Will the Prop 8 ruling help or hinder the Democrats in the midterm elections?

[joebuck20]

I heard a mention of this on NPR this morning. Thus far Obama has been pretty tepid on gay issues, as have many other Democrats. But this ruling will potentially give their enemies some ammunition, in that they'll hold it up as evidence of how liberals are eroding family values (never mind that the judge in this case was originally appointed by Reagan, but then again when has a politician ever let facts get in his way).
So what do you think?

[Onomatopoeia]

I heard a mention of this on NPR this morning. Thus far Obama has been pretty tepid on gay issues, as have many other Democrats. But this ruling will potentially give their enemies some ammunition, in that they'll hold it up as evidence of how liberals are eroding family values (never mind that the judge in this case was originally appointed by Reagan, but then again when has a politician ever let facts get in his way).
So what do you think?I'm not sure it'll have an impact one way or the other in the midterms. The appeals process will probably still be under way by the elections, with both sides hoping their side will ultimately win out. Of course that won't stop Republicans from using it as ammunition to demonize the other side, but this will just be preaching to the choir.

[Mr Smashy]

It will energize parts of the GOP base, just like Arizona's law being suspended will. This hurts the Dems, especially because they must be pretty demoralized by now compared to the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if they stayed home in droves.

[Lightnin']

This hurts the Dems, especially because they must be pretty demoralized by now compared to the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if they stayed home in droves.

That's funny, because all of my Democratic friends are fairly excited about the ruling yesterday. And frankly, what have the Republicans managed to do in the past two years, other than ineffectively saying "no" to everything the Dems do? I keep thinking this has to be a really demoralizing time to be a Republican- when Sarah Palin is the most visible spokesperson you've got, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[John Mace]

I don't think it will have the sizzle it might have had 5 years ago. Firstly, it'll be years before there is a ruling that actually matters. Secondly, the economy is what people are worried about. It's going to be about jobs, deficits, and taxes.

[John Mace]

This hurts the Dems, especially because they must be pretty demoralized by now compared to the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if they stayed home in droves.

That's funny, because all of my Democratic friends are fairly excited about the ruling yesterday. And frankly, what have the Republicans managed to do in the past two years, other than ineffectively saying "no" to everything the Dems do? I keep thinking this has to be a really demoralizing time to be a Republican- when Sarah Palin is the most visible spokesperson you've got, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Demoralizing? Every analyst out there predicts gains in the both houses of Congress for the Republicans, and many are saying they'll take the House. If that's "demoralizing", what must it be like to be a Democrat?

[GIGObuster]

This hurts the Dems, especially because they must be pretty demoralized by now compared to the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if they stayed home in droves.

That's funny, because all of my Democratic friends are fairly excited about the ruling yesterday. And frankly, what have the Republicans managed to do in the past two years, other than ineffectively saying "no" to everything the Dems do? I keep thinking this has to be a really demoralizing time to be a Republican- when Sarah Palin is the most visible spokesperson you've got, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Add to that the position of current movements allied to the Republicans, like the tea party one, social issues are not very important to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/13/AR2010071301436.html
The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights.

[Mr Smashy]

That's funny, because all of my Democratic friends are fairly excited about the ruling yesterday. And frankly, what have the Republicans managed to do in the past two years, other than ineffectively saying "no" to everything the Dems do? I keep thinking this has to be a really demoralizing time to be a Republican- when Sarah Palin is the most visible spokesperson you've got, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Demoralizing? Every analyst out there predicts gains in the both houses of Congress for the Republicans, and many are saying they'll take the House. If that's "demoralizing", what must it be like to be a Democrat?

Exactly. There's a beatdown coming in November, and the Dems know it. That's why Obama's knucklehead spokesasshole, Gibbs, was out lowering the bar two weeks ago, for post-apocolyptic spin reasons.

The GOP has been saying 'no' because that's all they have to do - the Dems keep passing unpopular legislation, over the will of the people (or, in this case, having it overturned).

