While wasting time at work, I stumbled across this gem from the Politico, hardly known for its outstanding journalism or liberal sympathies.
You can read the article here.
The article is about how the support of gay groups could potentially harm the eventual Democratic nominee in the important swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, the states that, for all intents and purposes, have decided the last two Presidential Elections.
The article points out that the endorsement is a net negative, as compared to the benefits of a labor endorsement or a evangelical endorsement. The tone they use makes it sound as if a majority in the state would be turned off to the prospect of a candidate receiving the support of those who are gay.
Quinnipiac University polls of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- the big three Electoral College swing states -- found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate.
Thats right, large margins would apparently be turned off to the Democratic candidate where a legitimate demographic to have the audacity to make an endorsement.
The article then makes a reference to the 2004 Presidential Elections, saying...
In 2004, 11 states voted to ban gay marriage -- in most cases by very large margins. The post-election consensus was that these ballot issues brought out more voters who backed George W. Bush than those who supported Democrat John F. Kerry for president. Yet, during the current election cycle, gay rights groups have been able to further raise their influence with Democratic presidential candidates. The Democratic contenders have been strongly supportive of gay rights, and their embrace of the issue is reflected in the hopefuls taking part in the Thursday night debate.
Again, reinforcing that a majority of voters would be seriously turned off to a Democratic nominee who was endorsed by a gay group. The article's intent is clear, to frighten off Democrats who might seek support from the gay community. I mean, you don't even have to read the article to get that, the title is Gay support could cost candidates.
At this point in the article, I was nervous, would Democrats be crowed into tempering their support for gays due to an overwhelming backlash from mainstream voters? Then I saw the numbers, which more or less contradicted the entire article. Lets look at them.
In Ohio, 10 percent of voters said it would make them more likely, 34 percent said less likely -- a more than 3-1 ratio -- while 54 percent said it would not make a difference. Among independent voters, perhaps the key to the state’s 20 electoral votes, 12 percent said it would make them more likely, while 28 percent said less likely.
Wow! 34% of voters in a right leaning state might be turned off to a candidate that has the support of gays?! Its almost as if a third of the State MIGHT BE REPUBLICAN. 28% of Independents would also be less likely to support a candidate endorsed by a gay organization, LESS than the number overall, yet the Politico spins this as 'Independents won't back Dems who support gays'! Did the idiots at the Politico care to think that maybe at least a quarter of independents were already pre-disposed towards supporting Republicans ANYWAYS?! Of course not!
The headline to the article should have read. Support of Gays won't cost candidates, as clear majority DOESNT GIVE A RAT'S ASS!
54% said it wouldn't make a difference and 10% said it would help. That means by a 64% to 34% ratio, gay support of Democrats would be a good to neutral thing. Where do these idiots get off?
Florida:
Florida voters were similarly disposed. Ten percent of them said they are more likely to vote for a candidate backed by gay rights groups, while 28 percent said they were less likely and 60 percent said it would not make a difference. Among independents, 9 percent said more likely, 18 percent said less likely.
Exact same deal, slightly better actually.
Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania is the one of the big three states that Democrats carried in 2000 and 2004 but there, too, more than twice as many voters -- 28 percent -- said it would make them less likely to support a candidate as the 11 percent who said it would make them more likely. Among independents, 14 percent said more likely, 19 percent said less likely.
Again, same thing, only 19% of independents would be less likely to support a Dem who is endorsed by gays and anyone who isn't already anticipating losing AT LEAST 19% of independents is off their rocker.
The next poll done should ask how it would affect a candidate's support if they DISAVOWED the support of gay rights groups, rather than EMBRACING them.
The Politico has clearly revealed itself to be a right wing sympathizing organization that has no problem spinning numbers for their own agenda. For Shame!