Numbers show gays may have handed Democrats the Senate

[Sapphocrat]

Remember how some Democrats blamed LGBT people's push for marriage equality for the 2004 election results? Perhaps gays are now owed an apology.

The effort to defeat Virginia's proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage apparently pulled thousands of progressive voters out to the polls, sending Democrat James Webb to the U.S. Senate by the thinnest of margins and handing the upper chamber to the Democrats for the next two years. A 10-to-1 spending edge by gays and their allies depressed the final majority in favor of the amendment to 57%, a far cry from the 75% support that has typified amendment election results in the past.

A glance at the six most populous left-of-center counties and urban areas tells the story. Roughly 588,000 people voted on the marriage amendment in these regions, with nearly 60%, or about 350,000, people voting no. The other two relatively uncontroversial ballot measures passed handily. But they passed without the participation of roughly 25,000 voters who weighed in on the marriage amendment but took no stand on the other questions one way or another.

Did those voters also vote for James Webb? It appears they did. Webb won the six regions 64%–36%, taking 377,000 out of 593,000 Senate votes cast in these locations.

Statewide, Webb beat incumbent George Allen 1,175,606 to 1,166,277, a difference of fewer than 10,000 votes.

Link:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid39483.asp

(Mods, I hope you can forgive the four-paragraph rule on this one, as it is just a short blurb in its entirety.)

[emulatorloo]

1. "Democrats blamed LGBT ... for the 2004 election results" !?!?!?!?

NO, I don't remember some Democrats blaming LGBT people's push for marriage equality for the 2004 election results.

I remember Democrats blaming Diebold, Karl Rove, Fox News, Bob Shrum, Repugs for putting "Defense of Marriage" initiatives on the ballots to bring out thier crazy bigoted base in Red states, and on and on. Is this the Advocate's verstion of that ole "Some People Say" rhetorical device?

Great news about Webb and LGBT voters.

[Sapphocrat]

4. Then I guess you just didn't notice.

I'd dig up threads from 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 for you, but that would amount to calling out other DUers, so you can either take my word for it, or do a search for "New Jersey" in GD beginning approximately two weeks before November 7, 2006.

Believe it: We are blamed every time, even before elections.

[emulatorloo]

17. I take your word for it. However it isn't logical to blame anybody but the slimy

Republicans who brought their "Protection of marriage initiatives" to the ballots as a cynical move to bring out their most ignorant and bigoted voters.

So any Democrat who blames GLBT community doesn't have his/her head on straight.

[Sapphocrat]

35. I sure agree with that.

So any Democrat who blames GLBT community doesn't have his/her head on straight.

Well, "straight," to to speak. LOL

[ruggerson]

5. You must have fallen asleep right after the 2004 election

because there was a barrage of media speculation that the marriage debate supposedly energized the rightwing fundamentalist base of the Republican party. Many of them were lured to the ballotbox, so this meme goes, by the prospect of voting for various and sundry anti gay constitutional amendments or state statutes.

Right here on DU, many "liberals" blamed gays and lesbians for supposedly costing Kerry the election by tipping the balance in swing states where the marriage debate was a hot topic.

[LostinVA]

7. There were some pretty lousy threads after 2004 that I remember

Sickening.

[ThomCat]

9. Unfortunately, I do remember.

Gay marriage was used to mobilize the far right and people were positive that if we had "neutralized" the gay marriage issue the dems would have done better in the election.

The general feeling on how that issue could have been "neutralized" was that we should have shut up and let the gay marriage issue die.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Gee really? Here in Michigan there was a HUGE push for banning

gay marriage-so much so that it made it on the ballot.

Here at DU I watched my fellow "progressives" happily pushing their fellow DUers under the bus. I could give you the names and posts of the "some people" in this case, if it wasn't against the rules. In fact you can see "some" of the "people" on the front page of GD right now.

[emulatorloo]

14. OK everybody my mistake -- but I don't see how any Democrat could blame

GLBT community for the slimy tactic of Republicans pushing Hate Initiatives to bring out their bigoted base.

That's the fault of slimy Republicans.

[ThomCat]

16. I wish everyone at DU agreed with you.

But many, many people here were insisting that we were going to be responsible for Dem losses just a few weeks ago before this past election. Here. Lots of bitter stuff was said. Posts deleted. Threads locked.

Two people apologized after the election for all the talk before the election. Those two people impressed me. I was glad to see that they realized they had been wrong. But many people didn't apologize, and probably still think that we are bad for the Democratic party.