Not to threadjack, but check out the recent vote in Missouri, a state that McCain carried by 1 point. The ballot initiative to overturn Obama's healthcare scheme, Prop C, won by a massive 40 points. You don't think the GOP's coalition of tea partiers and social conservatives is fired up, compared to the Dems?

This issue will continue the hit parade I think because it plays into the same themes - out of control judiciary, overrulling states rights, reading stuff into the 14th that doesn't exist, judicial activism, etc.

[hansel]

Yes, this will energize the GOP base, but frankly, they're already about as energized as can be. This is another log on a blazing bonfire, so I don't see much effect at all.

[Leaper]

Isn't this what the 2010 Election forum is for? :)

[Troy McClure SF]

the Dems keep passing unpopular legislation, over the will of the people (or, in this case, having it overturned).

Yeah, that pesky Constitution.

[Lightnin']

Demoralizing? Every analyst out there predicts gains in the both houses of Congress for the Republicans, and many are saying they'll take the House. If that's "demoralizing", what must it be like to be a Democrat?


Exactly. There's a beatdown coming in November, and the Dems know it.

I know, I know. You guys keep posting polls which say that Democrats aren't as popular as they were a while ago... but the numbers are never quite as big as you say they are. While I agree that Pubs will make some gains, somehow I don't think we'll be seeing the kind of epic bloodbath the Dems gave the Pubs two years ago, though. All we've had from the Republicans in the past two years is, "Look how bad the Democrats are!", with no reason given for why the Pubs would be a better choice. It's just like the Republican Health Care reform- it's just a few pages of why the Democrats' version won't work. This does not inspire confidence in the Republicans.


The GOP has been saying 'no' because that's all they have to do - the Dems keep passing unpopular legislation, over the will of the people (or, in this case, having it overturned).


Such as? 'Cause I remember the healthcare bill, which while not great, was a hell of a lot better than the Republican proposal. What was that, exactly?

You guys keep telling us that the Dem's proposals are unpopular. Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot like whistling past the graveyard. Maybe if you say it often enough, it'll become true?

[Jas09]

You guys keep telling us that the Dem's proposals are unpopular. Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot like whistling past the graveyard. Maybe if you say it often enough, it'll become true?Don't forget how demoralized you are! Aren't you demoralized yet? I mean, you only got a health care bill, a stimulus, SCHIP extensions, credit card reforms, a financial reform bill, two new SCOTUS justices, and a federal court affirming same-sex marriage! Get demoralized!!!!

[Mr Smashy]

Such as? 'Cause I remember the healthcare bill, which while not great, was a hell of a lot better than the Republican proposal. What was that, exactly?

You guys keep telling us that the Dem's proposals are unpopular. Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot like whistling past the graveyard. Maybe if you say it often enough, it'll become true?

You may be missing the point. Whether you liked the healthcare bill or not, or whether it was needed or not, is completely irrelevant. The fact that most of America was against it, and the fact that those against it were certainly more motivated than those for it to come out in Missouri (the only referrendum I've seen so far, other than Mass, NJ, Va elections.... how'd they work out...) is the only point I was making.

FWIW, I mostly agree with hansel, this is just one more log on the blazing fire (good analogy there). Arizona was another. Not sure what the next one will be, since cap-n-trade seems to be dead.... cardcheck maybe? Fairness doctrine? you tell me.

Anyway, it will matter for single issue voters, and for my money, I see the social/family values voters as a somewhat different population than the anti-illegal immigrant voters, which is different from many of the anti-UHC voters (which itself has two camps, those who care more about either gov interference in healthcare, or the devastating fiscal implications to the Treasury).

Edit to add: it's not impossible that this sways the Calif Senate election, since they'll be closest to the issue.

[BrainGlutton]

The fact that most of America was against it . . .

But, at least half of those were against it because it did not go far enough. We went over this many times in GD during the health-care debate.

