John McCain & the Gay Vote
Now that Barack Obama has all but cinched the Democratic nomination, I am going to offer a prediction which will likely upset some of the Illinois Senator’s most enthusiastic gay supporters in the netroots. Obama will receive the lowest share of the gay vote of any Democratic presidential nominee since pollsters identified gays as a voting bloc.
I expect McCain to hold the gay votes George W. Bush drew in 2004 and pick up about 10-20% of John Kerry’s vote. That would mean the GOP nominee will take somewhere between 30 and 38% of the measured gay vote. His actual gay vote (as was Bush’s) will, in my view, be higher.
Given how much grief we gay Republicans take from our peers for our politics, many of our fellows prefer not to discuss politics. When approached by exit pollsters, they would be less likely to take the time to answer their surveys than would be gay Democrats. That’s why, I believe, George W. Bush may have gotten as much as 30% of the gay vote in 2004 and why McCain could get as much as 40%.
Yet, it seems this year there is less stigma attached to a vote for John McCain. I say this noting the number of gay Democrats (and Democrat-leaners) who have publicly said they would for McCain. It’s not just that they’ve told me. Other friends, some Democrats, have reported that a a good number of their fellows have said they prefer McCain to Obama.
No gay outreach is necessary. These people are aware of John McCain’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and have seen enough of Barack Obama not to trust him.
The real question is whether McCain’s increased share of the gay vote will make a difference. It could help secure his margin in Florida and make him more competitive in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A lot depends on how other demographic groups break. If Obama continues to do poorly among Catholics, the gay vote could tip the balance in these states–and possibly others as well.
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think it depends on how much pandering John McCain has to do to placate the social and religious conservatives. McCain’s support for the (failed) amendment in Arizona that would not only have banned gay marriage but any domestic partnership arrangement surely trumps the McClurkin mess from January. Obama talks about gay issues even when not asked and often in front of audiences that aren’t likely to be all that friendly to gay issues.
I think you are delusional if you think there is going to be a migration of Gay Democrats to McCain between now and Novemeber. Oh yes lots of people are talking big now about how they won’t vote for the other candidate if their favorite doesn’t get the nomination. But the idea of McCain appointing two Scalia clonettes to replace Stevens and Ginsberg is more than enough to scare me out of voting for him. I am reminded that if Scalia had had his way Colorado’s anti-gay amendment would still be the law there, basically mandating anti-gay discrimination. How quickly we forget just how hard one each battle has been. I’m not giving that up over a hissy fit if Obama doesn’t get the nomination and I don’t think the Clinton supporters actually will either once we get to the fall.
BTW, each GOP primary of late still has 23-27% voting for Paul, Huckabee or Romney. Plenty of Republicans are not happy with McCain as the nominee. Probably in the end most of them will show up and vote for him anyway because they will be afraid of a Democrat in the white house. But how you are going to convince Evangelicals to vote for a candidate who was flying around in his wife’s Beer Distributor Company’s private jet when his campaign was on the ropes is beyond me. (Plus there’s tons of McCain crap that is being ignored while the focus is on the Democrats. That pandora’s box will open the moment there’s a confirmed nominee and it’s not going to be pretty.)
But worst of all for the GOP is serious morale and fundraising issues. What is McCain going to run on but the same issues that Republicans keep promising but not delivering? Keep talking big but I think you know as well as I do that this is going to be a tough fight and it will be a huge upset if McCain can pull this off.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 7, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - May 7, 2008
Mandating anti-gay discrimination? Did you even read the Colorado amendment? It merely voided local non-discrimination laws.
The absence of non-discrimination laws does not mean the mandating of discrimination.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 7, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - May 7, 2008
GPW, let’s focus on McCain’s support for the state marriage amendment And his support for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. So, some Repubs believe that marriage should be decided at the state level. Great. Uh-oh: McCain supported the ban at the state level.
So how does that fit this site’s declaration that we gays just want the state to leave us alone? McCain doesn’t think gays in his state should get married, and he doesn’t think we should serve in the military.
Still think no outreach is necessary?
Comment by torrentprime — May 7, 2008 @ 4:25 pm - May 7, 2008
“The absence of non-discrimination laws does not mean the mandating of discrimination.”
yes, but it does mean the absence of any legal remedy even in the face of blatant and open discrimination. That is hardly insignificant.
