Dean Has Strong Lead Among Gay Voters

[Queersetti]

Poll: Dean Has Strong Lead Among Gay Voters_
by Peter Moore
365Gay.com Newscenter_
London Bureau



(Syracuse, New York)_ Former Vermont governor Howard Dean is the leading choice of gay voters according to a poll released today.

The online survey, taken by the S.I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University and OpusComm Group a marking company that specializes in the LGBT communty, asked: "If the 2004 presidential elections were held today, for whom would you vote?"_

Dean, who was the architect of Vermont’s civil union law received 37% support. Among the other Democratic contenders for their party's nomination in 2004 Dick Gephardt (D), John Kerry (D), and Joe Lieberman (D) each received 4% of the vote. Carol Moseley-Braun, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton each received 2.5% of the vote or less.

George W. Bush, the Republican incumbent, garnered 5.7% of respondent votes, while another 3% prefer a third party contender.

Dean was the clear favorite among all age groups surveyed. His popularity increases from 32% in the 18-24 year old group to more than 45% of respondents 55 and older. Overall, 35% of survey respondents have not yet made up their minds who to vote for in 2004.

Nearly 8,000 people responded to the survey taken in July and August.

The survey suggests that choices made by GLBT voters could have a marked impact on the 2004 elections. "Ninety-two percent of our respondents are registered to vote, as opposed to the national average of 69.5% according to the 2000 U.S. Census," explains Jeffrey Garber, president of OpusComm Group Inc. "This reinforces our findings that the GLBT community is a strong voting block that takes their politics seriously."

"One interesting finding is that the percentage of undecideds decreases with age," said Amy Falkner of Syracuse University, lead researcher on the project. "While a sizable portion of 18-24-year-old respondents have yet to make up their minds, older respondents are much more sure whose camp they are in. Since we know historically that voting participation increases with age, those candidates listed are likely to see strong support from the GLBT community."

 

[Temptress_1960]

I would hope that the GLBT voters will have a strong voice in this coming election.

Also, those who may not themselves be GLB or T, but who have strong feelings of advocacy on these issues.

You've got one candidate with a track record of signing civil unions into law - perhaps not the more complete solution wanted by many, but definitely more than any other state has enacted up to this point.

And you've got other candidates who have never approached the issue, whether through political wariness or personal prejudice.

Then there are those who are vehemently opposed to any sort of civil rights for GLBT people.

So make your choice, and if it's important to you, work on his or her behalf.

 

[Pookie]

I think the GLBT commmunity can have a major impact on the election, especially a close one. Bush is in big trouble too ...

POLL ANALYSES

September 12, 2003

Bush Job Approval Tumbles to 52%
Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose Bush request for $87 billion in funding for Iraq

by Frank Newport
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped significantly over the last two weeks, and now, at 52%, is at its lowest point since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and within one point of the lowest rating during his presidency. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of Bush's performance, 43%, is the highest measured since he took office. Bush's job approval rating on his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped from 57% to 51%, and a slight majority of Americans say Congress should not authorize Bush's request for $87 billion in additional funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Bush Job Approval Drops Seven Points in Two Weeks

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday night of this week. The president's 52% job approval rating in the poll is seven points lower than the 59% he received in Gallup's previous poll conducted two weeks ago.

http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030912i.gif

Bush received approval ratings in the 50% range through most of the seven months between his inauguration in late January 2001 and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sept. 7-10, 2001, Bush's rating was at 51% (still the lowest approval rating of his term) and his disapproval rating was 39%.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's job ratings jumped as high as 90% as part of a general rally effect in which the public gave extremely high ratings to many government entities. Bush's ratings gradually dropped in the months after Sept 11. By the first months of this year, his ratings were in the high 50% range.

The beginning of the Iraq war pushed his ratings upward to 71%, but they began to fall again shortly thereafter. Most recently, Bush's job ratings were in a narrow 58%-to-60% range across four Gallup Polls conducted between mid-July and late August. The current 52% approval, 43% disapproval rating is the most negative of the administration. This marks the first time that his disapproval rating has been above the 40% level.