[Mr Smashy]

The fact that most of America was against it . . .

But, at least half of those were against it because it did not go far enough. We went over this many times in GD during the health-care debate.

Understood, and I am not trying to re-invent that debate in this thread. The point is, people were against it. And it's not unreasonable to assume that for every point the bill moved to the left on the liberal-conservative spectrum, they would have lost as many or more supporters on the other side. In fact, I'd guess that the bill was optimized to get as much support as possible, seeing as how close it was in Congress.

The fact that Missouri barely went for McCain, 50-49, and this thing passed by 79-28 or whatever, must count for something. The state is highly purple, but the motivated troops were mostly on the right. I suspect a similar event this Nov. This is at the crux of the OP's question.

(For the record, I did not bring up the UHC bill, Lightnin' did)

[Chronos]

Plus the folks who were in favor of every single provision of the health care bill, but who still opposed the bill. Like my dad, who thinks that funding for pre-natal care is a code word for abortion.

[DigitalC]

Not to threadjack, but check out the recent vote in Missouri, a state that McCain carried by 1 point. The ballot initiative to overturn Obama's healthcare scheme, Prop C, won by a massive 40 points. You don't think the GOP's coalition of tea partiers and social conservatives is fired up, compared to the Dems?



Not to continue this threadjack but that vote in Missouri took place during a GOP primary, it is completely and utterly meaningless. Besides didn't the last poll say most people in the US were glad the health care bill passed? i think it was 59% in favor with only old people being completely against it.

[Mr Smashy]

Not to threadjack, but check out the recent vote in Missouri, a state that McCain carried by 1 point. The ballot initiative to overturn Obama's healthcare scheme, Prop C, won by a massive 40 points. You don't think the GOP's coalition of tea partiers and social conservatives is fired up, compared to the Dems?



Not to continue this threadjack but that vote in Missouri took place during a GOP primary, it is completely and utterly meaningless. Besides didn't the last poll say most people in the US were glad the health care bill passed? i think it was 59% in favor with only old people being completely against it.

If that were true, you'd have a point.

However you can see that the Dems (http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/statewideresults.asp?eid=283) also had a primary on Aug 3.

And the latest polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html) show pretty serious opposition, 51.8% to 37% against.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I heard a mention of this on NPR this morning. Thus far Obama has been pretty tepid on gay issues, as have many other Democrats. But this ruling will potentially give their enemies some ammunition, in that they'll hold it up as evidence of how liberals are eroding family values (never mind that the judge in this case was originally appointed by Reagan, but then again when has a politician ever let facts get in his way).
So what do you think?No significant effect.
The anti-gay bigots were already going to be voting Republican, so this doesn't change anything.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Considering that half the objections to Obama and/or his policies aren't true, what does it matter if something comes along that is true?

In this case, a California constitutional amendment that was opposed by a Republican governor and which the Republican attorney general declared was unconstitutional was overturned by a Republican-appointed judge.

The fact that we all think the Republicans will be able to use this as a cudgel against Democrats is really quite sad.

[Merijeek]

I heard a mention of this on NPR this morning. Thus far Obama has been pretty tepid on gay issues, as have many other Democrats. But this ruling will potentially give their enemies some ammunition, in that they'll hold it up as evidence of how liberals are eroding family values (never mind that the judge in this case was originally appointed by Reagan, but then again when has a politician ever let facts get in his way).
So what do you think?

In a SANE world it would be pointed out that the judge is a republican appointee and that Obama and the Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Then people would also figure out the rampant hypocrisy of the term "activist judge".

Then mom and dad would buy me a pony.

-Joe

[alphaboi867]

Considering that half the objections to Obama and/or his policies aren't true, what does it matter if something comes along that is true?

In this case, a California constitutional amendment that was opposed by a Republican governor and which the Republican attorney general declared was unconstitutional was overturned by a Republican-appointed judge.

