Hillary Strong with LGB Voters

A new poll, conducted by Hunter College, finds Hillary Clinton is the strong favorite among LGB voters.  The poll, a first of it's kind "ever conducted by a university-based team of scholars with a nationally representative sample of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGBs) Americans", shows Clinton with 63% of the vote, a full 41 points ahead of her closest rival.  The poll was  conducted with 768 respondents by from November 15th through November 26th, 2007.

Here is some of the sample's demographic information:


SEXUAL ORIENTATION:     GENDER:
Female                             Gay, lesbian, homosexual
51.2                                 51.1
Male                                 Bisexual
48.8                                 48.9

AGE
18-29   30-44   45-59   60+
30.2     32.2     28.6     8.9

The study found LGB voters were engaged in the political process.  About a third of respondents said they were "very interested" in politics, while just over a fifth of the studies general population characterized themselves in kind.  Over a third said they became more interested in politics during their "coming out" period.

LGBs were more likely than the general population to have contacted a government official in the past 12 months (23 percent to 16 percent).  "These levels of civic engagement indicate that gay people can have a bigger influence on public policy than suggested by their relatively small share of the population," said Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor at New York University and another of the study's investigators.

This level of involvement is important because these voters plan overwhemingly plan to participate in the primary process.
Nine in 10 LGB likely voters will vote in the Democratic primaries and 21 percent say that lesbian and gay rights will be the most important issue influencing their vote in 2008.

The three leading Democrats all score higher as viewed by the sample as supporters of gay rights than the Republicans.
72 percent of LGB likely voters consider Senator Clinton a supporter of gay rights, with Senator Obama at 52 percent and former Senator Edwards at 41 percent.  On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was at 37 percent, followed by Senator John McCain at 13 percent.

"These findings suggest opportunities.  Clinton benefits from a high turnout in this very Democratic bloc; her opponents would benefit from making their stated support for gay rights more visible to LGB voters," said Murray Edelman, a distinguished scholar at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute and one of the study's investigators.

Indeed, in a potential match up between Hillary and so-called socially liberal Giuliani, Hillary wins in a landslide, though he does slightly better than a generic Republican vs. a generic Democrat.
If the 2008 election for president were being held today, would you probably vote for the ROTATE: Republican candidate or would you probably vote for the Democratic candidate?
% of likely LGB voters   % of likely LGB voters
Hillary Clinton               The Democratic candidate
88.4                             90.8
Rudy Giuliani                 The Republican candidate
11.0                             7.9

Over all, Hillary is strongly supported by LGB voters, with her Democratic counterparts trailing far behind.

Hillary Clinton       62.8
Barack Obama      22.3
John Edwards        6.5
Dennis Kucinich     4.5
Bill Richardson      1.2
Chris Dodd           1.1
Joe Biden             1.0
Refused                0.6

The study had a number of interesting statistics.  For example, respondents by a large margin (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said it was wrong to remove transgendered americans from discrimination legislation to get it through Congress.  While enacting employment non-discrimination laws was one of the two most important policies for these LGB voters (59% ranked it as an extremely important goal, along with securing spousal benefits), surprisingly 40% of respondents believed there is a national law making it illegal to fire someone for being gay, lesbian or bisexual.

The study finds these voters are one of the most engaged social groups in american politics.  Clinton's support from these active voters could help her immensely in the nominating process and beyond.

*This study was made possible by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign.



Display:


Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (2.00 / 2)

I wonder if they polled McClurkin?


by hwc on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:35:03 PM EST

I don't think so. I'm not (none / 0)

sure that's very well known.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I did a prettier job of this on dailykos. (none / 0)

I can't figure out how to do blockquotes in color here.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:46 PM EST

Re: I did a prettier job of this on dailykos. (none / 0)

type < block Quote > to start it and < / block quote > to end it. no spaces!

same with Bold, < B > and < / B >

again no spaces


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

Andrew Sullivan, who hates both wearers of the acronym HRC, had a comment on this earlier.

PC HRC

I mean the Human Rights Campaign, not She Who Is Inevitable. Their latest commissioned poll of "LGB"s, i.e. lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, has the following demographics: 51 percent gay/lesbian/homosexual and 49 percent bisexual. On what planet is that a representative sample of any actual population? Ditto: 51 percent female. I don't know any demographer who thinks that lesbians and gay men have equal numbers in a fictional lesbian-gay community. So the poll is designed to reflect a pre-ordained political "community", rigged for PC purposes to inflate the numbers of bisexuals and lesbians. No big surprise which Democratic candidate won in a landslide: the candidate HRC has been supporting from the start.

Like Joe Klein, I have no idea if there's any validity to what he's saying, but I pass it along like a good stenographer.

