Ned Lamont Deserves Enthusiastic GLBT Support

Via Memeorandum, I noted with amusement a post entitled “Ned Lamont Deserves Enthusiastic GLBT Support” by Pachacutec at Firedoglake.

While I have no doubt that a theoretical Senator Lamont would be more predisposed to vote for legislation favoring gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons than an actual Senator Joe Lieberman, one would think Lamont will need to expand his base beyond one percent of the population to have much chance of beating Lieberman, much less winning the general election.

Update: Some commenters are dubious of my “one percent of the population” number, which was drawn from memory. The Kinsley report long had it accepted that homosexuals constituted 10 percent of the population, but that was deemed to be overstated by a factor of ten in the early 1990s. See, for example, this‘s interesting piece “Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech
VS. Religious Right Anti-Gay Speech,” which places the number at 1%. Most credible estimates seem to show the number between 1% and 2%, although reported numbers vary widely because political agendas make over- and under-counting profitable.

Regardless, while a tiny, motivated voting bloc can certainly provide the difference in a close race, GLBT voters are unlikely to swing the primary to Lamont.

FILED UNDER: 2006 Election, LGBTQ Issues, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Mark says:

    I assume your “one percent” was meant figuratively?

  2. Is the real number 2%?

  3. Based on my own reading and research, which is based partly on Kinsey, but on many others as well, I’d put the number between 3-5% – leaning more towards 5%.

    I definitely think a number above that is an overstatement.

  4. Actually, outside of his heretical belief that the US should win the war on terror, Lieberman is pretty far left on most other issues. Sure there are people to his left, but that’s because he is elected and not just an advocate.

    I could imagine Lieberman running in Texas (assuming a history with the state similar to his in CT). He wouldn’t win. He would pass the sniff test on defense and as a man of principle, but fail on so many other issues. But it would be closer than the current election because he could at least pass those two tests. But the far left treat him as a traitor to his party. And everything I see says that even if the democrats pulled off a “coup” in defeating him in the primary, he would win (in CT) as an independent.