Comment by Brendan — May 7, 2008 @ 4:29 pm - May 7, 2008
Which is exactly the situation that heterosexuals have now, Brendan; they can be blatantly and openly discriminated against because they are straight without any legal remedy.
So let us be clear here; the absence of nondiscrimination laws is NOT automatically discrimination against straight people, but it IS automatically discrimination against gay people.
Two words; “preferential treatment”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2008 @ 4:34 pm - May 7, 2008
This fag would never vote for McKook. And no, I am not and never have been a Democrat.
Comment by disinter — May 7, 2008 @ 4:56 pm - May 7, 2008
“Two words; “preferential treatment”.”
That is just too silly for words. Anti-discrimination laws are aimed to protect groups who historically suffered discrimination. Do you really beleive straight people are discriminated against because they are straight?
Comment by Brendan — May 7, 2008 @ 5:13 pm - May 7, 2008
#1 Freedom of association — yet another constitutionally guaranteed right liberals have trampled to death.
and the idea of McCain appointing 2 Scalia clones to replace the constitution murdering Ginsberg and Kennedy is enough to make me orgasm let alone vote for McCain.
#5 A Ron Paul supporter calling McCain a kook? Physician, heal thyself!
Comment by American Elephant — May 7, 2008 @ 5:17 pm - May 7, 2008
McCain has a chance to dig into all of the major Democrat demographics, except for the African Americans….because they will vote for Obama no matter what happens. He will get the lowest share of their vote since…ever…probably but that loss will be made up by other things.
He has a big chance to pull even with Hispanic vote, pull in more women, pull in lower income and lower educated, and older voters. Democrats were able to win and dominant elections since the depression because of their broad coalition, which has been eroded since the 80s.
McCain has broad appeal, especially against a canidate that isn’t well known and has no real record. I think he will just have a problem with bringing the base home but Obama could have the same problem with the Clinton Dems.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 7, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - May 7, 2008
I’m sorry, but what are your reasons for thinking this? You can’t just say “McCain will win more gay votes because I say so.” You don’t give any reasons whatsoever for why you are making this prediction, so I’m curious as to why you think this, besides wishful thinking.
Comment by hamilton — May 7, 2008 @ 6:44 pm - May 7, 2008
Do you really beleive straight people are discriminated against because they are straight?
No, no, Brendan; you stated that the mere absence of legal remedy constituted blatant discrimination. Therefore, since straight people have no legal remedy, THEY are being discriminated against.
Additionally, I’ve heard straight people mocked as “breeders” and seen them be given bad treatment by gay business owners and store attendants. Indeed, gay groups here in the Castro regularly rail against the heterosexuals who are moving in and “ruining the neighborhood”.
Gay and lesbian people like Bonnie Bleskachek who blatantly sexually harass other employees have screamed that investigation of their behavior and punishment of it is “homophobia and sexism”. THAT is the mentality from which you are coming — the one in which your sexual orientation is an automatic free pass to allow you to do things that other employees would never be allowed to do.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2008 @ 6:46 pm - May 7, 2008
Hamilton, I base this on anecdotal evidence and the fact that there is no organized gay Republican effort to badmouth the GOP nominee as there was in 2004.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 7, 2008 @ 6:50 pm - May 7, 2008
DarkEyedResolve,
Completely agree with your analysis that McCain has a broad appeal that will attract independents and some dems, and unless something changes he is gonna have a real big problem bringing out the base and thus a problem actually winning.
McCain has been patted on the head by the MSM for so long every time he crosses conservatives that I think he has developed Pavlovian instincts; he has learned that reward comes from screwing the base and pandering to the middle and left. But America is a right of center country. Moving right is what Democrats have to do to win. McCain will learn the hard way this November that moving left is how Republicans lose.
Comment by American Elephant — May 7, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - May 7, 2008
“No, no, Brendan; you stated that the mere absence of legal remedy constituted blatant discrimination. Therefore, since straight people have no legal remedy, THEY are being discriminated against.”
ND30–No if you read correctly that is not what I said at all and saying “no, no twice doesn’t change the fact that you are either deliberately misreading what I said or simply mistaken.
In fact I agreed with GPW that the absence of anti-discrimination laws does not mandate discrimination, but I disagreed with his rather dismissive characterization of this as having “merely voided local non-discrimination laws”. Technically GPW is correct that it voids “local” anti-discrimination laws, but there are no federal laws that protect discrimination on sexual orientation. What this means in practice, and in law, is that gays and lesbian can be openly and blatantly discriminated against in housing, employment, etc, without having any legal remedy. If folks want to argue they support such actions on the grounds that “freedom of association” should trump these protections that is all well and good, but be honest about what you are saying and own up to it.
