National
Romney’s debate bounce worries Obama supporters
‘Progressives should contemplate what life in Canada might be like’


Polls are showing GOP nominee Mitt Romney has a slight lead in national polls in the weeks prior to Election Day. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
New polling data in the presidential race following last week’s debate is giving Democrats heartburn, suggesting that President Obama may not coast to victory on Election Day as many observers previously predicted.
On Tuesday, two national polls were published giving Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney a narrow lead over Obama. A report from Public Policy Polling found the GOP candidate had support from 49 percent of likely voters in the poll, compared to 47 percent for Obama. A Gallup tracking poll published on the same day had identical results.
Hilary Rosen, a lesbian Democratic activist and commentator, said Democrats “of course” should be concerned that Obama is facing a challenging road to re-election, but she remained optimistic.
“This race was always going to be decided by 1 or 2 points,” Rosen said. “Everyone in the D.C. Metro area can help by making sure the president wins in Virginia. I am confident that we [will] have another Obama rebound story coming in the next few weeks.”
The polling was conducted in the days after the Denver presidential debate, in which most observers believed Romney bested Obama — despite making controversial comments about cutting the federal subsidy for PBS as well as apparently altering his views on tax cuts for the wealthy and barring insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
The Tuesday polls came the day after the Pew Research Center published a poll giving Romney a 4-point lead over Obama among those most likely to vote. Just last month, the same poll gave Obama an 8-point lead over Romney. Other polls this week from Rasmussen, Reuters and Zogby have the race in a dead-heat.
The Pew results received significant attention because they were the first to place Romney ahead of Obama and because the same pollster had previously given Obama a wide lead. But the report was also seen as an outlier because — as pointed out by Electoral Vote Predictor — the internals of the poll are questionable.
In the October sample, 31 percent of respondents identified as Democrats, compared to 39 percent in September. Conversely, 36 percent of respondents identified as Republicans in October compared to 29 percent in September. Consequently, Pew may have undersampled Democrats and oversampled Republicans.
Richard Grenell, who’s gay and briefly served as the Romney campaign’s foreign policy spokesperson, said he doesn’t “put much stock in snapshot polls,” but believes Romney could win the election based on anecdotal evidence he’s heard from people unhappy with Obama.
“I’ve always known the American people are frustrated and disappointed with President Obama’s disastrous leadership both domestically and globally,” Grenell said. “Sadly, President Obama has failed to unite the country and has been one of the most divisive leaders the U.S. has ever seen. I keep hearing from people that voted for Obama in 2008 who will be voting for Romney now. Romney has a real chance.”
In polls taken in battleground states, the race is similarly showing signs of tightening. An American Research Group poll published Tuesday gave Romney a narrow lead in two swing states. In Colorado, the poll gave Romney a lead of 50 percent compared to the 46 percent of respondents who favored Obama, although three percent were undecided. In Ohio, Romney edged Obama by a 48-47 margin with four percent of voters identifying as undecided.
Still, the news was good for Obama in other polls for key battleground states. Contrary to American Research Group results for Ohio, a CNN/ORC poll gave Obama a significant lead in the state, placing him ahead of Romney, 51-47.
According to a Siena poll published Tuesday, Obama still enjoys a lead over Romney in Pennsylvania. Obama was favored by 43 percent of likely voters in the Keystone State and Romney has the support of 40 percent — although 12 percent were undecided.
Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a political scientist at the City University of New York, said the changes in the polls reflect the volatile nature of public opinion over the course of the presidential campaign season.
“Thus, the best answer now about whether the first debate succeeded in salvaging Romney’s campaign — and whether Barack Obama’s lackluster performance snatched defeat from the jaws of victory — is: It’s too soon to know for sure,” Pinello said. “At least another week of polling data is necessary for any certainty.”
The next test for the presidential campaign could be the debate between Vice President Joseph Biden and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on Thursday at Centre College in Danville, Ky. Two more presidential debates between Obama and Biden — one a town hall discussion at Hofstra University on Oct. 16 and another a foreign policy debate at Lynn University in Florida on Oct. 22 — are set to take place before Election Day.
Pinello maintained incumbent presidents often come back after first debate performances that are regarded as poor — recalling John Kerry’s perceived win over George W. Bush in the first debate of 2004 as well as a first debate in 1984 when President Reagan was regarded to have fared poorly against Democrat Walter Mondale.
“In both instances, the incumbents did better in subsequent debates, and voters apparently gave them any benefit of the doubt,” Pinello said. “Indeed, incumbent presidents have inherent advantages. They are known commodities to voters, while challengers necessarily represent a political roll of the dice.”
If Biden triumphs in the vice presidential debate, Pinello said the rise in popularity for the Romney-Ryan ticket could diminish as quickly as it emerged. But Pinello issued a warning to Democrats if more poor debate performances follow.
“Needless to say, if Ryan trounces Biden on Thursday, then all bets are off,” Pinello said. “Progressives should contemplate what life in Canada might be like.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican3 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved