08/08/2007
Poll: A 'Gay Rights' Candidate is a Swing State Loser
Do gay endorsements help or hurt candidates in swing states? Pollsters at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut attempted to find out:
"Ahead of a Thursday night debate for Democrats in Los Angeles devoted to gay issues, Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll asked about the impact of campaign endorsements by gay groups on voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, 54 percent say such endorsements make no difference, while 34 percent said it would make them less likely to support a candidate and 10 percent said it would make them more likely to back a campaign. The numbers were similar for Pennsylvania and Florida."
Said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's polling unit: "Being perceived as the candidate of gay rights turns off more voters than it attracts, although in general being considered the candidate of a special interest group seems to be a political loser."
Gay endorsements have scant impact on U.S. voters [reuters]
Related: Show 'Em Whatcha Got [newsweek]
Posted 3:10 PM EST by Andy in Election 2008, Gay Rights, News, Polls | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Is that a picture from the white party?
Posted by: davefromtampa | Aug 8, 2007 3:21:49 PM
How can gays support "Hill" when she doesn't support them? She is not for gay marriage, which means she doesn't think we have the fundamental right to marry who we love. And even if she thinks gays should be able to marry, but doesn't official support it, then she's gutless, and is letting her political aspirations supersede her moral beliefs. Either way, to smile and pose in a picture with someone like that makes me ill.
DENNIS KUCINICH IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO FULLY SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE!!
ELECT SOMEONE WHO FIGHTS FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
Posted by: Gino | Aug 8, 2007 3:29:21 PM
And those 34% who say it would make them less likely to vote for a candidate are the same people who vote republican no matter what. There's no story here.
Posted by: Tom K. | Aug 8, 2007 3:32:32 PM
Thanks, losers at Quinnipiac University, for reinforcing the accepted "wisdom." You wanna tell me there isn't an agenda behind polls like this?
Posted by: nuflux | Aug 8, 2007 3:37:02 PM
Gino, just shut the fuck up with your pointless pimping for Kucinich who couldn't be elected President of the Lollypop Guild on a national ticket. Or are you a mole for the Repugs, trying to conquer by dividing? Three words, folks: Ralph Nader, 2000.
As for Tom K. I'm sorry, but I didn't see your professional polling credentials listed. As for one who IS an expert, Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's polling unit, repeat: "Being perceived as the candidate of gay rights turns off more voters than it attracts."
Someone please rush this study to NGLTF's Matt Foreman, who's rapdily becoming the Jim Jones of the gay movment. No, thanks, Rev. Foreman, I never cared for Kool Aid.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 8, 2007 3:43:32 PM
Hmm..I actually walked away with a completely different perspective on this. It would seem that with 54% complacency and 10% support, this poll is actually a good thing. The 34% who say they oppose are the same 34% who would oppose ANY gay rights-supporting candidate, endorsement or not.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/08/poll-hrc-suppor.html
-Jeremy
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 8, 2007 3:56:27 PM
Leland brings up an interesting point. It's true that Kucinich couldn't be elected by any stretch of the imagination. Why is that? Is it really that he's way way too left-leaning for the current political climate? Or could it be a more basic and shameful reason... that he's just not photogenic at all? With all the emphasis on television debates, I wonder if we'll ever be able to elect a statesman (or stateswoman) who isn't a looker. Makes me think we'll never again have a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 8, 2007 3:56:38 PM
I guess in Leland's world a person needs "professional credentials" to state the obvious.
Posted by: Tom K. | Aug 8, 2007 3:58:16 PM
I think Jeremy's assessment is correct.
It should be little surprise that 10% will vote for the person who is perceived as pro-gay. And I'm not astounded that 34% would oppose such a person.
But would that 34% vote for them anyway? Are we thinking that these are progressives that support liberals causes... except for the gays? Or even moderates who are on the fence?
What this tells me is that small percentage in swing states that will push the vote one way or the other really just don't care what the candidate's positions are on gay issues.
And, I think, that is to be expected.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 8, 2007 4:12:07 PM
Actually Jeremy is right. I think a significant portion wouldn't vote for a gay supportive candidate at all, so for them, knowing who a gay group endorses only reinforces a prejudice that is already there. I've run into that block walking for a local State Rep. One guy only wanted to know which party the gut was. Nothing else mattered to him. When he was told he is a Democrat, his response was "I don't vote for Democrats. They're all baby killers."
