
Click to expand...

Really? So if Republicans controlled 30% of Senate and HR, that would be "a hefty slice" of lawmakers that you favor? Or would it be a disaster?
 
Not surprised but I think it is great news about Republican Party is start moving into mainstream with gay rights.

I think that Republican Party need drop anti-gay rights from their national platform and it will be up to candidates to support or not.

During Bush Admin, there were strong anti-gay rights in Republican Party but went fade out in after 2006 since they care about fiscal issues more than social issues.

That why about people need read the candidate's background and political views instead of vote on party.
 
netrox said:
Means nothing - There are more democrats than republicans. It doesn't mean they'll always be the "majority."
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate gay voters, man.
 
saywhatkid said:
Really? So if Republicans controlled 30% of Senate and HR, that would be "a hefty slice" of lawmakers that you favor? Or would it be a disaster?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about control here but about demographics. 30% is a hefty slice of that demographic pie of those who voted for Republican candidates.

Besides, controling 30% of the Senate and HR doesn't make any sense here. Already Republicans in the HR make up 56% (assuming 245R and 190D) of the chamber. What do you mean by "controlled 30%" of Senate and HR??
 
kokonut said:
I'm not talking about control here but about demographics. 30% is a hefty slice of that demographic pie of those who voted for Republican candidates.

Besides, controling 30% of the Senate and HR doesn't make any sense here. Already Republicans in the HR make up 56% (assuming 245R and 190D) of the chamber. What do you mean by "controlled 30%" of Senate and HR??
Click to expand...
Which would be better for the candidates; to get 30% of the vote, or 70%?

I am not ripping on the Republicans here. The fact that gays are voting for Republicans more than before is either a condemnation of Democrats, or an endorsement of Republicans. Maybe a little of each. Still, 30% looks kind of small to me.

Nice way to remind us, yet again, that Republicans have taken over half the seats in HR. :shock:

My comparison of percentages was not intended to reflect the current levels, but to show that 30% is not exactly a winning thing. Simple math from a simple mind. :wave:
 
saywhatkid said:
Which would be better for the candidates; to get 30% of the vote, or 70%?

I am not ripping on the Republicans here. The fact that gays are voting for Republicans more than before is either a condemnation of Democrats, or an endorsement of Republicans. Maybe a little of each. Still, 30% looks kind of small to me.

Nice way to remind us, yet again, that Republicans have taken over half the seats in HR. :shock:

My comparison of percentages was not intended to reflect the current levels, but to show that 30% is not exactly a winning thing. Simple math from a simple mind. :wave:
Click to expand...

When you go from an 18% slice to a 30% slice in two years time, that's a 75% change in difference percentage-wise. So, yes, it is a substantial shift and slice of the demographic pie when you include everything else cumulatively. It is a substantial change like it or not. It's not like a 1, 2 or 3% gain but a 75% gain on the percentage of voters here. The time span of two years and the increase jump on the number of voters who voted mostly Republicans are something that need to be considered here.

The three important issues on the ballot on November 2nd were 1) the economy, 2) the economy and 3) the economy. Everybody knows that, hence the massive shift in power in the House.
 
and many gay people are upset with Obama because of fail to expand the gay rights during 2 years in office - only change is passed the hate crime bill, that it.
 
"and many gay people are upset with Obama because of fail to expand the gay rights during 2 years in office - only change is passed the hate crime bill, that it."

And Republicans still opposed the hate crime bill and still oppose gays in military and still oppose gay marriages.

Obama not only passed hate crime but also extended benefits to partners of gay federal employees.
 
netrox said:
"and many gay people are upset with Obama because of fail to expand the gay rights during 2 years in office - only change is passed the hate crime bill, that it."

1st - And Republicans still opposed the hate crime bill and still oppose gays in military and still oppose gay marriages.

2nd - Obama not only passed hate crime but also extended benefits to partners of gay federal employees.
Click to expand...

You don't know how to quote my post.

1st - Not all, mostly are but slowly to change.

2nd - Not enough, also Obama defends DADT because of appeal against lower court ruling.
 
netrox said:
TXgolfer, let GOP prove it in next two years.
Click to expand...

The GOP in the House can't.....they just inherited an economic nightmare. :)

They have no power in the senate.
 
TXgolfer said:
The GOP in the House can't.....they just inherited an economic nightmare. :)

They have no power in the senate.
Click to expand...

hence.... this is a tiny gain for GOP :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top