Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election

By Associated Press
Monday, October 25, 2010 8:18 EST
Print
 
Topics:
 

Some fear that gay voters angry over pace of gains might sit out election

Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won’t cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry — at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy — and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago, with its large, politically and socially active gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, offers a snapshot of what some are calling the “enthusiasm gap” between voters who came out strong for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and re-energized Republican base voters, including tea party enthusiasts who say they are primed to storm the polls.

It didn’t help that the controversy over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays erupted less than two weeks before the election, when a judge overturned it, then Obama’s justice department decided to fight the judge’s decision. On Thursday, the Defense Department declared that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is official policy but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown out of the military for being openly gay.

“It’s all talk and nothing’s happening, and I’m just over it,” said Coatar, 62, a church business manager who said she’s as concerned about health care and homelessness as about gay issues. “I don’t know who to vote for and the election is a week away.”

Wyatt, 35, a maintenance worker at the Center on Halsted, a community center serving Chicago’s GLBT community, said politicians only court gay voters at election time.

“Once they’re elected, they’re not fighting for things like civil unions or same-sex marriage or ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ because they’re hot-button issues,” said Wyatt, who usually supports Democrats. “We’re just used as a piggyback for them to get into office. It’s absurd.”

Whether or not that’s the case, Wyatt isn’t the only one who feels that way.

And in places like Cook County, Ill., where the gay population represents about 7 percent of voters, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat in some races, said Rick Garcia, director of public policy for Equality Illinois. One of those races is a much-watched and close battle for Obama’s old Senate seat between Democrat Alexi Giannoulias and Republican Mark Kirk.

“If (candidates) can mobilize the gay community and get them out to vote, it could make all the difference in the world in some of these key races,” said Garcia.

But volunteers who’ve been calling the 18,000 or so members of Equality Illinois to urge them to vote have been getting an earful. Many members say they won’t vote or will vote against incumbents, regardless of their party affiliation or stance on gay issues.

This year’s election is a stark contrast to 2008, when the gay community turned out in droves to elect Obama and help Democrats regain control of Congress.

“People were clamoring and very excited about the change that then-candidate Obama promised America,” Garcia said. “Now I see lethargy at best and disgust at worst.”

He said gains won under Obama, including in fighting housing discrimination, have not filtered out to many in the gay community because “the big issues have not appeared to change at all.”

“But change takes time; sometimes it takes a lot of time. A lot of folks just don’t understand that,” said Garcia. “I am older and more seasoned, but most people are very disturbed with the administration … and they’re the hard ones to get out to vote.

“The message is huge: Don’t take us for granted.”

Tracy Baim, publisher of Windy City Times, Chicago’s oldest and largest GLBT newspaper, and author of the new book “Obama and the Gays,” said disappointment is showing up in another way: Some are refusing to donate money to candidates until they see progress, although it’s difficult to gauge how much that has affected fundraising.

A message left Friday with the Democratic National Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned.

But many gay organizations are working hard to get voters to the polls, fearing they could face setbacks if Republicans retake control of Congress. Baim said Democrats and Obama still enjoy widespread support in some parts of the gay community, particularly among African-Americans and Latinos, and she believes the majority still will vote.

“People are disappointed but understand that this really is the best hope for significant change over the next several years,” she said. “But at the same time, the anger is very real.”

Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of the national gay-rights organization GetEQUAL calls the mood among gay voters a “disappointment canyon” but said they have no choice but to go to the polls.

She, however, is refusing to donate to or volunteer for any candidate this year. And members of her group are protesting wherever Obama appears on the campaign trail.

“We can’t not take advantage of the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean we can’t vote smartly,” said McGehee, of Fresno, Calif. “If I was a leader in the Democratic Party, I would be worried.

“Either we’re important enough to fight for our equality or we’re worth losing,” she said. “Right now we’re being treated like we’re worth losing.”

Source: AP News

Mochila insert follows…

Associated Press
Associated Press
Share this story >>
Print
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • http://topsy.com/www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gay-voters-angry-democrats-sway-election/?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election | Raw Story — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by 93.7 WBLK: T-Boogie, WorldNewsRecord, LoveU, United States Agenda, owen and others. owen said: Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election: Some fear that gay voters angry over pace of gains might sit ou… http://bit.ly/aaPsBV [...]

