The gay community has been angered over the fact that neither mainstream political party makes a sincere effort on LGBT legislation. Every election cycle talk of whether the Democrats take the gay vote for granted and whether gays will go out to the polls comes up for discussion but nothing ever happens.
Financially speaking the LGBT community holds a large portion of the donations received by the DNC. Many queer people are withholding donations until change is made, and some are saying that it appears this gets the Democrats moving on legislation. Some threaten they will switch parties or won't go out to vote, but ultimately the Democrats know this won't go far since the other major contender is worse off on LGBT issues and not voting at all is unlikely among a heavily political base.
Will the gay vote ever be taken seriously? Does it require more funding to be cut from gay donors, a shift to another party, or more people self identifying as queer?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Open Forum: Will the Gay Vote Be Taken Seriously?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
We thought it would be with Obama, and I personally put time and $ I didn't really have to spend into getting him elected. That was a fail. And unless 'religion' (as defined by the right wing, a totally different definition than Jesus intended) becomes less a factor then idk what can possibly change things.
Doug
If we want our votes to be taken seriously, then we need to start acting like a community, and not like a bunch of snotty queens at a cocktail party.
We need to stop hiding behind our labels to justify bossing each other around and teaching each other "lessons" and get behind each other.
And our self appointed leaders need to learn that we're fighting for equality and not for celebrity.
I'm not sure if Dems plan on taking us seriously or not. This is still Obama's first year in office and I do believe that the economy and health care are the most pressing issues, but I also think that DADT could have been done away with by now.
In regard to leaving the Dem Party, the alternative is worse so that's an empty threat. It would behoove us to threaten them with not showing up to the polls at all versus giving the GOP our votes. (Voting for one of them just isn't on my list of things to do.) I mean why not boycott? Yes, Repubs stand the chance of winning and we won't get what we want, but we aren't getting what we want anyway so what's the real difference? It sure would send a clear message to Dems that their bullshitting will not be tolerated any longer.
The GOP looks pretty fragmented these days with the possibility of the extra-nutty Tea Party people looking at the possibility of their own party -- an uber hateful sect of Bible-thumpin' bigots (as if good ole Repubs weren't bad enough). We, too, could break off along with other disappointed Dems and start the Progressive Party, but the cost of that is splitting the Dem vote. But again, it would send a clear message to Dems. It's gotta start somewhere and even though being stuck with a Repub in office sucks, maybe sacrificing a presidential term might work for us in the long run. I dunno, it's all so disappointing. Repubs suck ass all the way around and Dems are spineless, sniveling twits really not that far behind them. WTF gives?
Vote third party like me.
I think it is important to be swing voters between the Democrats and the Greens. It keeps the Democrats from taking us for granted, and it pushes the major parties to the left.
I registered Green. I am done with the democratic party.
What you people need is Qualified Majority Voting.
TRiG.
Post a Comment