I was heartened though to see that most gays are very politically active when it comes to the civic duty of voting. A new study found a whooping 92.5% of gays and 91% of lesbians voted in the 2004 election while 84% and 78% respectively voted in the midterms last fall as opposed to only 61% and 40% for the general population of eligible voters.
Indeed that ought to scare the candidates with wishy-washy, half-assed, spineless, incoherent, hypocritical positions on gay rights utterly shitless.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 8, 2007 4:17:00 PM
Leland,
I agree that Kucinich will most likely not get the nomination. Nevertheless, I (and many others) spent the last two elections voting for someone who I really didn't like (Gore and Kerry), but was the lesser of two evils.
If people actually looked at where the candidates stand on the issues, and voted accordingly, Kucinich would have a chance. I just want to let people know that there is only one candidate that supports gay marriage. And if that's important to someone, I think they should know.
I'm done giving my vote to someone just because I think they have a chance of winning. I want to vote for someone I believe in. Someone who believes that all are created equal, that the government has the responsibility to protect our rights, and has the guts to say so publicly.
As far as Nader, he was a third party candidate. And that was the actual presidential election. The issue at hand is who will get the democratic nomination. Whoever gets it will most likely be president. The nominations are the most important time to rally behind who you would ideally want to win. If Kucinich doesn't get the nomination, you won't be able to vote for him at all. So he won't be like Nader, causing a splitting of votes. So this is nothing like 2000.
Also, why do i need to "shut the fuck up?" Is this not a place to post one's opinions? Maybe you should just tell us all what to believe, that way we'd be cool like you.
Posted by: Gino | Aug 8, 2007 4:27:06 PM
Craig, the candidates aren't scared by those voting percentages. Don't forget, if 90% of gays vote, that equals only 2.7 million votes max in theory. Whereas a candidate that can get even 50% of straight votes would have 135 million votes.
Even if 100% of gays voted, there just aren't enough of us to offset all the straights.
Posted by: Gino | Aug 8, 2007 4:34:08 PM
I'm seriously starting to wonder if someone has hijacked Leland's screen name.
Leland maybe I just haven't been around enough lately to understand how you've become so angry and offended by politicians who stand up for gay rights but you seem to have a position now that is vastly different from days past.
I would like to hear more about your position on politicians openly supporting equal rights for GLBT people. Perhaps I'm just misreading your comments or perhaps I need to reevaluate my position. If anyone here can make me change my thinking, it would be you my friend.
I agree with Tom K. and my bud Jeremy from G-A-Y (AN AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME BLOG) that there is really nothing earth shattering about this poll. These are the same 30-35% rabid fundamentalist that toe the Republican line no matter what they are asked (Support for Bush 30%, Support for Iraq war 30%, support for torture 30%...).
My concern is the 10% number. Where are our straight friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. Would NONE of them be more likely to vote for a candidate that supported giving us civil rights? That truly blows my mind and disappoints me terribly. We will never win this battle without the support of straight people. If we can't count on our friends and family to be there for us then who will be?
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 8, 2007 4:44:59 PM
Actually, as someone who is familiar with polling, I've never been impressed with the work of Quinnipiac. I've very often found significant flaws in their questions -- that is when they release the full poll, which is rare.
Posted by: nycredneck | Aug 8, 2007 4:49:25 PM
Actually the study estimated the number of gay voters at close to 9 million nationwide. But even in a close election, 2.7 million could be the difference many times over.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 8, 2007 4:52:17 PM
Well that must be the same 34% who still support Bush so we must be doing something right by pissing them off.
No non-Santorum type candidate will ever get that 34%'s vote, so why bother? The only good news is that the number will get less and less as they die off due to old age.
Posted by: beergoggles | Aug 8, 2007 5:27:07 PM
RE: That study that shows outrageously high voter participation for fags/dykes
If you're referring to the preliminary survey results released by Community Marketing Inc. today on the eve of HRC/Logo's Democratic candidate "forum," the numbers are entirely meaningless.
The survey (sponsored by Absolut!) was online and participants were driven to it by ads in gay media around the country, so the pool of respondents is hopelessly skewed toward people who are already active/interested in gay life and then proactive enough to follow an ad to the survey and spend time completing it.
So CMI basically self-selected for engaged, outgoing, active queers—and then discovered that they're unbelievably politically active! The pool bears no resemblance to the gay "community" (or population) as a whole. To assess the entire community, they would have had to somehow reach a representative slice of all of gay America. They weren't interested in doing that.