[sniffa]

39. right here on DU, some members scapegoated

toLd us to shut up and just wait for the right time.

it happened again about a month ago with the nj court ruLing.

[Withywindle]

2. That's a very important point!

I've suspected that might have had something to do with it. I grew up in VA, and I was actually pleasantly surprised by the margin of people voting against the amendment. I was afraid it would go the way of TN. *shudder* But the progressive pro-equality GOTV must have made a huge difference, and that couldn't help but help Webb. (I can't imagine many people voting against the amendment but for Allen!)

Great to have the numbers, thanks!

[iamjoy]

3. Oh, That's Good

And when the GLBT crowd and their friends become as reliable a vote for the socially progressive candidates as the Evangelicals are for the Right Wingers, maybe we can see real progress in this country.

But when we Liberals say, "OH, I'm not voting for Candidate A because he's against gay marriage and only wants civil unions" we're handing it to the people who don't think gays should have any rights at all.

I know it sound like I'm knocking GLBT here, but it's true of many of us. I was uncomfrotable with Bob Casey because he's Pro-Life. I wonder sometimes if we Democrats aren't making deals with the devil when we embrace these type candidates. But, I think of how glad I am that Santorum is gone. On the other hand, there was a Democratic Congressional candidate in my district here in Florida. I was uncomfortable with enthusiastically supporting him because he's Pro-Life, and really very moderate on many issues. But the Republican incumbent is awful - Dubya's lap dog. Sadly, he got another term.

Maybe when people realize that civil rights are important to voters and it is an issue in the voting booth we'll start seeing more progressive candidates.

[Sapphocrat]

6. You may not be "knocking GLBT"...

...but I don't think your eyes are open to the fact that we are one of the most reliable voting blocs the Democratic Party has. We vote a consistent 75% Democratic, every election. You can blame the other 25% (much of which is composed of Log Cabin Republicans) all you want, but don't diss the overwhelming majority of us who have been faithful to the party since the day we could vote.

I also think you're twisting a lot of what you hear from LGBTers on DU. Many of us -- and I am certainly one -- DETEST voting for anti-gay "Candidate A" -- but we do it anyway. We take a hit for the team every single election, and the thanks we get is hearing how we're bringing the party down.

[LostinVA]

8. Exactly -- every single gay person I know votes DEmocratic

Including me... and I'm not a registered Democratic. I'm a Democratic Socialist. We are a staunch supporter of the Dem party and its canduiadtes... even when they aren't supporters of us.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. Precisely. I vote Democratic because that is the only party close to my beliefs with a chance.

On some issues, like RKBA, many here would consider me "conservative," but when it comes to gay rights, health care, environmental issues, et cetera I am definitely to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party.

So in the end, I vote Democratic. The Republicans sure as hell don't represent me and the Dems are the only other party with a chance.

[jonnyblitz]

13. yup, I even vote for the DEM if i have to hold my nose to do it.

I would NEVER vote third party or republican (:puke: :puke:) no matter how better they may be on the gay issue. I am aware even saying i have to hold my nose DOES piss off some party loyalists (like that ASSHOLE in the other thread that got locked earlier today) but at least the DEM will ALWAYS get my vote no matter how much I complain at DU. :shrug:

[cboy4]

15. Which asshole in the other thread? I'm losing count by the hour.

:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

25. the one in the thread that was locked in the GLBT forum.

you know.

[cboy4]

27. Yup!

:puke:

[justin899]

23. This Attitude Is Precisely The Reason The Democatic Party Takes Gays Completely For Granted

I liken it to a political version of the Stockholm Syndrome. Always have to support your self-appointed heterosexual masters in the Democratic party to advance their agenda while putting ours on the back burner until the next election when they're soliciting contributions and asking for volunteers to get their worthless heteroseuxal supremacist candidates elected. Then they forget about you again until the following election. And around it goes to infinity.

They'll never EVER change this cycle unless and until self-loathers WAKE-UP and start DEMANDING their self-appointed heterosexual "betters" in the Democratic party start taking our issues seriously, and that won't happen as long as people say things like, "no, they've never passed a single gay rights bill at the federal level, but I'll just go ahead and support them anyway, because the 'alternative' is worse."

That mentality gives them license to take you for granted, and they'll be happy to do so unless you stop telling them they have your support NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.

[jonnyblitz]

26. I hear you. nt

[ThomCat]

38. Well said.

:applause:

[closeupready]

51. And considering that there are some

Republicans who do support equal rights for gays and lesbians, dems can't afford to support anything less.

