Share This Page

Demography as destiny

| Sunday, Nov. 11, 2012, 8:53 p.m.

Come senators, congressmen.

Please heed the call.

Don't stand in the doorway.

Don't block up the hall.

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled.

There's a battle outside and it is ragin.'

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls.

For the times they are a-changin.'

— Bob Dylan, 1963

Tammy Baldwin made history in two ways last Tuesday night. She became the first Wisconsin woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate. She also became the first openly gay politician, from any state, to be elected senator.

She won against a formidable opponent, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, a four-time governor and secretary of Health and Human Services in the George W. Bush administration.

Baldwin's successor in her legislative district is also openly gay, state Rep. Mark Pocan.

“At least 118 gay and lesbian candidates won their races,” reported the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.

Also, by voters in Maine and Maryland, gay marriage has been legalized for the first time via the ballot. Voters had previously rejected same-sex marriage in 32 out of 32 initiatives. President Obama had urged voters to approve the initiatives.

“This is a big day for gay women in America and, really, for all communities who aren't the typical straight, white, wealthy men elected to Congress,” said writer, activist and political commentator Sally Kohn.

Kohn, a former community organizer, worked at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and lives with her partner Sarah Hansen and their 4-year-old daughter Willa. Last December, with the times a-changin', Kohn was hired as a contributor at Fox News.

In August, the Democratic National Convention approved unprecedented language supporting gay marriage, following Obama's endorsement. The party platform at the Republican National Convention called for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A Harris Interactive poll in August showed gays favoring Obama over Romney by 67 percent to 23 percent. In response to the question, “If the Republican Party and the Democratic Party held the same position on gay rights, how would that impact your attitude toward voting for Republican candidates,” 26 percent said they would be “more likely to vote Republican.”

Related to what's now being called “demography as political destiny,” Romney won the white vote 59 percent to 39 percent, the largest share of the white vote won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

But that wasn't enough to win, with white voters making up 72 percent of the electorate, down from 74 percent in 2008 and 87 percent in 1992.

White men, now a third of all voters, went for Romney by a 28-point margin, 64 percent to 36 percent. By a smaller but still substantial margin, white women voted for Romney over Obama by 57 percent to 43 percent.

In contrast, exit polls showed Obama winning 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, 93 percent of the black vote and 73 percent of the Asian vote — three groups that make up 26 percent of the electorate.

Or as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described it in August, “We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. His email: rrreiland@aol.com

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.