|
Rich white gays aren't that large of a voting block. The majority of gay people are working poor and have plenty of reason to continue being liberal.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm sure there are some but all of the self-described conservative gays (none of whom actually voted GOP) I have met have been strong social liberals would wouldn't vote for the party that calls their trans friends freaks and wants to jail pot smokers. The GOP would have to more fully embrace social liberalism to really get these people on board. Granted these are the millenial urban type of rich gays, I'm sure older or more rural ones would be more willing to go GOP. Plenty of people in the gay community, even activists, are perfectly happy to basically throw trans people under the bus already. Human Rights Campaign has a horrible track record with this. I'm not saying it's anything approaching a majority, but once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, unless the GOP accelerates and pushes for a constitutional amendment banning it, which would be  from a pragmatic perspective for the left, they'll probably resign themselves to it and you'll see a lot of the center-left stop care about voting, and the center-right lose one of the only reasons they have to vote Democrat. I'd bet the GOP establishment is planning for just this, in fact, and that they'll happily give up gay marriage if it means they can keep loving poor people.
Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Also, not everyone is a single issue voter. Like we tell people all the time, even if you disagree on this one thing, you may still want to vote for the major candidate that is more likely to advance your other interests. Even Krusty the clown voted for Sideshow Bob.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
William Bear posted:Really? How would a large number of gay Republicans be possible, given how white evangelicals became an essential voting group in the 1980s? When you are Double Income No Kids, low taxes become even more appealing than they already are to a young professional Mantis42 posted:Rich white gays aren't that large of a voting block. The majority of gay people are working poor and have plenty of reason to continue being liberal. That's because the majority of people are working poor. Note that working poor votes republican sullat posted:Also, not everyone is a single issue voter. Like we tell people all the time, even if you disagree on this one thing, you may still want to vote for the major candidate that is more likely to advance your other interests. Even Krusty the clown voted for Sideshow Bob. This is now going to be my go-to comparison from now on, thanks Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That's because the majority of people are working poor. Note that working poor votes republican Poor people trended Obama in 2012 according to the exit polls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, not everyone is a single issue voter. Like we tell people all the time, even if you disagree on this one thing, you may still want to vote for the major candidate that is more likely to advance your other interests. Even Krusty the clown voted for Sideshow Bob. That's true, but it's also worth remembering that there aren't just two options for voters: the option to not vote is an extremely popular one, and the problem Democrats have is getting people who reliably and decidedly agree with them to get out and vote in midterm years. Losing gay marriage as a wedge issue will hurt because it's become an effective emotional cause to rally around, especially for young people, and one which people are actually pretty passionate about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Poor people trended Obama in 2012 according to the exit polls. The polling I recall on that was that Obama took 60% of the 50k and under crowd, which is stretching the definition of "working poor" quite a bit, since median household income is 41k. What numbers are you looking at? I'm not seeing finer granularity from my admittedly abbreviated (phone) search
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This wouldn't surprise me. Huge number of gay republicans prior to Bush Jr.+Marriage Protection Act. There's a documentary about this (aptly titled Gay Republicans) from the early 00s that talks about this large number of gay conservatives trying to reconcile their political beliefs with their political party suddenly taking a hyper-active role in saying they don't have a right to be. Clarification: I was reacting to this. I was doubtful that in the time between Christian Coalition and George W, Republicans could court gays AND evangelicals. Who were the gay Republican leaders of this period? Did polls indicate gays leaned right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That's because the majority of people are working poor. Note that working poor votes republican E: non sequitur, but does anyone know of any good books on the inside of the Clinton administration?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The polling I recall on that was that Obama took 60% of the 50k and under crowd, which is stretching the definition of "working poor" quite a bit, since median household income is 41k. What numbers are you looking at? I'm not seeing finer granularity from my admittedly abbreviated (phone) search Washington Post had 60% of 50k and under. NBC and NYT have 63% of under 30k http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls More telling is that on the WaPo poll they did financial status change: Financial situation vs. four years ago Obama Romney 25% Better today 84% 15% 41 About the same 58 40 33 Worse today 18 80  e: Of course it's hard to tell if their finances really changed or if its a post-hoc rationalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Socially regressive policies are all about gathering votes, most of the wealthy individuals who control national politics don't give two shits about weed or gays. In a decade or so when pandering to the religious base is no longer a net gain in votes for the GOP you'll see them pivot to supporting broad legalization of weed, gay marriage, and whatever other supposedly liberal social issues are big at the time and which don't fundamentally threaten the economic status quo. Young people may be less religious than their parents but they are every bit as stupid and greedy, and there will never be a shortage of reactionaries, young or old, gay or straight, stoned or sober, ready and happy to vote under the banner of gently caress You, Got Mine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