Bush Holds On to Slim Lead Over Democratic Challenger in Presidential Race

An incumbent president's job approval rating is usually correlated with his standing in pre-election horse race polls. Consistent with this pattern, the current poll shows that Bush's re-elect numbers have fallen concomitantly with his approval rating. Bush was leading the "Democratic candidate" by 12 points among registered voters in late August. His lead now has shrunk to only four points, 47% to 43%:

http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030912ii.gif

The biggest change from late August has been among Republicans. Although an overwhelming majority of Republicans in both polls say they would vote for Bush, 88% of them now say they are likely to vote for Bush, compared with the 95% who said so in August. There were only slight changes among independents and Democrats.

More at the link below.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030912.asp

 

[SensualMan]

We'll see how it goes...

"George W. Bush, the Republican incumbent, garnered 5.7% of respondent votes, while another 3% prefer a third party contender."
- Isn't that interesting, Bush got higher numbers than all of the other democratic candidates. It will also be interesting to see how Clark and Edwards entering the race affect those numbers.


"The biggest change from late August has been among Republicans. Although an overwhelming majority of Republicans in both polls say they would vote for Bush, 88% of them now say they are likely to vote for Bush, compared with the 95% who said so in August. There were only slight changes among independents and Democrats."

- That kind of goes against the typical stereotype that Republicans are just rank and file voters that obdiently follow their candidate, doesn't it? If Bush loses this election, it will not be because a democrat beats him, it will be because republican voters beat him by supporting another candidate.


As for the election, there is way too much time until the election to start taking the numbers too seriously now. There are many things that could happen between now and next November that could affect Bush's approval ratings. One major factor will be the economy, that is what most single issue voters care about. Every economic indicator is showing that the economy is in the middle of a major turn around. The slump from the last 4 years is over and that will influence a lot of voters. Also, the incumbent always has the advantage when it comes to undecided voters. So if you want a number to watch, keep an eye on the number of undecided voters going into November next year. Personally, I hope he gets beat by another republican candidate in the primary, but that won't happen.

It is definately going to be an interesting campaign season, and I can't wait for Hillary to announce that she is going to run. If you think California is a circus...wait until we have a dozen or so democrats running for President! Talk about a party with no vision or platform and suffering from a lack of new ideas....The democrats can definately defeat themselves too. With all the candidates running in the primary, there is going to be a lot of mud slung within the party. Bush will be able to run a really clean campaign against the democratic nominee because all of the dirt will already be out on all the democrats. That will also help Bush, he will come off looking like a good guy.

And as for the GLBT voting block, I don't think most candidates are too worried about that one yet. Sure they pay them lipservice, but let's be honest....it is not a large enough voting block to swing an election. It should really be referred to as the GL voting block. Most issues that are of real concern are not critical issues to bisexuals. Issues like gay marriage and legalized unions and such don't mean a whole lot to the majority of bisexuals. Basically, gays and lesbians make up about 6 or 7% (and that may be generous) of the population, and if 95% of them are registered to vote, that makes up about 6% of the total population. Count in registered voters and maybe 10% of registered voters will be gay or lesbian. That is a good number, but not large enough to swing an election. Especially since it appears that while most gays and lesbians lean to the left, most are not single issue voters. If they were, Dean would have much higher numbers among gays and lesbians because he has proven himself to be the most progressive candidate in his party on gay issues.

 

[Pookie]

Re: We'll see how it goes...

It should really be referred to as the GL voting block. Most issues that are of real concern are not critical issues to bisexuals. Issues like gay marriage and legalized unions and such don't mean a whole lot to the majority of bisexuals.

Quote your source for this.

 

[SensualMan]

You need to just give up pookie...

Sweetie....read the article that was posted.

"Dean, who was the architect of Vermont’s civil union law received 37% support. Among the other Democratic contenders for their party's nomination in 2004 Dick Gephardt (D), John Kerry (D), and Joe Lieberman (D) each received 4% of the vote. Carol Moseley-Braun, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton each received 2.5% of the vote or less."