Surveys like this done by marketing outfits are all designed to show gays are super-consumers who own two homes, three cars, spend $500 on clothing every month, have to have the latest gadget as soon as it hits the market, go out to a bar or club three nights a week, always drink premium brands, and take 4 vacations a year. By collecting their respondents from readers of gay media, they pretty much guarantee they'll find exactly what they're looking for.
Posted by: 24play | Aug 8, 2007 5:27:21 PM
And Gino, you're pro-Kucinich rants would be slightly more credible if you weren't dead wrong about him being the only candidate who supports marriage equality.
Posted by: 24play | Aug 8, 2007 5:29:28 PM
This does suggest that coming out does not make much difference at the polls--our str8 friends and families would prefer us str8 no matter what they tell us. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if we all just went away.
Zeke: Leland has always bristled at any criticism of the Clintons--he sold his soul to those devils a long time ago.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 8, 2007 5:38:54 PM
Whenever I see something about polls I wonder, if they only call people on land lines, what about all of us (including just about every one of my friends) that don't have land lines and therefore are not part of these polls? I'd be curious to know how many 18-30 y/o's are part of these polls. Seems to me, mostly older people, who we already know are more homophobic than younger people are probably the people who have land lines and are willing to take the time to tell a stranger what they think. I don't trust polls because I very much doubt their accuracy.
Posted by: Cameronian | Aug 8, 2007 6:40:14 PM
The Quinnipac spokesman's comment (as well as your headline) is a misreading of the poll results, as least as you state them.
If endorsement by a gay group makes NO DIFFERENCE to 54 percent of voters, and makes 10 percent MORE LIKELY to support a candidate--and if results are similar among the several states polled--then support by a gay group IS NOT a loser. Overall results for 54 percent of voters will not be affected, and for 10 percent the results will benefit the candidate.
So what's the downside? The electorate adversely affected is a third of the population. That does not sound like a "loser issue" for me. It sounds like a wash, actually.
Posted by: Kevin J-M | Aug 8, 2007 7:47:37 PM
Its election time again and the shills and hacks for the Democratic Party are crawling out from under their rocks. If they’re Democrats they have two likely choices. Hillary , and yes, its the same Hillary that played a starring role in the Bill and Hillary comedy hour but who pushed through some very unfunny legislation, namely the DOMA and DADT. Bill and Hillary just a year or so ago were saying that it was support for gays and lesbians that cost the Democrats the 2004 election and it was Bill who said ‘gay marriage is the kiss of death.” An alternative is Obama, who obstinately opposes full equality for gays and lesbians. The Republicans have fewer choices because their party is basically a front group for Pat Robertson and others who wouldn’t mind feeding us to the ovens after giving us a good shower.
Nevertheless hacks like leaders of the Stonewall Democratic Clubs, the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans will tell you that this is ‘crucial’ election and we have to vote for their party because, well, yikes, otherwise the bad guys will win.
These people live in a political closet. They witlessly shackle themselves to the parties of our enemies.
The Democratic and Republican parties have combined to pass laws like the Patriot Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, other anti same-sex constitutional law, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that trod on constitutional rights. Their agendas (getting elected and making big bucks while in office) are diametrically opposed to ours, and their only relation to us is manipulative at best. Republicans use us as a whipping boy to frighten superstitious voters and the Democrats see us only as disposable dupes who can be swindled into voting for them.
Anyone serious about fighting for equality should have long since firmly rejected the twin parties of the ruling rich and the superstitious bigots. Democrats and Republicans have little left to offer but lies as time and again these parties have betrayed the American people and our communities. Its difficult enough living with inequality but embracing it’s perpetrators like the Stonewall Democrats, the HRC and Log Cabin Republicans do is unpardonable.
It’s a loser’s game to play by their rules: being clueless, forever and again falling for the ‘lesser evil’ scam, letting people outside our movement dictate what we’ll fight for or how we’ll fight for it.
History illustrates the winning strategies. They’ve built unions, ended wars, and crushed royalist colonialism and slavery. The winning strategy doesn’t have room for timidity or stupidity but it does embrace independent political action and persistent, massive, aggressive campaigns for full equality.
The only question remaining is when to step out of political closets and into the fight for our lives.
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Aug 8, 2007 8:15:41 PM
You can debate the accuracy or inaccuracy of this and similar polls all you want. But the following numbers of record are all you need remember when debating how much we risk with absolutism.
