I count the homosexual population as being one of the most intransigent segment of the voting population. But they’re only two or three percent of the voters. And even given the so-called anti-gay agenda of the Republicans, they still get about one third of the homosexual vote. That means to pander to the homosexual lobby would be to try and placate about one or two percent of the population. And that assumes all homosexuals vote which they don’t. Pandering would lose more votes for the Pubbies than they would gain. So what’s the point in pandering?
It’s more like LESS THAN 1% ~
Even taking a third of the "gay vote" shows they may be more apt to vote Republican than a comparably sized population if you accept the lowest estimates of how many gays there are: American Jews who went 8/10 for Obama in 2008.
Would many advocate abandoning the Jewish vote when they supported the most socialist candidate they could find in every presidential election in the past 100 years?
In my experience talking politics with self-identified gays--practicing and celibate--from the wealthy to the working poor, out and closeted alike, economic issues are a very high priority but so is personal liberty.
The younger ones often fit well in the "libertarian conservative" wing of the Republican Party; some of them realize it and vote Republican. Others who are older have a loathing of modern Republicans because they see the party as beholden to radical evangelical religious social conservatives, yet they espouse Republican views on issues of taxation, monetary policy, foreign policy, personal freedom, free markets, size of gov't and so forth.
It's ironic Gov. Daniels was excoriated for suggesting budgetary and economic issues take a priority role in 2012 over social policy and yet Republicans' biggest success has come with the Tea Party movement, with whom his critics identify, that does just that.