- Isn't 4% of the vote less than 5.7%? Because right there in black and white, it says Dean got 37%.....the next closest were Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman, each with 4%. If Bush has 5.7%...he had more support than each of those 3. It is basic math, do you need to get a calculator? Bush did not get higher numbers than the rest of the candidates combined, and if you read it that way then that is your mistake, not mine. Bush got higher numbers than all but one, Dean, of the democratic candidates. I for got that I have to break thing down to a grade school level for you, so maybe it is my fault.

The evidence for my statement about bisexuals is purely anecdotal based of my experiences. If you have evidence that proves otherwise I am all ears and will openly admit that I was wrong on that assumption. My suspision is that you don't have any evidence though, just challenging my assertion, which you have every right to do. But the beauty here is, if you can't disprove my statement, then while it may not be true, it at least has not been proven false. And if you look in the study, in black and white it says it was a poll of gay voters.....so even researchers are treaing it as the gay and lesbian voting block.

"Former Vermont governor Howard Dean is the leading choice of gay voters according to a poll released today."

 

[Pookie]

Re: You need to just give up pookie...

Sweetie....read the article that was posted.

Opps. Sorry, my bad.

 

[Pookie]

Re: You need to just give up pookie...

If you have evidence that proves otherwise I am all ears and will openly admit that I was wrong on that assumption. My suspision is that you don't have any evidence though, just challenging my assertion, which you have every right to do.

I don't have evidence to prove you wrong. But I didn't make the bold claim that you did. So I'm asking you to provide a foundation for it.

The evidence for my statement about bisexuals is purely anecdotal based of my experiences.

Explain some of your experiences then.

Also, are you bisexual? Are you gay?

 

[SensualMan]

Experience...

My experiences are varied enough to have some knowledge of the subject. As for my sexuality, I would say that I am a non-practicing bisexual. I have tried it in the past and found it to be enjoyable, and I may try it again someday in the future. As for now, I am in a marriage that is not worth losing over it. Do I miss it? Yeah, maybe a little. Do I miss it enough to lose my marriage over? No, not even close. I don't miss that part of my life any more than I miss being with other women. That is the beauty about being a human being with the power to reason that we have, I can make decisions about my lifestyle. I can choose not to act of impulses and desires.

I had the opportunity of making a lot of bisexual and gay friends in college, even rooming with a friend of mine that was gay one year. My experience is that when it comes to sexuality, most bisexual people I know consider themselves more straight than gay; their attraction to the same sex is more recreational, while their attraction to the opposite sex is emotional. Anyway, like I said, it is my experience that on "gay issues" in politics, most bisexuals I have know tend to relate more with straight people. And all that means is that issues like gay marriage for example are not burning issues for bisexuals, it is not an issue they would refuse to vote for a candidate over. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is just my experience. Yours may be totally different.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Experience...

And all that means is that issues like gay marriage for example are not burning issues for bisexuals, it is not an issue they would refuse to vote for a candidate over. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is just my experience. Yours may be totally different.

Quite often in the past, once you get down to the wire and you effectively are choosing between two candidates in a national election, it's been pretty standard that neither of them is much of an advocate for gay rights.

In this presidential election, that may change. Dean doesn't just talk the talk, he has walked the walk, so to speak. And believe me, enacting civil unions in Vermont was not a picnic. There was a great deal of opposition, and a great deal of divisiveness over the issue. Signs that read "Take Back Vermont," town clerks angry at being forced by law to issue licenses for civil unions, a perception that Vermont would become a "gay Mecca."

For me, Howard Dean's stand on gay rights/civil unions is the one thing that would cause me to vote for him.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I dunno...are you guys really willing to vote for someone based on this single issue?

 

[Queersetti]

I dunno...are you guys really willing to vote for someone based on this single issue?

I'm not. But on the other hand, I would categorically rule out voting for anyone I thought was hostile to gay rights.

I am leaning towards Dean, but that is based on his position on a variety of issues.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I'm not. But on the other hand, I would categorically rule out voting for anyone I thought was hostile to gay rights.

I am leaning towards Dean, but that is based on his position on a variety of issues.

Oh sure, voting AGAINST someone is another thing entirely!!

Vote for Wesley Clark...he is rather progressive, and could actually trump the traditional Republican hold during wartime.

 

[Queersetti]

Oh sure, voting AGAINST someone is another thing entirely!!

