Gay Vote Crucial to Obama's Victory

Forget the Latino vote - the LGBT vote may have won it

You've heard all about how the black vote, the Latino vote, and the youth vote won Obama the election. But gay voters made a crucial difference too - a difference that may have cost Romney the election.

LGBT Americans voted 76% for Obama but only 24% for Romney, according to a new study. That means the gay vote gave Obama a 2.6% edge over Romney - very close to the 3% popular vote margin by which he won.

Put another way, if no one gay had voted, then Obama would have just barely won the popular vote, by less than half a percentage point. And he certainly wouldn't have the "mandate" some commentators are claiming for him. (Obama scored 50.7 of the popular vote to Romney's 47.7%.)

The gay vote could also have tipped the balance for Obama in swing states Florida and Ohio. Though the final Florida vote tally still isn't in, the study speculates that 300,000 gay Floridians voted for the POTUS - far more than the current vote-count difference between the two candidates.

Side-note: it's interesting that 5% of voters surveyed self-identified as gay, bisexual, or transgender. That's slightly higher than the population at large, of which 3.4% identifies as LGBT.

Politix analysis, via the New York Times and the Williams Institute.

Should Republicans change their policies to win over gay voters?

[Petergriffin]

You can still win the electoral college and lose the popular vote.

[texas_cutie75]

This is true. The math is convoluted, but its not going to change anytime soon.

[CanisCanemEdit]

Luckily, Mr. Obama "evolved" his opininon on gay marriage.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”- April 17, 2008, Obama, while running for president, defining marriage at the Saddleback Presidential Forum.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”- Nov. 2, 2008, Obama, while running for president, in an interview with MTV.

I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people,‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say,‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about,‘should they get married?’, then suddenly…”- Feb. 2, 2004, Obama, while an Illinois state Senator, in an interview with Chicago gay newspaper, the Windy City Times.

One wonders, now that he has been re-elected, what other positions he will "evolve" on?

[Sonny]

When is all of this "post election analysis" going to end? We've already talked about why Obama won, and Romney lost---We know about the various demographic units of our society that voted for Obama, and not Romney---Why is it necessary to continue to drag this out even more. I mean all it does is give those on the far right...more to whine and pout and cry about...They are having a very difficult time getting over their collective lost as it is...Now stuff like this just makes the already crazy---do & say even more crazy things!

[Litdes]

Although this is true, it is irrelevant in this election, since Obama won BOTH the Electoral College, AND the popular vote. The reality is that, for whatever reason, The Republicans thought that they could write off 47% of the United States and still win what amounts to a popularity contest. The reality is that one cannot win a federal election relying only upon their base. In reality, one must court a wide variety of minorities and independents if they wish to prevail on the national stage. When one writes a constituency off, they would be foolish to expect their votes.

[Fishbone345]

@CanisCanemEdit The so called "religious" connotations that people draw to marriage always makes me laugh. Being as it originated as a way to transfer property and wealth, and had nothing to do with the church at all, until years later the Church decided it was time to adopt it as well.
But, much like Christmas people like to forget where the true origins lay and keep on trucking with their beliefs that are wrong.

[woodtick57]

Seems like a simplification of the voting demos... What about all the straight people who couldn''t vote for the gOP because of their anti-gay stance and other anti-uman social stances?

A lot more complicated than just one voting group winning the election for one candidate.

[Denizen_Kate]

Some people need things to be simplified. ;-)

[woodtick57]

Luckily more and more US citizens do not vote from some stone-age fairy tales...

[woodtick57]

@Antiecm man ,have you been lied to. and by the very people who promised to save your mythical soul...man, that's gotta sting...

maybe it was the Easter Bunny that destroyed some city full of the fake hollow chocolate easter bunnies? everyone knows god hates those fake hollow bunnies!

[Rocker]

Not really....
Neither party should have to cater to a specific group. The ideal situation would be for the parties to have such common sense approaches to government and laws that their platforms would appeal across the board.

[Rocker]

Yeah, yeah, I know. That's kinda like the saying; 'the check is in the mail' and believing in the 'tooth fairy'.

