November 3, 2004


In the exit polls yesterday just 4% of voters identified themselves as gay. The Democrats decision to link themselves so closely to such a marginal cohort even at the cost of black and Latino votes bodes ill for their future.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 3, 2004 10:44 AM

Is there any way we could have a gay-marriage amendment on the ballot every four years?

Posted by: pchuck at November 3, 2004 10:53 AM

Given the liberals' general anger at flyover country today, and Texas particularly, I'm waiting for the explanation of them as to why those bigoted yahoos elected a Hispanic lesbian as the new sheriff of Dallas County.

Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:12 PM

Is that a question people answer honestly?

Our homosexual Republican House member lost, just barely, to an unknown nightwatchman, but all the other incumbent homosexuals won easily.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 3, 2004 1:53 PM

Only 4%?

One would have thought it would have to be at least 20% if that known "template" had any validity to it...

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 3, 2004 3:21 PM

Saw a post that claimed exit poll data gave W the same quarter of the gay vote he had in 2000.

Posted by: JAB at November 3, 2004 8:12 PM

Homos were the new Nader.

Posted by: Eugene S. at November 4, 2004 7:18 AM

The Democratic Party is dependent upon gays as a fund-raising source. As they have no kids, they have more disposable income than straights. Also, there are corporations which prefer to hire gays, like Disney, because they can work weekends, holidays, etc. and the health care costs are less, no families to take care of. Plus, they never heve to take off from work so the kid can get to Little League or Hebrew School.

Posted by: Bart at November 4, 2004 9:54 AM

Bart, I thought surveys showed that homosexuals had less income, by a considerable amount, than other Americans?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 4, 2004 4:29 PM


No, they're wealthier.

Posted by: oj at November 4, 2004 4:36 PM