Vote for Wesley Clark...he is rather progressive, and could actually trump the traditional Republican hold during wartime.

I'll be giving Clark a good listen. I am still very open to most of the candidates.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, all I can say is, almost any Dem will be better for this country than Bush...and I think the GBLT community will be best served by voting for the most likely Democrat, rather than the one who is best on your specific issues, but who maybe doesn't have as good of a shot. Just look at the damage that Bush has done, and imagine if Nader's supporters had voted for Gore instead.

 

[Queersetti]

Well, all I can say is, almost any Dem will be better for this country than Bush...and I think the GBLT community will be best served by voting for the most likely Democrat, rather than the one who is best on your specific issues, but who maybe doesn't have as good of a shot. Just look at the damage that Bush has done, and imagine if Nader's supporters had voted for Gore instead.

I agree with you.

But I would point out that one of the things any successful candidate has to do is energize his base voters. Look at the 2002 Congressional elections, for example. While poll after poll showed a majority of the voters were more in agreement with the Democrats than with the Republicans on almost every issue, the GOP won the majority of races because they did a much better job of mobilizing their base.

The candidate who can best reach out to independent voters while energizing the party's base can the greatest chance of success.

This is one reason why I can't support Kucinich, who has absolutely no chance of appealing to moderate voters, or Leiberman, who would not be able to bring out the base.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I agree with you.

But I would point out that one of the things any successful candidate has to do is energize his base voters. Look at the 2002 Congressional elections, for example. While poll after poll showed a majority of the voters were more in agreement with the Democrats than with the Republicans on almost every issue, the GOP won the majority of races because they did a much better job of mobilizing their base.

The candidate who can best reach out to independent voters while energizing the party's base can the greatest chance of success.

This is one reason why I can't support Kucinich, who has absolutely no chance of appealing to moderate voters, or Leiberman, who would not be able to bring out the base.

I agree completely...and I like Kucinich! I just don't think he can make a serious run of it. I think we are down to Den, Kerry, and possibly Clark, and I hope that we can get together behind one of them, even if he isn't the ideal candidate.

 

[SensualMan]

Wesley Clark....

I think you guys are going to find out in the next few weeks that Clark does not have much chance for a number of resons. The biggest reason is that he is entering the race too late in the game. He has no solid voter base yet, he is so far behind in fundraising, and the media exposure he has now will start to fade away. He is hardly a trump card to the mostly true argument that liberals are weak on defense. Sure he was a General, but he became a general under Clinton, and was successful under a Clinton led military.

Just an observation I have noticed over the last few days.....what makes Clark more qualified that Bush? I heave heard many of the political commentators that talk about Bush having no experience saying that Clark would make a good President. What political experience does Clark have that qualifies him? At least Bush was Governor of one of the largest states in the country. I am not saying Clark is not qualified, I am just wondering if anyone else has noticed this apparent double standard and has an ideas about why it exists. It seems to me that liberals place a lot of importance on political experience when it comes to the ability to govern.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Re: We'll see how it goes...

[B And as for the GLBT voting block, I don't think most candidates are too worried about that one yet. Sure they pay them lipservice, but let's be honest....it is not a large enough voting block to swing an election. It should really be referred to as the GL voting block. Most issues that are of real concern are not critical issues to bisexuals. Issues like gay marriage and legalized unions and such don't mean a whole lot to the majority of bisexuals. =[/B]

As a bisexual, I only have one thing to say...

Fuck You Asshole

Exactly why wouldn't I give as much weight to a candidates stance on gay marriage?

As a bisexual woman, I am just as likely to marry a woman as I am a man. Beyond that, as a member of the community, I happen to give a damn about gay marriage, and legal equality under the law for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Wesley Clark....

I think you guys are going to find out in the next few weeks that Clark does not have much chance for a number of resons. The biggest reason is that he is entering the race too late in the game. He has no solid voter base yet, he is so far behind in fundraising, and the media exposure he has now will start to fade away. He is hardly a trump card to the mostly true argument that liberals are weak on defense. Sure he was a General, but he became a general under Clinton, and was successful under a Clinton led military.