Also, let me repeat that it is especially important to keep the heat on pre-primaries when there is more competition.

[iamjoy]

50. True, I Hear A Lot Of Hard Headedness Here

the attitude of if a candidate doesn't perfectly match all of their views, they won't vote for them.

Maybe that's just blowing off steam and people end up voting for the candidate anyway.

AND, my conclusion that GLBT & friends aren't as reliable a vote for the more progressive candidates as the Evangelicals are for the reactionary candidate is based on this - other than what happened this year, we've been losing more than we win the past few elections. That means one of two things, Evangelicals outnumber GLBT & friends OR people friendly to gay rights can't be counted on to vote that way as consistently as people who oppose them. Why else would gay marriage bans pass in almost every state they appear on the ballot?

[ThomCat]

10. Despite the Log Cabin Republicans

We are as stable a base for the Democratic party as the Unions. We are such a stable base for Democratic campaigns that the republicans don't even bother trying to campaign to reach us. What does that tell you?

"Family Values" or not, if the republicans thought they could get votes from us they'd be campaigning in our publications and anyplace they could reach us.

[NMMNG]

28. WTF?

With the exception of the small faction of gays who belong to the "Log Cabin Republicans" we GLBTs are the strongest, most consistent base the Democratic candidates have. This makes me wonder why they feel ok constantly throwing us under the bus every time an election comes up or the RW starts making waves.

Or perhaps it is the very fact that we are so loyal that they feel comfortable doing so....

[readmoreoften]

32. Huh? Wuh?

Gays have been a reliable dem voting bloc since "gay voting bloc" has been an identifiable phenomenon. What is happening is that GLBT people are beginning to say "Huh? 20 years of being a reliable voting bloc and all I get is this stinking gaybash." You can't continually fuck over your base. Eventually, like an abusive relationship they leave.

All dems have my vote guaranteed until 2009. That's my answer. And not just over same-sex marriage. Over the whole magilla. If they don't move back to the center by then, the relationship is over. If we win 2008 and stay right of center then the party will never swing back. If we don't win 2008, then the party will be obsolete-- most likely from pandering to the right.

We'll see what the new Congress brings. I hope these guys have tits. For all our sakes.

[Sapphocrat]

33. Actually, that's the one way in which I almost feel empathy for the fundy zealots.

What is happening is that GLBT people are beginning to say "Huh? 20 years of being a reliable voting bloc and all I get is this stinking gaybash." You can't continually fuck over your base. Eventually, like an abusive relationship they leave.

And that's exactly what the evangelicals are doing -- realizing they got suckered for a few decades, and leaving the GOP.

Not that I'm suggesting we do the same at this junction -- just underscoring your point.

I'm in agreement with you about 2008. We lose that, we lose it all -- and I can't imagine spending the rest of my life as a chicken working for Colonel Sanders.

[Jamastiene]

36. Just exactly who do you think we are voting for anyhow?

The only gays who don't vote for progressive dems are the Log Cabin Repugs. :shrug:

[sniffa]

40. sorry

i ain't gonna do it. i aLready covered this in the Locked thread, but here it is again:

in this past eLection,
anyone against marriage in my state (masshoLe) did not get my vote, regardLess of their party affiLiation.

fuck them.

our state reps, and state senator for our city (quincy) aLL voted for the constitutionaL amendment writing descrimination into our state constitution; aLL 3 are democrats; aLL 3 ran unopposed; and aLL 3 got a write-in candidate from me - asshoLe.

to be fair however, one of our reps apparentLy had a change of heart, because he voted to recess the convention Last week - effectiveLy kiLLing the amendment.

[Bluebear]

49. Yeah, that's gay people, they don't know civil rights are important.

[cboy4]

18. Watch what happens next kids. Anything gay-related over the

next two years.....SHHUUSSHHH!!

We don't want to rock the boat and lose congress in 08 (you know, the way we thought the gays would lose it for us this year.)

Plus, we certainly want the presidency in 08, so STFU about that gay marriage bullshit.

When it comes to the gays, it's okay to negotiate for their equal human rights.

Can you imagine the outrage if African American civil rights issues were being used for political purposes right now?

I would be one of the outraged.

We have the momentum to get things done. We cannot and must not lose the spine we grew during this election cycle.

People's lives are riding on this.

The Democratic Party can continue expecting to receive all of my votes.

But at the very least, human rights for all should be signed, sealed and delivered immediately for our long standing support.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. No one blamed the LGBT community.