[Cool_voter]

No republicans should be themselves.
If America sees them for the closed minded fools they are, they won't win!
I mean lets be real, which party is ok with freedom?
Now which party wants uncle Sam to back their personal preferences at others expense...yeah those republiturds

An I wrong?
Republicans want small GOVERMENT by
Getting Uncle Sam to say who can and can't be married.
Getting Uncle Sam to delegate women's bodies, and what they can and can't do with them.
Getting Uncle Sam to give certain groups tax cuts
Getting Uncle Sam to let their churches be tax free....

Looks like big fat government to me

[Waynestew]

Absolutely not. They do not believe in gay rights they said stand on that position. Even if it means they will lose elections.

[woodtick57]

Sad that we have a political party in todays US that standa against human rights, isn't it?

[Waynestew]

@woodtick57 Yes very sad.

[Waynestew]

@woodtick57 You may not mix politicts and r Religious beliefs. But many people do including myself. I do not believe in the death penalty because of my Christian faith. I believe the redemption and forgiveness. You make a broad generalization about Christians. Clearly you do not understand what it really means to be a Christian.

[NO-BAMA]

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/...
Looks like Barry is "evolving" again on the issue of gay unions.
I wonder why? Hmmm.
Maybe its because the election is over and he doesn't need to pander for the votes anymore from a group of people that he doesn't really care about.
I wonder what group will be thrown under the bus next, since he doesn't need them anymore?
Will the gay community have an uprising and protest/boycott Barry once they realize they were USED for political gain and got nothing for their votes?
You libs sure picked a classy, lying piece of crap didn't you?
You libs might want to start covering your own asses quick. You're all going to be left behind and forgotten for all the loyalty and propaganda spewing that you've done for the Muslim in chief.

[Real4WheelDrv]

The original source article was posted 11 days BEFORE the election...so "flipflopping now that it's over" isn't the case.

[Ashstop]

No!!! We just need all the people to vote!!! America is still middle right just people aren't voicing their beliefs! After 4 more years we will probably all be republicans!!!!

[PNWest]

The olny demographic that reliably votes republican is older white males. This group already votes in higher numbers than any other demographic. If all people voted the democrats would win almost all the time.

[woodtick57]

When did you choose between the guys you are sexually attracted to and the girls you are sexually attracted to? Which one did you choose?

[1hardcorerepub]

@woodtick57 I guess when my parents said it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve long long long ago.

[Buckfan4life2]

If anything the republicans needs to push the needle as far right as it goes. If anything cost Romney the election, it was not being conservative enough

[blue_yahoo]

ok shakes head..........when did 0.7% become 3%. Does anybody else catch this stuff?

[Real4WheelDrv]

um...third party candidates?

[blue_yahoo]

@Real4WheelDrv I know but I'm a literalist by nature and how it's presented in the piece the math does not add up.

[jessejaymes]

I supported Obama over Romney but voted for neither. My state was a foregone conclusion so I voted my conscience. But I think most pundits are mistaking this entire election. The gays the latinos, the blacks are the Democrat base. They will vote that way most the time. What cost Romney the election is people like me. I can't stand Obama but he's better than giving away the country to the ultra rich like Romney (and Bush) were dead set on doing. As always the moderates decided this election. And I do not support using the word marriage for gay civil unions. I honestly believe that a good 50% of gay males are pedophiles.

[Fishbone345]

"I honestly believe that a good 50% of gay males are pedophiles."
Did you take into account that most convicted pedophiles go after little girls? And are straight men? Watch "To Catch a Predator", how many times do they have a little boy lure men there?
Your math is flawed.

[jessejaymes]

@Fishbone345 1.) Gay males are 5% of the population. Straight males are 45% of the population and you're going to claim "equality" in numbers? Holy toledo even I can do better math than that. And to catch a predator has done gay males with equal results as well.

[Fishbone345]

@jessejaymes I took issue with your initial belief and still do.
These men aren't gay, they are sick, twisted predators. There is a difference. You should watch whom you apply that term to, I wouldn't be so flippant with it.

[jessejaymes]

@Fishbone345 You are entitled to what you want to think. I know differently. I was attacked by a gay man when I was 11 and nearly pulled into a vehicle. I was hit on by gay men from that age until well after I was a legal adult. Non stop. Every single time I found myself alone as an underage teen there was a gay man hitting on me. Most men would tell you the same if they weren't embarrassed. Gay men for the percentage of population vs the number of pedophiles are the single most prolific sexual predators of any class of sexual orientation whether you choose to see it or not. And I don't care if someone is married or single or screaming from the rooftops about how straight they are. Only a gay pedophile would have sex with a same sex child. Period.

