I wouldn't read too much into the differences between 2004 and 2008 because these are based upon polls with relatively small sub-samples of GLB voters. I'm not sure what the sample size was for 2004, but the 2008 figure is based upon a CNN exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3) in which only 4% of 17,836 respondents were family -- this works out to about 780 respondents which would result in a margin of error of +/- 4.5%. Assuming a similar sub-sample in 2004 and therefore a similar margin of error, the differences between the two polls would not be statistically significant and, therefore, meaningless.

I speak as a gay woman who did not vote for Obama, and I'll tell you why:

-He was going to win my state. No question.
-I'm sick of the Democratic Party telling me to sit down and shut up so they can get elected, and plan to leave it.

I voted for a third-party candidate who was openly pro-gay instead.

In the vein of my comment to Alex Blaze a couple of minutes ago, you can take my input for what it's worth -- the opinion of just one lesbian voter -- and try extrapolating it, before making the blanket assumptions that 1) LGBs who voted for Kerry but did not vote for Obama are racists, and 2) LGBs who did not vote for Obama must have therefore voted for McCain, or not voted at all.

As I commented on Alex's aticle:

- quote -

Not that you asked, but I'll be happy to tell you why I voted for John Kerry in 2004, but not for Barack Obama in 2008: You say they had no "wildly different positions on gay rights issues," but you ignore the fact that their tactics were, indeed, wildly different. Obama sacrificed us (oh, please don't make me rehash Donnie McClurkin, Doug Kmiec, etc., etc.) very publicly, and consistently, to "reach out" to unapologetically, activist anti-gay, conservative, churchgoing voters, and quietly ignored our very vocal outrage.

Did it work? Sure did: Obama won (at what cost? well, my vote, for one), while Kerry lost.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat for being a "one-issue" voter, I'll go on record here and repeat what I've said/written many times: I am in the safest blue state of all: California (not that CA is safe for queers anymore, but that's another story). If I knew that my one vote in 17 million (I think that's the number of reg'd voters in CA) would have kept McCain-Palin the hell out of the White House, I would have voted... well, not for Obama, but given Obama my vote, solely against McCain.

So, who did I vote for? McKinney-Clemente. Not because they're women, not because one is black and the other is Latina, and not as a protest vote. I voted for them because they represent my core values light-years ahead of Obama-Biden. And, being in California, because I had that luxury to vote third-party, without a lick of worry or guilt.

So you can take me out of the "gays went racist" stats -- it didn't happen here.

- end quote -

Which is a long way of saying what Phoenix wrote above:

"-He was going to win my state. No question.

"-I'm sick of the Democratic Party telling me to sit down and shut up so they can get elected, and plan to leave it."

Don't forget polling error. Remember we are measuring just 4% of the electorate and arguing over the difference between 70% and 77% of this 4% sample. What poll that you know of has accuracy to measure to a .4% or .04% level of accuracy?

The solution would be to do a much larger exit poll sample. My guess is that they don't do it because of cost.

I know there aren't many statistics geeks out there. But I gotta put in my 2 cents.

I ran the numbers, taking into account the margin of error inherent in sampling.

There was a statistically significant difference in LGB support for Obama and Kerry. Gays supported Obama at lower rates.

HOWEVER, there was no statistically significant difference in LGB support for McCain and Bush. So, while LGBs didn't vote for Obama at similar rates, they did not transfer that support to McCain. The corresponding increase in third-party candidate support hints that instead of switching to McCain, LGBs went rogue.

So. This can't tell us anything about whether racism was a factor, but I think it hints that more protest votes occurred because the candidates had almost identical positions on gay rights. Like the above commentators note.

Could it possibly be that some of us simply didn't buy Obama's act? That after having been burned by Kerry and the Dems back in '04 we were loathe to waste another vote and more effort on another slick poseur? That we'd heard all the "Hope/Change" rhetoric before, from Gene McCarthy to McGovern to Bill Clinton? That some of us honestly didn't fall for the Messiah mania that so many disgraced themselves and fell for? That some of us actually thought him the least qualified and most overhyped candidate? That some of us watched his performance in the primaries and weren't impressed by either his delivery or his ideas? That some of us noted every time he threw another inconvenient embarrassment "under the bus"? That some of us read his (probably ghost-written) books with skeptical instead of starry eyes? That some of us resented his flip-flop on FISA? That some of us compared his record against his words and concluded he was not an anti-war progressive but a centrist war-enabler? That some of us noticed that for a supposed "socialist" threatening to redistribute the wealth, he garnered even more Wall Street contributions than McCain. That some of us feared or suspected that he would betray or abandon us sooner or later? Nahh, it's gotta be racism; that's the only possible answer in the billericouniverse anyway.

After almost voting for Ralph Nader as a protest vote, I held my nose and voted for Obama only in order to keep McCain (and more to the point, Palin) out of the White House. All the while I cursed under my breath that I had to (once again!) vote for the lesser of two evils in order to feel as if I had any control, no matter how miniscule, over my own life in this country. I regret not voting for Nader already.

I used to be a libertarian years ago. I still appreciate their commitment to personal liberties but have grown sour on their free market idolatry. I can't recall Ron Paul being on my state's ballot, only Nader, McKinney and Barr. I wouldn't have voted for Paul because he's as nutty as Palin where religion is concerned (all right, almost as nutty), and something he said or did during the primaries struck me as homophobic.

LGB? What happened to the T, Comrade Blaze? A purge already?

Thanks for the clarification, Scott. My apologies for assuming the worst, Alex.

I think you mean LGB voters - T voters weren't included in exit polling.

My strong impression is that we T voters supported Obama much more strongly than we did Kerry. After all - Kerry didn't include transgender people in the platform & didn't support an inclusive ENDA.

I'm a MTF TS and am White. I recently started work following completing my BSN (nursing) degree. In the two instances I interviewed with gay HR people, both White males, I was denied employment. I ended up getting a job following interviewing with straight Black females.

My point is desired gender/race stereotypes are more emphasized in the gay community than the straight one. John McCain is the stereotypical "ideal" angry White macho male. A role model for gay White men if you will. Barack Obama is (gasp!) Black and has a softer, more diplomatic touch (dare I say feminine?). Anathema to much of the majority White, gay, (usually) pretending to be macho gay community.

IMO the LGBT needs to address its own gender and race prejudices and this election demonstrates my point.

While I do think that racism is alive and well in the lesbian/gay community, what the exit polling data would seem to suggest, if you are looking to racism as the explanatory factor, is that other than older americans, lesbians and gays are the only ones that let their racism impact their vote. You would need a pretty powerful explanation for that one for me to buy it.

I think the margin of error/small sample size is a possibility, but here is another one:

in 2008, more Republican-voting gays were willing to admit to pollsters that they were gay than they typically were in 2004. A lot of progress has been made since 2004, and it could literally be that Republican-leaning gays are less closeted now than four years ago. That could be the entire difference right there.

Again, I'm not trying to relieve us (white queers) for what racism we do have, just wanting to be careful that we consider whether this particular data tells us that or not.