As for gay attitudes toward straight people in the Castro, I am not questioning your anecdotes, but to use the Castro to characterize the situation of most lesbians and gays in the country is hardly the most convincing argument in the world. Furthermore, if there is such discrimination occurs and the California statute prohibits discrimination on “sexual orientation” the straight folks you are concerned have a cause of action.
Comment by Brendan — May 7, 2008 @ 7:50 pm - May 7, 2008
Historically, Republicans will turn out and vote for the canidate…even if that doesn’t make them happy. Democrats are the ones who usually waffle and sometimes don’t show up, but things can change. I think Republicans have just been depressed because of the piss poor political enviroment for them.
Republicans need to be aware of the importance of this election in terms of their political future. Yes, American has been a center of the right country over the past decades but that doesn’t mean it will always be that way. A large generation of voters, my generation, is entering into this election and becoming more important in terms of votes. If Obama and a Democrat Congress, which will most likely expand its majorities, is given the chance to handle these problems and does it well. They will set off a reallignment that will shift the country to the left, just like Regean was able to do for the right.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 7, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - May 7, 2008
I am an Independent and plan on voting for McCain in the fall if he goes against Obama. If Clinton were the Democratic nominee, I’d probably vote for her. I am unimpressed with Obama’s one-note call for CHANGE, and was decidedly turned off by his association with the racist Wright.
Comment by Antinous — May 7, 2008 @ 9:26 pm - May 7, 2008
The majority of potential gay/lesbian McCain voters will depend on overall economic and foreign-policy issues as is typical for other Republicans and Republican-voting Independents, not over “gay marriage” nor DADT. If those are your primary critical decision-point issues you’re probably not a Republican nor a moderate Independent in th first-place. But if you’re concenrned about taxes, the economy and other “traditional Republican” issues; then there’s no problem supporting McCain. …Provided he doesn’t veer-right and nominate a wing-nut for VP.
The critical issues facing America ARE NOT “gay marriage”, nor even the next SCOTUS nominations, they’re economic and security issues. Do you really want the Dhimmicrats running the White House AND the Congress? Do you want another generation of apologists and appeasers confronting (HA!) overseas terrorism, Iranand Islamofascism, and our dangerous overseas dependence on basic commodities like oil? Do you really want the NEA and the Nanny-state it-takes-a-village leftist bureaucrats raising your kids? The unions crippling your business, or the taxes you pay skyrocketting to pay the entitlements promised by Obama, both Clintons, and Nancy Pelosi?
Those are reasons many gay/lesbian voters will be voting for McCain in 2008, not gay marriage nor DADT.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 7, 2008 @ 10:11 pm - May 7, 2008
DER,
When I say America is a center-right country, that doesn’t mean they always vote center-right, otherwise Democrats would never control congress or the White House. What it means is that American values are center-right. We believe in our founding principles, the Constitution, limited government, personal liberty, rugged individualism, the rule of law, and capitalism for example. Values that are at odds with the left wing view of America.
Now, its possible America could go from being a more or less conservative nation over time to a liberal nation. Democrats are certainly trying to accomplish this by dominating the media and education establishments and using them to indoctrinate rather than to teach and inform, by implementing immigration policy that favors people they believe will support them, by using the power of government to silence opponents through the tacitly unfair “fairness” doctrine, etc… and they will certainly try to jury rig congressional districts in their favor. But for the time being Americans still believe in the founding principles and don’t want a European-like socialist government legislating, regulating, taxing and controlling every aspect of their lives.
The only times Democrats are able to hold onto power is when they rule from the center. But that Democratic party is gone. Conservative Democrats are virtually an extinct species: people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman (who is only conservative on one issue) have been run out of the party. It is now controlled overwhelmingly by mcgovernite socialists and marxists like Nancy Pelosi and your presumptive nominee Barack Obama.
They will only be able to fool Americans with their rhetoric for so long. Eventually Democrats will start implementing policy. And when they hike taxes “on the rich”, implement “windfall profit taxes”, drastically increase regulation on American businesses, drastically increase the size, power and cost of government …all of which they have promised to do, and when energy prices skyrocket (even more), more industries leave America, others fail, jobs decline, poverty increases, crime increases, and taxes increase on all Americans … as are the inevitable results of liberal policy, the drift leftward will end as quickly as it did when the exact same sorts of Democrats controlled the White house and congress in the Carter administration.