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I wish this were less true than it is. The sense among friends of mine that the DNC is a jaded pack of players who only notice us when election time draws near is overwhelming. A coalition of many, many little groups…the young voters, minority voters, old liberals and new liberals, anti war and pro gay, environmental and pro-choice…all banded together just once…with a single voice…crying out for the polar opposite of the Bush administration…

    …and in a moment of horrible irony elected the Bush administrations greatest defender.

    Is our situation now as bad as it would be if the GOP had won it all in 2008…I doubt it…I’m pretty certain that the party that abuses our trust but doesn’t pro-actively despise us is BETTER than the party that embraces total disenfranchisement and second class citizen status for gays and any other minorities…

    …but that doesn’t make a bitter pill go down any easier. I will vote…no matter what…not because the DNC is a friend of mine…but because I would sooner vote for any garden variety demon or devil than ever elect any member of Satan’s personal elite guard…the GOP. I just hope enough people vote to minimize the damage the DNC has done to itself…and I hope the DNC sits and thinks about how it came to this.

    It doesn’t matter that they burned one little minority…it matters that they treated all of those tiny little groups as ‘inconsequential’…and now thats not looking like such a hot policy all of a sudden.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KSZZWBOXVCTGZT5GGAJLWNK2P4 somebody

    Why the sensationalist headlines RAW? I saw this on the front page and immediately thought wow.. more republican devide & conquer BS. Then I remembered this is RAW. Geesh!

  • christoofar

    Not sure if putting the political party who openly despises gays & lesbians back into power again is the smartest thing to do, but I can totally understand this frustration w/ Dems. Wish they offered group rates for spine-add-a-dectomy’s, I can think of many folks who need ‘em.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. I shake my head in wonder. How dimwitted can people be that because they’re “angry” they’re going to sit out the election. Talk about handing victory to your enemies. Reminds me of the kid in the sandbox who didn’t get everything their way, so they took all the toys and went home. Grow up folks. Things will be much worse if you stay home next Tuesday and pout.

  • http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/monday-morning-news-and-views-27/ Monday Morning News and Views « The Confluence

    [...] At Raw Story, there’s a report that gay voters who are disillusioned with lack of progress under the Democrats could sway elections if they choose to stay home or vote for third party candidates. If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise. [...]

  • Anonymous

    How did I know this would be an AP story before I opened it up! lol I am sure most gay people will run rigtht to republicans as they are so open and affirming.

  • http://twitter.com/fromtheleft Christopher

    Gay Americans who keep voting for Democrats who do nothing to implement their agenda are suffering from a form of spouse abuse syndrome. Until the Democratic lawmakers understand gay Americans aren’t come convenient ATM to go crawling to each election, then throw under the bus once in office, things won’t change. I hope the Midterm election is a learning experience for Obama Inc.

  • Anonymous

    Another clueless Democrat doing as they’re told. Suck it up, we’re the only choice you have whether you like it or not. Give us your money, we’ll do a photo opp, but when it comes to legislation that makes you equal, we’ll let your calls go to voicemail and then wag our long bony finger at you and lecture you about your “responsibility” to vote for us. Time to break the cycle of voting for Trojans like Obama and Clinton and Kerry, that end up supporting the same corporate welfare that the GOP supports, just more mildly.

    Vote for Green or Socialist or Independent candidates if you are serious about real change, and not just talk about it.

  • Anonymous

    Repubs and Dems are both owned by rich, white, old, straight corporation shareholders. Am I wrong.

    To be stabbed to your face (Republicans) or to be stabbed in your back (Democrats) – quite a dilemma. I prefer my enemies in front. I’m voting for individuals – not parties.

    Wasn’t it the LogCabin Republicans who actually pushed for and received (so far) justice in the courts? Obama’s Justice Department is on the record (4 times, thusfar) arguing that LGBT Americans are deserving of the same legal protection as Felons, Convicted sex-offenders and Pedophiles. That’s Obama – change that is the same (as Bush)!

  • Anonymous

    And do you honestly think they will change their behavior if all you do is “hope” they sit and think for awhile? Teach them how powerful the progressive vote is by refusing to deliver it, by helping them “lose”. Next time, the candidates that float will be that much more progressive if they want to have even a chance of winning. You may not end up with the whole pie, but you *will* end up with more legislation passed than this one has been able to muster, even with a supposed majority.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, throw out our ineffective and wimpy supporters and replace them with people who would actively work to make our lives miserable. Good move.

    It is not the job of the executive branch to make or change laws. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws. It can use what ever influence it may have to get the legislative branch to do what the executive wants, but in the end it is up to Congress to change the laws.