Not getting into all that led up to it, such as the documented illegal actions and games by out-of-state Republican operatives in Florida in 2000, and the tactics of resident Republican electoral officials such as disqualifying thousands ballots of people of color because they were more likely to vote for Gore, or by their leader, the religious fanatic Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and the successful manipulation of the US Supreme Court———it all came down to this: Bush’s victory in Florida was certified based on only 537 votes. Repeat: 537 votes. Of the 5 point 8 million total votes certified, Gore lost by not 34%, not even 10%, but only point 00922 per cent. Which was less than 1/1000th of Gore’s nationwide lead of 537,179 votes. But because of the winner-take-all rule in effect in Florida, Bush’s 537-vote lead entitled him to all of Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the Presidency. Here’s a finger-licking good, lonesome trail visual to help you remember:
http://jackanapes.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/images/chrisevans2_4.jpg
Here’s a bigger version if you’d like to print it or make your desktop wallpaper.
http://jackanapes.blogs.friendster.com/./photos/uncategorized/chrisevans2_4.jpg
Slurs against me to the contrary, I will repeat what I have said before for those who misunderstand: I will vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination. But in my state’s primary I will vote for the Democratic candidate I think best stands a chance of beating the Republicans. On gay issues specifically, we remain defensive in a holy war against us and I don’t want one of our friends who is unarmed to try to win this most important of battles any more than I would want one of the enemy in the foxhole next to me.
In both the primary and general elections it does not matter what I think of them personally. It does not matter that they are not perfect, as individuals or as candidates on any issue, for I am not perfect in my simple little world so how can I expect them to be perfect in their far more complex one. And wherever they stand on all the issues that matter most to me and those I love they are light years ahead of any Republican running.
I will not vote against any Democrat because of what he/she does not yet support in relation to gay equality but for them because of all of those gay issues they unequivocably do support versus that slithering pile of Republican snakes biting each other to see who can get the farthest from relative gay-friendly positions they once claimed or hiss reiterations of their lifelong religious fascism.
And there is no reason not to believe that in Florida and other states where Republicans are still in control of the electoral process, they will not try to steal the election again. But we have to make it harder for them, realizing there's little reason to believe we can count on any significant number of gay Republicans helping us this election any more than they did in 2004 when all but "Kill A Queer for Christ" was the GOP's slogan and still an estimated 24% of gay voters chose to reelect Bush.
We do not have any votes to waste. We do not have any votes to throw away. We do not have the luxury of guessing games about how many will vote how or whether they’ll vote at all nor the luxury of holding our breath and votes until some red, white, and blue Messiah comes. The stakes are too high.
537
537
537
Posted by: Leland | Aug 8, 2007 8:58:44 PM
leland and any others, but leland in particular
You bash so many for being hypocrites yet you are hypocriticaly willing to endorse a candidate soley on "electability" as vs them standing up for us/ what is right. it is better to go down in flames for what is right than to hypocriticaly sell out for "electability. Especialy in your case since you are not only being hypocritical but hypocriticaly condeming others.
Either appologize to Gino or shut the fuck up and never condemn reichen, HRC, or anyone ever again for being sell outs.
Posted by: anon | Aug 8, 2007 9:32:45 PM
24Play,
Please enlighten me. Which other candidate(s) supports gay marriage? Not marriage "equality," but *actual* marriage. I don't want something equal to marriage, I want the real thing!
Did you watch the CNN/Youtube debates? The democratic candidates were asked about gay marriage. Just about every candidate says they support civil unions, which are bullshit. Kucinich was the only one who said (And whose voting record verifies) that he supports gay marriage. So don't take it from me 24, take it from them. And get your facts straight before you try to insult people. Thanks
Go here and listen for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0V31eBwfw
Posted by: Gino | Aug 8, 2007 9:40:19 PM
Gino is right. Kucinich is the only candidate that fully supports gay marriage. Go to his website or any place that talks about candidates on this issue and you'll see.
What were you thinking 24play?
And the word you wanted is "your" not "you're."
Posted by: Claude | Aug 8, 2007 9:52:33 PM
*Gasp!*
Really?! Swings and Reds and Fly-overs don't have a soft-spot for gay rights?! Madness I tell you! I've never HEARD such tomfoolery!
Seriously, why is this news? File this under "No shit," subcategory "election 2004"
Posted by: John | Aug 8, 2007 10:00:06 PM
My ten-year old nephew Jason is for gay marriage too. In fact he's promised to be ring bearer when my partner and I get married. But he has no chance of becoming president next year either.
