Is there any data (or even CW) on distribution of GLBT support among the Dem candidates?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There's lots of data on men/women, black/white/hispanic, young/old, etc., but I have no clue about the GLBT vote. Are there Human Rights Campaign straw polls or other data that would offer a picture of the support distribution?

(there are probably more poll junkies here than in the GLBT forum)

[DURHAM D]

1. I have never seen any polling of the GLBT vote.

I doubt if anyone polls it. Frankly, I think the Dems take us for granted - why not. It is a safe bet.

[peacetheonlyway]

2. KUCINICH KUCINICH KUCINICH

he's the only candidate that gives a damn about gay citizens of the US.

I'm gay and I've done the homework.

the rest (especially obama, especially hillary, especially edwards) can go to hell.

[seriousstan]

3. I don't know about the Hell sentiment, but Dennis is the only one who is 4 square behind the GLBT

community.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Agreed that Kucinich is in a league of his own on positions

but even if every Kucinich supporter were gay there would still be a lot of the GLBT vote unaccounted for. Any idea where the rest goes?

[soothsayer]

5. there's a poll on this very subject on DU tonight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x58786

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Interesting. Thank you.

[MADem]

7. Most of the polling seems to be ABOUT them. There's precious little 'asking them' I'm afraid

Examples--Note how the headlines "spin" the same basic story, and the text is twisted torturously to justify the headline. This is pretty telling, this.

Here's the right wing pigs at POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5290.html

Gay support could cost candidates

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.

That is especially the case among independent voters -- often the key to winning these critical states -- and much more so among men than women and Republicans than Democrats.

No one has won the White House since 1960 without carrying two of those three states.

Although the findings might not surprise some, the data represent the first attempt in this election cycle to document the pluses and minuses of various interest group endorsements.

Perhaps reflecting a growing populism nationally, being the candidate endorsed by business groups is viewed as a big negative -- almost as much as being the gay rights lobby's candidate -- while labor support is a big positive for a candidate. ...

Here's a (sacre bleu!!!) Reuters article about the same issue--amazing, how different the take is: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0726773220070808

Gay endorsements have scant impact on U.S. voters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It does not matter to most voters in three key U.S. states whether a presidential candidate has the backing of gay rights groups, according to a new poll on Wednesday.

Ahead of a Thursday night debate for Democrats in Los Angeles devoted to gay issues, Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll asked about the impact of campaign endorsements by gay groups on voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In Ohio, 54 percent say such endorsements make no difference, while 34 percent said it would make them less likely to support a candidate and 10 percent said it would make them more likely to back a campaign.

The numbers were similar for Pennsylvania and Florida.

At the same time an endorsement by a labor union was an overall positive in all three states.

"Being perceived as the candidate of gay rights turns off more voters than it attracts, although in general being considered the candidate of a special interest group seems to be a political loser," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's polling unit.