I'm going to come off here as quibbling and goalpost moving, so let me preface it by saying Series DD Funding corrected my error when I said the working poor voted GOP. Now then, do we have data breaking it down cross referenced with race and with other opinion polling? I ask because as I was thinking about this I remembered that, when polled on "how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement" poor blacks polled as not only socially conservative, but also economically conservative. As in, they were more likely to agree with "you can get ahead economically by working hard and education" than with questions about "the system stacked against the average American". So based off that you would expect them to back the GOP, but they obviously don't, because of history and everything else. I'm wondering how this plays into the larger question with 1) how is race influencing the share of the vote taken compared to share of the vote that ideologically leans that way 2) to what extent will memory of animosity preclude voting for a party even when ideological support says you should I realize this is more something I should ask a real political scientist rather than people on an Internet comedy forum, but it's a question I'm now actually curious about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Drudge's bromance hasn't stopped being funny yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm going to come off here as quibbling and goalpost moving, so let me preface it by saying Series DD Funding corrected my error when I said the working poor voted GOP. You'or if someone did that study are missing a cultural difference. It really shows the weakness of these types of polls. A black person in America pretty much is going to believe that you can get ahead economically by working hard and education because those are our outs that's all we have. Yeah this system is stacked against us (also missing the point that alot of black people wouldn't consider themselves the avg american) it always has been. It'd be like complaining about the weather you can't do much about it so why not focus on working your rear end off. Honestly there is a good chunk of the black community that's libertarian as all hell and if the Republicans move that way and do poo poo to show they mean it (mostly kicking out racists not just condeming them) I can see them pulling at least 20% of the black electorate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Rich people, who vote their semi-rational self-interest. There aren't that many rich people, and even fewer of them are gay. So again, where are we getting vast amounts of gay Republicans from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Drudge's bromance hasn't stopped being funny yet. Dammit Joe, I already posted that in the media thread  (after you posted it here)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Well it's not just rich, it's rich enough to have voting R be in their self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Drudge's bromance hasn't stopped being funny yet. Dude's in pretty good shape for a Marylander.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
I think the real issue wouldn't be all these rich gay white men suddenly being a titanic voting block, it would be that their support (which is probably important, financially if nothing else) would dry up and possibly gently caress over continuing LGBT causes, once they have the confirmed right to be as gay as they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There aren't that many rich people, and even fewer of them are gay. So again, where are we getting vast amounts of gay Republicans from? Same as always, promise to make them honorary True Americans in exchange for their support in oppressing some other group. I know not-rich gay men in Texas who vote Republican now for the advantages in loving blacks/women/anyone poorer than them a little harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Eh, the republicans are still lovely to black people, I can't imagine they're suddenly going to stop being sorry to the gays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Eh, the republicans are still lovely to black people, I can't imagine they're suddenly going to stop being sorry to the gays. The only group that hates gays nowdays are the religious right which have only been a thing since 2004 whereas hating non white folk is tradition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:the religious right which have only been a thing since 2004. Uhhh no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