Also, I think Obama's strong numbers in this survey suggest that the McClurkin thing hasn't been any sort of huge fiasco for him.  73% of respondents have a favorable opinion of him, versus 16% who have an unfavorable one.  (Dennis Kucinich, by comparison, gets only 28% favorable opinions but still has 15% unfavorables.)  52% of respondents see Obama as a "supporter" of gay and lesbian rights, versus only 11% who see him as an "opponent" of those rights.  I'm not claiming that there's no fallout at all, of course, but simply that there's no evidence of a major outcry.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:46:55 PM EST

Ok, well, is Andrew Sullivan a very (none / 0)

good source given his proclaimed bias?  I've worked in academic research. Academics are typically extremely ethical researchers. What sort of organization would fund this kind of research?  Think about that for a moment.  Further, I found the bisexual and gender ratios perplexing as well.  My guess is they choose a sample based on the ge voting sample.  As per Obama, the media didn't cover the story.  I doubt many people know about it.  Anecdotally, I sense gay men support Hillary.  Ofcourse it's only anecdotal but you assume results would be different if the gender sample were different, perhaps they would, but not necessarily to the detriment of Hillary.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, is Andrew Sullivan a very (none / 0)

Well, I certainly don't see Andrew Sullivan as objective in any way, but there's a substantive criticism in there that goes beyond the ad hominem.  I agree with you that no academic institution is likely to run a shady poll, but is he right that, for example, there are a lot more gays than lesbians out there?  I guess I don't know for sure.  This link discusses some of the difficulties in finding a clear answer.

Here's what the study says (from your link):

The Hunter College Poll was funded by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.  Sole control over the design of the study's questionnaire and analysis of the data were maintained by the study's investigators.  The survey was conducted among those who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual to Knowledge Networks, which recruits its nationally representative sample of respondents by telephone and administers surveys to them via the Internet.  The survey has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.  

# # #

METHODOLOGY.  This survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanelSM, a probability-based Panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanelSM. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides at no cost an Internet appliance and Internet service connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails three to four times a month inviting them to participate in research. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/re viewer-info.html.

Okay, so they start with a group that is demographically representative of the United States.  They then take the self-identified GLB people from that group, and ask them the survey.  That sure seems like it should get you a demographically accurate sample, doesn't it?  Maybe I should have taken that class in statistics.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, is Andrew Sullivan a very (none / 0)

I don't think that is the best way to get a sample, but I don't really know what they did.  I didn't in anyway say this study was perfect which is my I listed the demographics.  You seem a bit hostile, and I'm not sure why.  I found this interesting in two ways.  One, ofcourse I'm a Hillary supporter, and two, my bachelors degree is in social science.  i think it is exciting that academics are starting to look at this potentially powerful voting block, and so I find the study exciting.  Researchers will struggle with this for a while since it's new.  Also, someone downthread suggests women are more likely to identify as bisexual.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, is Andrew Sullivan a very (none / 0)

I'm not trying to be hostile even the tiniest little bit.  I found this very interesting and I'm glad you wrote a diary on it.

I think the reason they use this kind of methodology is that the census doesn't poll this question, so it's not like there's some kind of national list you can tap into.  And if you were to use, say, the membership list of some GLBT organization, you'd obviously be getting a sample skewed towards the more activist side of things.  I think the second link I included above discusses the fact that even to this day, no one can even tell you that there are X number of gay people in the US.

Also, there is obviously a major self-identification problem when you try to poll this group.  I mean, is Larry Craig gay?

Understand that I'm not trying to "debunk" this survey in any way.  I just wondered if anyone thought Sullivan had a valid point in there anywhere.  


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:48:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, sorry. I reall don't like (none / 0)

Sullivan.  He is always either pushing or discrediting research based on nothing more than his own personal views.

I don't think the methodology is perfect.  Far from it.  But this is a first of it's kind, so ofcourse it won't be perfect.  I do think it exciting that academics are doing this kind of research.  It's good for LGBT voters if politicians know more about how, as a social group, they are approaching the issues.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ugh...one of the biggest Clinton haters (2.00 / 0)

there is.  He was there with the rest of the hypocrites in the right wing media railing against Clinton for his lack of morality and all the while he was advertising for men willing to have sex "bareback".
I don't give a damn what people do with their sex life, but I hate hypocrites in the right wing, particularly the right wing media.
Andrew Sullivan should STFU.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (2.00 / 1)

Is he factoring that while it's true, gay males outnumber lesbians, that more women than men call themselves bisexual. So the overall balance between the total number of LGB in both genders could be roughly the same. Andrew Sulliven is a rabid Hillary hater, he'll say anything.


by Christopher Lib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting. Yeah, he's not the best (none / 0)

to trust as a source of valid criticism against Hillary.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

Correct. As for completely gay and lesbian, the numbers I've seen are somewhere around 9% for gay and 5% for lesbian. However, adding "bisexual" to the mix surely changes the numbers dramatically.