[Fishbone345]

@jessejaymes You like to separate. I don't. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. They are all sick, twisted, deviants that belong behind bars.
And I'd like to see some links concerning your math about 50% of Gay men being pedophiles. Until then, its merely a claim and nothing more.

[commonsense51]

LOL, oh now the Gay's got Obama elected? Obama and other Democrats have always gotten the Gay vote along with the Abortion vote, and the environmentalist vote, and the save the baby seal(kill the baby human vote). So what! These people are their base. Did you honestly think the majority of any of these groups would vote for the GOP. One thing and one thing alone elected Obama. His plan of growing the welfare base to numbers that would assure his re election. How sick an agenda is that? Four more years of a dead economy. I just hope it will not be too late to reverse the path of bankruptcy he has put us on. He mas made George Bush and George Bush's Democrat controlled house and senate look like tight wads. Obama is destroying our nation with his socialist ideology.

[Buckfan4life2]

I can see why you go by commonsense because you have some.

[Sillpchs]

Funny though, he was all about equal rights and gay marriage until after the election...then two days after he won again he goes on a talk show and says it's not one of his priorities and that he won't do anything about it.

[woodtick57]

Working on the other important issues facing our nation now is still better than going way out of your way to deny your fellow citizens their rights...

That is what we could have expected from the dying GOP.

[Sillpchs]

@woodtick57 no, the GOP wouldn't have promised it to start with. It was a political plow to get needed votes. Then he backed on on them..shows what kind of leader he is.

[woodtick57]

@Sillpchs he actually did a lot for the movement.

history is fun!

[Sillpchs]

@woodtick57 Not really... And it's funny how the super liberal states don't even have legalized gay marriage. Everyone would assume Illinois and California would be the first but nope, more moderate states did it first.

[woodtick57]

@Sillpchs Repealing DADT?

history is fun!

[Real4WheelDrv]

Incidentally, isn't it interesting that Democrats are all about "you lost, let's move on" and yet here's yet another analysis of percentages and which group voted which way. Honestly it's like Fox NFL Sunday in here, take five or six "analysts" and since they all have to get face time, they say generally the same stuff while watching the same play.

[HughAkston]

I've been a supporter of gay marriage and the LGBT community in general for quite some time. That being said, I don't know if it's possible for Republicans to change their policies to attract the LGBT community. There are only two viable political parties in this country. The Democrat party is openly hostile to people of faith. So naturally, socially conservative people that believe in the "traditional" definition marriage will gravitate to the Republican party. Given the number of people in the Republican party that have a traditional perspective on things, I doubt the Republican party would be able to change it's positions. You just can't kick people of faith out of the Republican party any more than you can kick the LGBT community or labor unions out of the Democrat party. People will always gravitate to the place where they feel most welcome. So it is what it is. But honestly...... is there anything the Republican party can do or say to attract the LGBT vote? The honest answer is no. The Republican party doesn't stand a snowball war in hell's change of getting the LGBT vote.......ever.

[Buckfan4life2]

I agree with you and I dont agree with you. But You just said it all in a nutshell with your comment and I respect you for that.

[Denizen_Kate]

"The Democrat party is openly hostile to people of faith." That's not the impression I get. What I see and hear from the Democrats is opposition to laws based on religious beliefs.

[HughAkston]

@Denizen_Kate .....Kate.....that would be like me saying that Republicans aren't hostile to Unions. What I see and hear from Republicans is that they just want to reward people based on their individual performance. C'mon! Let's be honest about things! If you can't see how people of faith are denigrated as ass-backward bible-thumping bigots ....... I don't know what I can say for you to see the obvious.

[Pammo]

Democrats are not hostile to people of faith but support the first amendment for all people of faith or of no faith not just people of the Christian faith. I am a student in a seminary of a mainstream Christian denomination and I do not feel my government prevents me from practicing my own religion nor does it force me to participate in any other religion. Just because my religion is not part of public ceremonies, activities, events, or the like doesn't mean the govern met is hindering my religious freedom. These same laws protect Conservative Christians from sitting through public Islamic prayers at high school sporting events or Hindi chanting before a court hearing.

[Russell797]

If Republicans modify their position on sexuality they become hypocrites and show that their core values are not so important after all.