And historically, no, Republicans do NOT turn out and vote for the candidate no matter who it is. Bill Clinton never even got 50% of the vote. He never won either of his elections so much as Republicans lost because the base did not turn out and vote for GHWB’s second term or for Bob Dole.
Unfortunately, Democrats can inflict a great deal of very long lasting damage on America in even just 2 years, let alone four.
Comment by American Elephant — May 8, 2008 @ 12:17 am - May 8, 2008
I agree about gay marriage, but disagree strongly about the SCOTUS. There is nothing else a president does that affects Americans and America more directly and longer than who he appoints to the courts.
Comment by American Elephant — May 8, 2008 @ 12:21 am - May 8, 2008
I have some..issues with the Religious Right and would love to see them get a pasting at the polls. However, as much as I’d prefer a different candidate, as long as we are at war and one candidate is someone I believe would do very poorly in prosecuting it that trumps all other concerns. I’m not a big fan of McCain but he is better than Obama on this IMO. For that reason and because of how important I view national defense, I have no choice but to vote for McCain. Democrats would be wise to consider a “liberal hawk” next time around if they want to attract more support instead of foisting the usual empty suits on the electorate.
Comment by John — May 8, 2008 @ 7:56 am - May 8, 2008
2. Did you even read the Colorado amendment? It merely voided local non-discrimination laws.
Your memory’s a little rusty, GPW.
Colorado’s notorious Amendment 2 didn’t void any anti-discrimination laws, at least not directly. It simply changed the terms of their enforcement, creating a separate and unequal legal status for gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. Under Amendment 2, heterosexuals could still press claims of sexual orientation discrimination in court. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people could not.
Had the amendment voided local non-discrimination ordinances outright, it might have withstood a constitutional challenge.
Comment by Tim Hulsey — May 8, 2008 @ 3:13 pm - May 8, 2008
#20 - And John, if there is ever any living proof of an empty suit being foisted on the electorate, it’s snObama.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - May 8, 2008
Dan (GPW), I think you may be too optimistic about the gay vote for Senator McCain. At least that’s what I see with my two gay sons and their similarly-oriented circle of friends.
They all have a lot of reasons to vote Republican. Taxes alone are a reason. My twin sons, Taylor and Tyler, feel strongly about abolishing the death tax. A number of their buddies will soon be getting their trust funds and want no increase in capital gains taxes.
But not one of these young men has any interest in McCain.
If politics comes up when they’re in my house there is a common concern about McCain. The next president is pretty much assured of at least one Supreme Court vacancy and could have two more. McCain has promised to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia. That scares me, and I’m straight, so I can appreciate why it’s an important issue with my sons and their friends.
Only one of these young men is even leaning toward Obama and all joke that they wish our state had a “None of the Above” box on the ballot.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 8, 2008 @ 3:48 pm - May 8, 2008
Tim, thanks for your comment in #21. I don’t fact check as thoroughly for comments as I do for posts.
If your description of the bill is adequate, that still makes Houndentenor’s contention (in comment #1) that it mandated anti-gay discrimination incorrect. It merely prevented gays from bringing such claims.
Even under Amendment #2, companies could treat gay people fairly. Which they can still do even without ENDA.
Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 8, 2008 @ 4:04 pm - May 8, 2008
[…] John McCain & the Gay Vote […]
Pingback by GayPatriot » A Get on McCain’s Share of the Gay Vote — May 8, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - May 8, 2008
I’m gay, live in San Francisco, voted and donated money to Hillary Clinton. I’ve never voted for a Republican for President - though I did vote for Arnold in 2006. No way in hell am I voting for Obama, and McCain is 95% of the way towards winning my vote. As long as he doesn’t pick an uber-social conservative, I’m in.
Comment by DaveO — May 9, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - May 9, 2008
#26 - Dave, you are saying what a lot of my gay friends in Houston are saying. There is no way they will vote for snObama because of his anti-gay undertone, his wife’s position on it and his former pastor’s.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 9, 2008 @ 4:34 pm - May 9, 2008
The Supreme Court argument isn’t going to work very well with gay men. Of all democgraphic groups, gay men are obviously the least directly concerned with the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. And if McCain’s future nominees are anything like John Roberts, I don’t think gays have much to worry about.
Comment by DaveO — May 9, 2008 @ 7:53 pm - May 9, 2008