The fact that we all think the Republicans will be able to use this as a cudgel against Democrats is really quite sad.

Nitpick, Attorney-General Jerry Brown is a Democrat. In fact he's the Democratic candidate for CA Governor. Will his not defending Prop 8 in court cost him the governorship, or will the same electorate that approved Prop 8 "reward" him with the governorship? Or will voters just not care?

[Really Not All That Bright]

So he is. My mistake - I assumed the Attorney General was appointed.

[E-Sabbath]

Oh, I think Prop 8 will not affect how people think of Governor Moonbeam in the least. He always smiles and never frowns.

That is to say, he's been around a _while_, and people formed their opinion on him a long time ago. Soon he will be pres-i-dent. You might remember the last one that state sent...

[elfkin477]

It makes me a bad person that I want Prop 8 to be overturned and to make Democrats look bad, right? I'd settle for Prop 8 being overturned, but both would make me happier.

[Ají de Gallina]

No significant effect.
The anti-gay bigots were already going to be voting Republican, so this doesn't change anything.

The anti-gay bigots were already polling Republican. Getting them to vote is the issue.

[SmartAlecCat]

In a SANE world it would be pointed out that the judge is a republican appointee and that Obama and the Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with this.


Yeah, but don't forget Pelosi fought hard against Judge Walkers appointment. That's got to count for something.

Oh wait...
:confused:

[boytyperanma]

It will slightly motivate the Republican base but as they are already pretty motivated I doubt it will make much a difference on that end.

However I think it does nothing for the Democrat's base as it serves as a reminder if you want progressive change you need to go it on your own because the Democrats will not lift a finger to help.

[New Deal Democrat]

Gay marriage is the kind of issue that has hurt the Democrats since the 1960s. I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I would like for it to be settled by elected officials rather than by judges.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Gay marriage is the kind of issue that has hurt the Democrats since the 1960s. I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I would like for it to be settled by elected officials rather than by judges.That same thing could have been said about Democratic support for Civil Rights for blacks until about the mid-1970's. In fact, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he remarked that this would mean that no Democrat would be elected president for 20 years. (He was off a few years. The next democratic President was 16 years later; Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat.) And this racial bias has turned the southern states into nearly solid republican territory for most of the time since then.

But in the end it has helped the Democratic Party -- black voters have been one of the most solid elements of the democratic coalition since they were able to vote. And the same is coming true with GLBT voters -- they notice the difference in the parties, and are also becoming a pretty solid democratic voting block.

[jsgoddess]

But in the end it has helped the Democratic Party -- black voters have been one of the most solid elements of the democratic coalition since they were able to vote. And the same is coming true with GLBT voters -- they notice the difference in the parties, and are also becoming a pretty solid democratic voting block.

Even if it hadn't helped the party, it was still the right thing to do. Gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular are also the right thing to do.

[Chronos]

(He was off a few years. The next democratic President was 16 years later; Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat.)I only make it 12 years.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

(He was off a few years. The next democratic President was 16 years later; Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat.)I only make it 12 years.LBJ said it in 1964, when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Carter was elected in 1980, 16 years later.

LBJ was re-elected (over Goldwater) later that year, and did serve until 1968. But I think in saying "another" he meant an other -- some democrat other than himself being elected as President. At the time he said it, he was pretty confident about his re-election.

[BrainGlutton]

And the same is coming true with GLBT voters -- they notice the difference in the parties, and are also becoming a pretty solid democratic voting block.

Are they? Cite? I know there are a lot of homocons. Gay people, like straight people, come from everywhere -- every region, social class, religious background, ethnic/racial background -- all the things that shape people's political views and their perceptions of their political interests. The only thing they all have in common is that they're all gay; the only political interests they all have in common are those touching on gay rights. Is support for gay rights, by itself, really enough to secure the allegiance of most of them?