    So, replacing a Democratic congress beleaguered by Republican obstructionists, with a Republican congress will help gays how exactly?

  • Anonymous

    Maybe you can’t see the forest if you are a GLBT tree.

    WaaaH! I want my rights NOW this second! It shouldn’t be such hard work to change hearts and minds! I am mad at the Democrats, so I’ll vote Republican or Independent–that’ll work out real good for me.

    Like when I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

  • http://twitter.com/sacxtra sacxtra

    STOP THE LOOTING AND START THE PROSECUTING

  • Anonymous

    Like when I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000–THAT really helped things out!

  • panamarick

    Gee, I hadn’t considered the angle that the gay vote could be large enough to sway the election, but wouldn’t that be so ironically cool if it did?

    Imagine teabagger’s having to…get on their knees and give out positive strokes for votes from “the gay.” Shit I’d pay a hundred bucks to pay-per-view for that one and go without grocery’s, because that would be the belly laugh of my life. I can see it now Mike Pence “I love gay men.” And John Boner “all my X’s live in Texas. LOL

  • Anonymous

    No, the only thing suspicious about this article is that they are only now publishing it, a week before the election. To anybody who has been paying attention to the gay community for the last 2 years, this is old news and they would know that the mood has been ugly and getting uglier.

    I actually expect the Republicans to make a move to try to take over the gay vote, if they can figure out how to do that without alienating the conservative christians in their base. It would open up districts to them where they haven’t won in 40 years, and it would give them cred with younger voters (the “Megan McCain generation”).

  • Anonymous

    Oh yes, which excuse was that? Let me see…it was the hanging chads! No, wait….it was the right-wing Supreme Court dismantling the popular vote…or maybe it was the fact that I voted my values. No, better not do that! Instead I’ll vote for…Lieberman. That must feel good!

  • Anonymous

    I am not going to debate the past with you. I will just say that if I had been better informed, I would have voted for Al Gore. No thanks to Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, and all of the TV media outlets who I thought at the time that I could trust to give me the facts I needed (I know better now) invented and flogged over and over again what I know now were total untruths about Al Gore, and that is what I based my vote on. So I voted for Ralph Nader. Here in Massachusetts, I could afford to do that. Massachusetts was clearly going to go to Gore, so it didn’t matter so much.

    Yes, voting your values is a good thing in a country with a properly functioning democratic system, but we don’t have that right now. We didn’t have that then, and in some places, the votes for Ralph Nader WERE a factor that helped put Bush in the WHite House. And I don’t need to tell you how THAT turned out!

    Hell, I wanted Dennis Kucinich to win the primary this last time around!

  • Anonymous

    Why debate the past when you can simply revise it, absent of facts. Gore’s record (and Clinton’s, whose party line he carried truculently) isn’t some mysterious lost civilization yet to be unearthed. It’s available easily in Congressional Records and through simple Google searches. Check out Mr. Environmental’s work in the last 2 years of the Clinton admin with regards to opening up oil drilling within continental US. Then compare to the forthcoming Bush admin’s efforts the following 2 years. They aren’t that different. There are many other examples that can be discussed, but the point is just that. He wouldn’t have been much different from what you got with Bush. Just a lot less forthcoming about his sellouts. Kind of like Obama (but that’s a different topic).

    Good for you, you voted for Nader in 2000. You don’t have to carry the black mark of Lieberman to your grave. Voting on your values means you found representation in the political functioning of your country. “properly functioning” is a vague term that assumes an ideal that doesn’t exist. Some candidates “game” the system. Votes for Nader never “belonged” to anyone else, so they weren’t stolen from Gore and he wasn’t entitled to them. The mere assumption indeed helps create the scenario where the system can be gamed – and Nader himself provides lots of details on that if you care to read about it.

    As bad as Bush was, Clinton/Gore weren’t much better. They carried on the manufactured lie about Iraq, leading to the needless deaths of over 100,000 people through medical/economic embargoes, they enshrined discrimination of gays in the famous DADT/DOMA legislation that they promoted, they established the foundation for warrantless wiretapping through DMCA that is used to this day, and they set up the Great Depression 2.0 by rescinding Glass-Steagall, a deal they cut in order to appease banking interests when they had little to lose towards the end of their 2nd term.

    Keep voting for Kucinich. While he isn’t immune to selling out either, he does more than almost anyone in that party for progressive issues. But find other candidates who come from different parties. Envangelize them to anyone who will listen. Little by little, the game can be changed, but it will be a coalition – not a 2 party system that is a charade.