If Larry Hogan starts talking about the nattering nabobs of negativism, add him to the veepstakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Eh, the republicans are still lovely to black people, I can't imagine they're suddenly going to stop being sorry to the gays. Given how they've been operating wrt to other things, all they'd have to do is stop saying bad things and people would forget about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Drudge's bromance hasn't stopped being funny yet. I think this is part of the dumb conspiracy going around in the right wing right now that the Democratic base hates Hillary for being too Nixonian, and that's why NYT ran the stupid Clinton Cash piece. They think there's some movement to get rid of Hillary early in the primary and then rally around Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is their big boogeyman, and they love to engage in fact-free discussion of her presidential run and lust for power. It's hilarious considering Bernie Sanders is a literal socialist, but for some reason Warren is considered more of a threat. SirKibbles posted:The only group that hates gays nowdays are the religious right which have only been a thing since 2004 whereas hating non white folk is tradition. Hating minorities is also a proud tradition of rich white gay men! They have so much in common, and I really feel like they'll be able to see past their differences on other topics. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I think this is part of the dumb conspiracy going around in the right wing right now that the Democratic base hates Hillary for being too Nixonian, and that's why NYT ran the stupid Clinton Cash piece. They think there's some movement to get rid of Hillary early in the primary and then rally around Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren. I think Matt Drudge just likes Martin O'Malley. Particularly when he's swimming or playing guitar in a muscle shirt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Uhhh no. Yeah, the religious right was hating on Roberta Achtenberg in 93, and what's-her-face was trying to kick gay teachers out of school on the 70s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think Matt Drudge just likes Martin O'Malley. Particularly when he's swimming or playing guitar in a muscle shirt. Right, but lots of right wing talk is just people doing rip & read from Drudge. So Drudge's predilection for posting dreamy pictures of O'Malley could have a bizarre impact on the right wing discourse. Like how Drudge is basically a KKK member, but the rest of right wing media refuses to realize it or doesn't care. So his knockout game bullshit stories become an actual talking point in right wing media. The right wing doesn't realize Drudge is into O'Malley for reasons other than political or doesn't care. So O'Malley's threat to Hillary is magnified in the right wing talk sphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:This is now going to be my go-to comparison from now on, thanks No problem. "On the one hand, he tried to have me framed for murder. On the other hand, I am going to be in a higher tax bracket this year."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Right, but lots of right wing talk is just people doing rip & read from Drudge. So Drudge's predilection for posting dreamy pictures of O'Malley could have a bizarre impact on the right wing discourse. Like how Drudge is basically a KKK member, but the rest of right wing media refuses to realize it or doesn't care. So his knockout game bullshit stories become an actual talking point in right wing media. The right wing doesn't realize Drudge is into O'Malley for reasons other than political or doesn't care. So O'Malley's threat to Hillary is magnified in the right wing talk sphere. The media's full of idiots but plenty of them know Drudge likes beefcake pictures for more than their news-related reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
ErIog posted:It's hilarious considering Bernie Sanders is a literal socialist Does he really support the fall of capitalism and the public ownership of all land and the abolition of private property? I know he calls his beliefs socialist but so do lots of people who think supporting public healthcare makes them a socialist, and the word's meaning is a lot better defined than the more nebulous "liberal." Wheeee fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Does he really support the fall of capitalism and the public ownership of all land and the abolition of private property? Whenever he's called a Socialist, Bernie immediately corrects it to Democratic Socialist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Does he really support the fall of capitalism and the public ownership of all land and the abolition of private property? Doesn't matter. He calls himself a "socialist." Right wing doesn't give any fucks about what socialism actually is. They've been calling Hillary, of all people, a socialist since the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Whenever he's called a Socialist, Bernie immediately corrects it to Democratic Socialist. Ah the 'me-too' of the left 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Ah the 'me-too' of the left Bernie's basically where a member of a European Labour party is, politically, which makes him Stalin in the US. One of his big political efforts is expanding dental care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's a great goal, but not exactly smashing the state, ya know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Stalin wishes he could sing as well as Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Yeah, the religious right was hating on Roberta Achtenberg in 93, and what's-her-face was trying to kick gay teachers out of school on the 70s. Yeah but I'm referring to them being actively courted by politicians before that they were always a pain in the rear end but not to this level. Joementum posted:Bernie's basically where a member of a European Labour party is, politically, which makes him Stalin in the US. Almost want Bernie to win the primary to see how far the right would flip poo poo. Not happening in a 100 years though so eh. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie's basically where a member of a European Labour party is, politically, which makes him Stalin in the US. if he could run on a national platform with real money on "teeth for the olds" hed probably win tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 03:00
|
|