[mimi57]

Let's see, It was gays, hormone crazed women, Hispanics that want to be here illegally,Big Labor Unions and
their thugs, minorities, people who believe in "cradle to grave entitlements", the liberal crazed media all supporting the Left, and they still had to use voter fraud to get him elected...There is no such thing 140% votes.
It is a known fact that Cleveland and Philly, both large cities in swing states, had not ONE vote for Romney!
Make sense?!

[classychazy]

I did not mean to vote you up on that. I want you to put some factual information behind that allegation or is it busy another of your "conspiracy" theories?

[mimi57]

@classychazy LOL...somehow I knew that! It's okay, I'll take it...I've done the same thing, but, Thanks!!!

[mimi57]

@classychazy askmarion.wordpress.com/2012/.../barack-obama... ...

www.westernjournalism.com >FeaturedStories

[Denizen_Kate]

"It is a known fact that Cleveland and Philly, both large cities in swing states, had not ONE vote for Romney!" You're including these cities in their entirety? Not so. Only some specific precincts recorded no Romney votes. These were mostly inner city precincts where the population tends to be all minorities.

[mimi57]

@Denizen_Kate I live near Cleveland and am well familiar with those areas, some of the homes are a half
million dollars or more and owned by CEO's , football players, etc.. I don't know where your facts are coming
from and don't care. I LIVE in the area, I won't and don't pretend to know the demographics of Cal., these were
not inner city precincts.. and there is not, nor will ever be more than 100% of voters! It makes no sense, but, hey
at this point nothing does.

[Hireman]

Just because the president pandered for the vote, doesn't mean the GOP has to (anymore than it already does)

[woodtick57]

yeah, why be a party for equal human rights...

[Tralee]

No, not really, pretending to favor gay-marriage over a civil union would be seen as just what it is, a pretense. Obama bought the gay vote when he flip flopped, err "Evolved" and was outed by Biden as favoring gay marriage. Should the R party, MY party, stay out of the bedrooms of all of us? Yes, not our business. That said, we need to lose the extreme abortion never, ever under any circumstances rhetoric of a very vocal minority of republicans and push for Civil Unions for anyone who wants to legalize their union and leave the word marriage for us old fashioned folks. Marriage, a religious ceremony uniting one man and one woman, totally separate from any government policy. Perhaps we need to do what the do in Europe, everyone, anyone, wanting to legalize their union has to have a government sanctioned Civil Union, then if wanted, go to a church and have a purely religious ceremony. End of conversation.

[woodtick57]

you are confusing your rite of matrimony wit legal marriage. religion has absolutely nothing to do with legal marriage.

marriage is the purview of the state.(who else would overlook a legal, binding contract?) it always has been. Religion didn't glom onto the concept until the 14th century or so, and then only to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church.

hostory is fun!

[Tralee]

@woodtick57 OK, English not your first language? That would explain your total misinterpretation of what I wrote. In short, Civil Unions would be the governments domain. It would pertain to all rights and privileges of union between two consenting adults. It would be the guarantee of inheritance, ability to visit in hospital and all the other privileges that now pertain to the word Marriage. Got that? Then, as I said, if you want a religious ceremony, you can hie yourself down to your favorite religious group for a ceremony that is blessed by the God or goddess of your choice. Got that? Therefore, YOU are incorrect in your assertion that I confused anything. I thought I was quite clear. Government unions, to satisfy the governments requirements for legal protection under the laws of two people who want to be united into a contract of Civil Union. Any two people, the government can then grapple with just how many more may participate in said Civil Union. Marriage would then be simply a religious rite, one that us old fashioned types would like to keep in the traditional definition, One man and One Woman uniting in Holy Matrimony. Got That? I have no idea what your agenda is, personally, I just don't really care, but my point was certainly made quite clear. Yes, upon rereading my post, I cannot see how anyone could have confused my remarks as badly as you did, of course, as I said, if English is not your primary language, that would explain it.

[jamie91]

@Tralee I would be behind that. BUT some churches do believe in same sex marriages and perform them. I assume you would be behind those marriages too? As blessed by a church.

[Tralee]

@jamie91 Have absolutely no problem with that at all. Just seems to me we are making a mountain out of a mole hill with this issue and in the process causing a lot of hurt on all sides of the issue.

[jamie91]

@Tralee agreed.