The sample was so large in this particular survey that the percentages the study came up with are probably pretty darn accurate...for something that has to be self-reported in the first place.


by hwc on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

they must have forgiven hillary for being slow to repudiate general pace's assertion that "homosexuality is immoral."


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure everyone around here knows who Andrew Sullivan is, although you'll note that I made a point to identify him as a Hillary-hater anyway.  If you took my comment to be somehow laudatory of Andrew Sullivan, then I'm sort of baffled where you got that from.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

Perhaps that's why you put it at the bottom of your diary, rather than at the top where it belongs.

After all, it was the Human Rights Campaign that, just a few weeks ago, sought to strong-arm and
publicly humiliate Barack Obama re Donnie McClurkin, while keeping conveniently mum about the
fact that Hillary Clinton has vocally anti-gay South Carolina state senator Darrell Jackson on her
campaign's payroll
to the tune of $10,000 a month -- a detail the campaign didn't bother to mention
when it rolled out Jackson's endorsement last February.

The Human Rights Campaign has been in Clinton's pantsuit pocket for years. This is well-known
and well-documented. So color me skeptical, but it's hardly surprising that a study the Human
Rights Campaign bankrolled has produced a positive headline for "their girl."

Wasn't that the idea?


by horizonr on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:03:52 PM EST

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

I openned up a similar can of worms by asking a similar questiona bout another endorsement she accepted. I was attacked as hate for asking about her accepting the endorsement while 2 days before teh same people attack Obama for being on the stage with a similar figure. It's a double standard. And I am not all that impressed by the poll of gay people because they are my people and most of them are Low  info to say the least.


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

" most of them are Low  info to say the least "

- You should know better than to make foolish generalizations , but hey its you so I guess you are just playing true to type . With an uninformed statement like that , its know wonder you are at ease when clearly embarassing yourself.

I don't know how any sensible individual will make such a sweeping generalization without any factual basis.

Didn't someone " inform " you not to speak in generalizations ?


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

it's not a generalization- do a bit of research on the point i just made.


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

lol, link the research that shows these people are low info voters please.  


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

if you truly are interested- which i doubt- go read various gay newspapers such as frontiers in LA and ny blade in ny and the paper out of DC. its stuff i've gotten by reading non main stream stuff over the years. but again i doubt your interest.


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

I agree 10000%.  HRC is in Clinton's back pocket and I'm skeptical of the survey.  Not one of my LGBT friends is a Clinton supporter.  Most are undecided right now.  

And as if HRC didn't learn anything from the first time under Clinton #1.  The only 2 major pieces of federal legislation in years against the LGBT community were heartily endorsed by Billy.  In this case I put Hill and Bill together given Hillary's responses in the LGBT forum, basically defending what Bill signed into law.

Melissa Ethridge said it best when she noted that they threw us under the bus in the 90s.  Now it's much less riskier to support LGBT people so Hillary will do the predictable - support ENDA, "review" don't ask/don't tell.  She won't try to make any real progress on substantive, riskier changes (e.g. social security benefits to partners, other marriage benefits).  Of course, only Kucinich would.  

Fortunately, LGBT issues aren't my voting issues, though I'm G.  We need someone willing to tackle the bigger problems - Healthcare, Environment, IMHO.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

human rights is basically an establishment centrist org for gays. once you understand that you understand most of  their actions. its why local orgs and new national orgs had to come into play in the 90s and this decade such as soulforce to respond to the vacuum their lack of leadership produced.


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

I feel like Bill Clinton tried to do the right thing for gays when he got in office, and the electorate wound up smacking him hard for it.  He certainly didn't set out to adopt DADT from the start.

I empathize with how Melissa Ethridge feels but I guess it all comes down to whether you give them credit for trying.  Personally, I do.  They didn't just say "you have to wait for it" like so many others do, they knew the poll numbers weren't great and they took their best shot at it anyway.

The same is true for healthcare, by the way - points for trying, or negative points for failing?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

and 2004 when he told the kerry campaign to endorse the anti marriage acts in Oh and other states- how do you explain that?


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

I understand your point.  For all the talk about Bill being an incredible politician, it was just stupid to choose gay people in the military as one of the first controversial issues to tackle.  He had no political capital at that point (didn't win a majority of votes) and it was bound to fail.

You're right - they did try.  When it failed, however, they were willing to not only not try any more, but to swing to the opposite extreme.  That's where I'm bitter toward them, and will not trust them on this issue again.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (2.00 / 2)

The Human Rights Campaign has been in Clinton's pantsuit pocket for years. This is well-known and well-documented.