[BrainGlutton]

Gay marriage is the kind of issue that has hurt the Democrats since the 1960s. I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I would like for it to be settled by elected officials rather than by judges.That same thing could have been said about Democratic support for Civil Rights for blacks until about the mid-1970's. In fact, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he remarked that this would mean that no Democrat would be elected president for 20 years. (He was off a few years. The next democratic President was 16 years later; Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat.) And this racial bias has turned the southern states into nearly solid republican territory for most of the time since then.

But in the end it has helped the Democratic Party -- black voters have been one of the most solid elements of the democratic coalition since they were able to vote. And the same is coming true with GLBT voters -- they notice the difference in the parties, and are also becoming a pretty solid democratic voting block.

I believe what LBJ said was, "We [the Democrats] have just lost the South for a generation." And it came to pass that masses of conservative white Southern Democrats migrated to the GOP -- many of them by way of George Wallace' American Independent Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party) -- and the southern states are now Red or Purple.

But, that generation now is past. I do not believe those who made that conversion, when they die, are going to be fully replaced by a commensurate number of younger white Southerners. Their form of conservatism has become a generational-culture characteristic.

[Chronos]

LBJ said it in 1964, when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Carter was elected in 1980, 16 years later.
No, Carter was voted out of office in 1980. He came in in 1976.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That same thing could have been said about Democratic support for Civil Rights for blacks until about the mid-1970's. In fact, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he remarked that this would mean that no Democrat would be elected president for 20 years. (He was off a few years. The next democratic President was 16 years later; Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat.) And this racial bias has turned the southern states into nearly solid republican territory for most of the time since then.

But in the end it has helped the Democratic Party -- black voters have been one of the most solid elements of the democratic coalition since they were able to vote. And the same is coming true with GLBT voters -- they notice the difference in the parties, and are also becoming a pretty solid democratic voting block.

I believe what LBJ said was, "We [the Democrats] have just lost the South for a generation." And it came to pass that masses of conservative white Southern Democrats migrated to the GOP -- many of them by way of George Wallace' American Independent Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party) -- and the southern states are now Red or Purple.

But, that generation now is past. I do not believe those who made that conversion, when they die, are going to be fully replaced by a commensurate number of younger white Southerners. Their form of conservatism has become a generational-culture characteristic.
Assuming that you're correct, the question then becomes whether the Democratic Party can hold on to the black voters it won when it lost all those white voters.

[BrainGlutton]

I believe what LBJ said was, "We [the Democrats] have just lost the South for a generation." And it came to pass that masses of conservative white Southern Democrats migrated to the GOP -- many of them by way of George Wallace' American Independent Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party) -- and the southern states are now Red or Purple.

But, that generation now is past. I do not believe those who made that conversion, when they die, are going to be fully replaced by a commensurate number of younger white Southerners. Their form of conservatism has become a generational-culture characteristic.
Assuming that you're correct, the question then becomes whether the Democratic Party can hold on to the black voters it won when it lost all those white voters.

The usual answer to that is, "Where else are they going to go?" And it's the usual answer because it makes sense.

[jsgoddess]

Assuming that you're correct, the question then becomes whether the Democratic Party can hold on to the black voters it won when it lost all those white voters.

It's one of those situations where black voters might not agree with the Democratic party, but the Republican party has so many issues with racism and xenophobia that it's pretty hard for them to court minority voters. One side is for gay marriage; the other side says a black president is a Kenyan Manchurian candidate. Most of us will put up with disagreements. It's harder to put up with someone who labels us as "other" or "less."

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure, but the politics of the Republican Party will necessarily move away from reactionism once all these anti-Civil Rights Act voters die off (assuming BG has it right)- which means the Republican Party will no longer be the de facto home of mainstream racism.

[Markxxx]

Sarah Palin works, but face it few people heard of Mr Obama in 2006 either. If it wasn't for Oprah we'd have another President Clinton.

The economy will drive this election, people vote with their pocketbooks in mind. And saying it was GW Bush caused this recession doesn't matter, it's how much their suffering NOW that counts.