This is Limbaugh-speak. Becoming a general under Clinton is exactly like becoming a general any other time...harder, in fact, because of the manpower cuts. Also, let's be honest...the Republicans in power now were mostly draft-dodgers. Find me an active-duty Vietnam veteran among the Bush administration.

Just an observation I have noticed over the last few days.....what makes Clark more qualified that Bush? I heave heard many of the political commentators that talk about Bush having no experience saying that Clark would make a good President. What political experience does Clark have that qualifies him? At least Bush was Governor of one of the largest states in the country. I am not saying Clark is not qualified, I am just wondering if anyone else has noticed this apparent double standard and has an ideas about why it exists. It seems to me that liberals place a lot of importance on political experience when it comes to the ability to govern.

Well, Bush was governor of Texas, which means he is qualified to be mayor of a mid-sized city. Texas has an intentionally weak governor, by design, so Bush didn't actually gain a whole lot of leadership experience. Further, the leadership positions that Clark has held are real jobs, not Poppy-funded springboards for political gain. Plus, what about the double standard of 'Bush will find advisors to actually run things' that was used 3 years ago?

 

[SensualMan]

Johnny....

"Plus, what about the double standard of 'Bush will find advisors to actually run things' that was used 3 years ago?"

- It's not a double standard, I was just asking the question. Liberals were quick to question Bush's credentials, but seem to jump on board the Clark bandwagon when he has no political experience at all. Just an observation, not a judgement. You talk about being the Governor of Texas as if it is nothing, but it is at least political experience...learning to work in a system and compromise with another party.

As for your expertise on how difficult it is to become a general under any President...where did you got that information? Is it first hand or something you read somewhere? I'm just trying to find out how your opinion is somehow more valid than mine on that issue. As for Bush and his cabinet being draft dodgers, that is a matter of opinion; last time I checked, military service was not a requirement to be President.


And as for you deliciously_naughty, why don't you grow up and control that mouth of yours? I made it clear in my post that I was giving my opinion based on my experience, just because your has been different, don't come on here and swear at me. I never tried to pass it off as fact, never even tried to conceal that it was purely opinion based off my experiences.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Johnny....

"Plus, what about the double standard of 'Bush will find advisors to actually run things' that was used 3 years ago?"

- It's not a double standard, I was just asking the question. Liberals were quick to question Bush's credentials, but seem to jump on board the Clark bandwagon when he has no political experience at all. Just an observation, not a judgement. You talk about being the Governor of Texas as if it is nothing, but it is at least political experience...learning to work in a system and compromise with another party.

Well, I'm sure being Supreme Allied Commander(Europe) of NATO requires some political savvy. And, of course, we know that BUSH never compromises, so that part is moot.

As far as promotions under Clinton...I was actually in the Marines from 1994-98, and I can tell you, promotions were frozen across the board. If you got promoted, it meant something.

 

[SensualMan]

Promotions...

Were you enlisted? If you were, you were under a totally different system. And if you joined in '94, you never served under a different President. Any of the "old guys" will tell you that it is a totally different military now because of Clinton. The military has become kinder, gentler....a new kind of officer is getting promoted through the ranks. Now it does not matter whether or not you can lead worth a damn, or if your troops respect you...it matters that you have the right PME, you have all the right squares filled, had the right staff jobs. It matters what the guys above you think of you, and damn the guys that serve under you.

 

[SensualMan]

Compromise....

Bush does not compromise? Are you ignorant? What do you call caving in on the demand for a prescription drug program? How about extending tax refunds to those who didn't even pay taxes! Bush has compromised on so much of his domestic program that only about 80% of Republicans are confident they will vote for him again! You need to pull your head out of your ass if you think Bush does not compromise.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Promotions...

Were you enlisted? If you were, you were under a totally different system. And if you joined in '94, you never served under a different President. Any of the "old guys" will tell you that it is a totally different military now because of Clinton. The military has become kinder, gentler....a new kind of officer is getting promoted through the ranks. Now it does not matter whether or not you can lead worth a damn, or if your troops respect you...it matters that you have the right PME, you have all the right squares filled, had the right staff jobs. It matters what the guys above you think of you, and damn the guys that serve under you.

All that has been true under Bush I as well...it was not created under Clinton.