So what? We've been trying to tell you for months that Clinton's strength is the fact that she has spent decades working with, and learning the issues of, all of the key Democratic Party constituent groups. She hasn't just popped up on the political scene trying to talk the talk. She's walked the walk for 35 years. She knows these people, whether it's the HRC, the Latino community, the black community, the womens groups, and so on and so forth.


by hwc on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

his point is about whether voters understand who she has accepted endorsements from, and whether this poll measures that or merely your feel good talk


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

really? hadn't heard that one.

another thing people should note, it is not uncommon for nonprofits, such as this one, reward financial support with an endorsement. that was a lesson i learned in 2003. kerry won big support from environmental groups, only to learn later on teresa heinz was a big contributor.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (2.00 / 1)

you have no credibility at all on this topic.  It is one thing to employ someone who is anti-gay (though no one has ever proved that this guy is) and it is another thing altogether to have someone who is guilty of causing teens to the mental abuse of trying to turn them straight.  
Obama gave this jerk a forum to spew his hate in public.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

and hillary benefitted from fundraiser thrown by a rap star known for his misogynistic and violent lyrics. hillary isn't the perfect angel on this score.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Darrell Jackson is anti-gay (none / 0)

Although Jackson abstained from voting on a 2005 bill for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in
South Carolina -- two of Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted for the bill -- he
indicated in remarks on the Senate floor that an amendment was a moot point, since most people in South Carolina --
himself included -- already opposed same-sex marriage.

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

How many times do you think Jackson has uttered -- or will utter -- anti-gay sentiments while Clinton is paying him?


by horizonr on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

Frank is a player. A very good guy -- I like him -- but a player. His nod is disappointing but not terribly surprising.


by horizonr on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The asterisk says it all (none / 0)

i like and respect him but this is t rue. his arguments regarding enda were totally bogus in teh end precisely because he was so focused on playing the game of politics


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (1.00 / 2)

michelle obama tonight on cspan 8:45 eastern.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:06:45 PM EST

And, how does that relate to my diary? (none / 0)


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

That's the third time I've seen this, in three different diaries.  Tr'd for spamming.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

waaaa (none / 0)

hillary supporters sure are anal.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:23:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

by the way how do you select for a group that's inheritly self idenitifying? i really dont expect you to answer but think about it.


by bruh21 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:34:11 PM EST

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

Well, the simplified version is this. Suppose you are looking for Democrats and Republicans (a common self-identified characteristic). You start by randomly dialing numbers and asking people who answer the phone whether they are D, R, or something else. You keep dialing until you have a large enough sample to cover the characteristic and demographics you are interested in.

You need a more delicate set of questions for more sensitive self-identified characteristics like religion, sexual orientation or even race (you can't tell much over the phone unless you ask).


by souvarine on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

let me give you example of my point and the problem people have polling gays-- income level- the assumption is that we have higher house hold income- but there is no way to tell that. Why? because the polls self selects


by bruh21 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

I don't understand what you mean by 'self selects'. Are you saying that given a random set of phone numbers the people who say they are gay will also report a higher income?


by souvarine on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (2.00 / 1)

"The three leading Democrats all score higher as viewed by the sample as supporters of gay rights than the Republicans."

The Republicans don't have a prayer in getting the LGB voters. At the debate last night they really shot themselves in the food on the DADT question.

Great diary book.


by lonnette33 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:54:56 PM EST

Thanks, lonnette. I really liked (2.00 / 1)

yours, as well.


by bookgrl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (2.00 / 0)

Most GBLT voters believe Obama his homophobic.  And yes, Obama is homophobic.


by truthteller2007 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 12:25:57 AM EST

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (1.00 / 0)

It's unusual to see a statement so flagrantly at odds with the facts presented, but I understand your name is ironic.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

Not so ironic when you have a candidate who thinks a Democratic "big tent" includes a homophobic ex-gay.  Believe it or not, many in the gay community are still fumed over the incident.  In order to pander to religious African-Americans, he threw the gay community under the bus.

You can not dismiss the slap on the face Obama gave to the gay community that supported him.  The gay community will show their discontent at the ballot poll.

I find it ironic that at the Logo debate in August, Obama spoke about

I am not saying Obama is homophobic.  I don't think he is.  John Edwards is the only one who seems unease with homosexuality.  However, I do think Obama is insensitive and knowingly disregarded his gay constituents in favor of a larger religious Southern voters block.


by FilbertSF on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:38:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

I did not finish my sentence:

"I find it ironic that at the Logo debate in August, Obama spoke passionately about gay rights, yet when it came time to appeal to a larger voting base (South African-Americans), all that passion seems short term.


by FilbertSF on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Strong with LGB Voters (none / 0)

I don't deny there are people who are angry with Obama about it, and I won't say they don't have a case.  But the statement "Most GBLT voters believe Obama is homophobic" is obviously ridiculous, particularly in light of these poll results.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:52:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.