Posted by: Paul | Aug 8, 2007 10:08:56 PM
all of this sound and fury regarding the differences among the democratic candidates ultimately signifies nothing. the worst of the dems is still better than the best of the repugs. we can rant about our high-flown ideals and continue tilting at windmills, or we can accept that the political process is always half a loaf. once the primaries are over, we have to rally behind the democratic nominee. to not do so, will doom us to generations of a more and more right-wing supreme court. i, like leland, find that "electability" is important. moreover, i find the counterproductive, scattershot sniping of scatterbrained nellies wholly tiresome, if not lethal. wake the fuck up!
Posted by: nic | Aug 8, 2007 10:46:42 PM
Paul it isn't about chances of being president it is about what is right.
sell out
Martin luther King and Malcolm X should have just sold out instead of sacrificing their lives for what was right.
Hell, if you are a christian then jesus should have just sold out to rome instead of going to the cross.
The founding fathers of america at the time had NO HOPE of ever defeating great britan. They should have just sold out.
Posted by: anon | Aug 8, 2007 11:22:50 PM
NIC, till the primaries it is all about what is right. After the primaries then it is any dem is better than a repub.
Till the primaries, don't sell out and do what is right. Otherwise spit on a cross and scold jesus for not selling out. Then spit on all pics of Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X for not selling out. Spit on the founding fathers who had no hope of ever defeating great britan (YET DID!)
till the primaries do what is right.
Posted by: anon | Aug 8, 2007 11:26:23 PM
Gino and Claude,
You know what makes me absolutely certain that gay supporters of Kucinich and Gravel—who support one or the other of those candidates "BECAUSE HE'S THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!"–aren't taking this election seriously? (Or maybe just aren't very bright.)
That not one of them seems to realize that the other candidate ALSO supports gay marriage. Fully! Go to HRC's site and look at their candidate report card. (HRC's not good for much, but they have provided a service by surveying all the candidates and compiling a chart to reflect their positions.)
And Gino, you get extra demerits for not knowing that "marriage equality" is the preferred term to describe full marriage rights for gays. Your term of choice, "gay marriage," is the one that suggests it would be something less than marriage as we know it.
There. Consider yourselves both enlightened now. And consider rethinking your dedication to the candidate of your choice. Gross ignorance is not a pretty position from which to choose a presidential candidate. And it's certainly not a state to pontificate from.
Posted by: 24play | Aug 9, 2007 12:02:02 AM
LELAND: BLAH!
GINO: BLAH BLAH!!
LELAND: BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
24PLAY; BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!
TONY THE TIGER: ECK.
(P.S. Are you sure that is a group of gays that Hilary is posing with???? LOOKS MORE LIKE THE GEEK SQUAD FROM BEST BUY TO ME!!!)
Posted by: TONY THE TIGER | Aug 9, 2007 1:46:29 AM
we here in connecticut think of quinnipiac as a four year version of community college.
Posted by: sean | Aug 9, 2007 4:55:11 AM
LOL@ all of you.
Leland carries on, and shows his hypocrisy (supporting a politician just because they're Democrat's is tantamount to someone supporting a politician just because they're Republican, by ignoring what the voter should be basing their decision on, i.e. the Politicians stance, we are no better than slaves to the never ending bipartisan machine).
24Play makes a few disparaging remarks towards others.
Tony the Tiger once again shows his charm and wit, and fails to produce anything relevant to the discussion (god kid, get off your parents' computer already).
...
Cameronian, Jeremy and Bill Perdue seem to be the only commentators that have well thought out points...
The rest, just a bunch of hot air looking for attention ("Love me, LOVE ME!")
Posted by: Anon 2 | Aug 9, 2007 12:35:27 PM
Gravel is the other candidate that supports gay marriage, he supports gay rights 100%. But he's even more of a marginal candidate than Kucinich. He's also not a true liberal, he's more of a Libertarian who believes in crap like a flat tax and direct democracy. He made a fool of himself on Mike Malloy's (liberal radio host) show a few weeks ago, coming off as a condescending old curmudgeon who was incapable of articulating any of his positions (the interview is on YouTube.) He's a freak, even if he's a very pro-gay freak.
Posted by: Johnny | Aug 10, 2007 6:48:29 AM
Leland, I'm surprised you would put down someone for supporting a candidate who actually supports us. I will vote for Kucinich in the primary, whether he could win the final election or not. I hate the smug way Clinton, Obama and Edwards deal with us--they throw us a few verbal bones but pretty much will always let us shift in the wind in reality because they know we have no choice. Kucinich has ALWAYS supported us and I think you putting him down says a lot about you.
A VOTE FOR KUCINICH IS A VOTE FOR SELF RESPECT!
Posted by: db | Aug 10, 2007 2:39:08 PM