We blamed the bigoted assholes that voted against you. Big, big difference. And there is no question that tipped the election in 2004.

[justin899]

21. The Hell They Didn't

Yes, they most certainly DID explicitly blame the GLBT community for the loss of Dems. I lost count at the number of threads and posts on allegedly "progressive" message boards which had happy-go-lucky heterosexual supremacists whining about gays having the audacity to "bring up gay marriage now" when in reality it was the bigots who "brought it up" by authoring anti-gay amendments (most of which had little or no opposition from the Democratic party which was using 'states rights' arguments against the federal amendment rather than equality under the damn law).

And there is no question that tipped the election in 2004.

No, what "tipped" the election in 2004 was the fact that the Democratic party ran meek candidates who were afraid of their own shadows.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Well said!

And welcome to DU! :toast:

[nofurylike]

31. YES!! well said, justin899! eom

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Then cite them.

I call bullshit. Furthermore, "dozens" in a community of over 90,000 members is hardly widespread blame, nor is it indicative of the community as a whole.

[ThomCat]

47. It's hard to cite posts that have been deleted.

And while 90k people may have rotated through DU that does not mean there are 90k active people here.

It would be nice to know for sure how many people are actually active here, but I don't think there is any way to know. But regardless of that number, Dozens of people on any one issue is significant here. If you had a few dozen people backing you up I think you'd think that was rather impressive.

[Sapphocrat]

24. Don't MAKE me get a post deleted...

...by posting the dozens of threads that indeed blame us.

Seriously, dude, did you sleep through all that?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Go ahead and do it. (nt)

Furthermore, "dozens" in a community of over 90,000 members doesn't exactly show widespread blame.

[Sapphocrat]

46. Go ahead and do it...

...and break DU rules. As much as you might enjoy that, I wouldn't.

I've already told doubters what to search for. You've got a star. Start searching.

[foreigncorrespondent]

34. Yeah right!

I can't count how many bloody times I have come to defend my U.S. LGBTIQQ DU brothers and sisters because they were taking a hammering from so called progressives, right here at DU. And if you don't believe me, then do a search on my name going right back,. You will bloody well see it for yourself. And believe me, it will be a real eye opener for you.

[Jamastiene]

37. Yeah, but y'all didn't exactly tell the bigoted assholes

to shut up and wait for rights until after an election. That, in plain view, IS blaming us. Saying that because we wanted equal rights, we were jeopardizing this election based on what happened last election cycle...if that isn't an example of blaming GLBT people, I don't know what is.

[sniffa]

41. ...

:loveya:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. bullshit!

there were millions of threads before and after of how gay marriage wrecked the election for us.

right before this election, there was a prediction that the NJ ruling was going to wreck the elections for the dems.

[ThomCat]

48. You're wrong on this.

There were a lot of posts saying that we were making our rights an issue at the wrong time, that we were costing the party votes, that we should concentrate on more important issues instead that weren't controvercial, etc.

If you overlooked all of that, or just didn't bother to pay attention, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[libnnc]

53. I would respond heatedly to this person's comment.....

But interestingly enough, there's an "Ignore" where their post should be.

That's prolly good for me, seeing as I have very little patience for bullshit of late.

Y'all are doing a damn fine job though. :hi:

[closeupready]

52. I remember one DU member

in early 2004, if I recall correctly, who essentially made a kind of vague warning that he/she would work against GLBT causes in the future unless GLBT's accepted civil unions instead of marriage, "here and now"! :eyes: So, yes, intolerance does exist on this board.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. And will we ever get even a nod of gratitude? Of course not!

We will, all always, be ignored until early 2008. Then the Dem campaigners will start telling us how we have no choice to vote for Democrats, because Democrats only want to ignore us, not kill us outright like the GOP wants.

[nofurylike]

29. very well said, TechBear_Seattle!

"because Democrats only want to ignore us, not kill us outright like the GOP wants"!!

YES!! THAT is the crux of it!

an old sarcastic saying we used to use in stonewall days: "thank you for not killing me today"

arrgh....!!


peace and solidarity, always!

[nofurylike]

30. thank you for this information, Sapphocrat! i hope it sinks in here,

and with dems everywhere! acknowledgment long-overdue!!


peace and solidarity, always!!

[terrya]

45. Great post

Needless to say, once again, we won't get a damned thing from our important contribution. Christ, I'd be surprised if the Democratic Party even acknowledged it.

Sorry, I'm in a cynical mood right now.