Would a pro-gay marriage stance cost Obama the election?

[Eve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/op...=1&ref=opinion

That's pretty much what some people are saying: that he only is fudging on the issue because he's afraid that gay-hating Obama-lovers will flee rightward.

Me, I think Obama is genuinely uncomfortable with equal rights for gays (pretty ironic, since his own parents' marriage was illegal in many states), but of course he is a damn sight better than Romney. Do you think that any slight Obama move gayward-ho would throw the election to the Republicans?

[gatorslap]

Probably not, but I could envision circumstances in which it would. If the election goes down to the wire, and he is dependent on close wins in socially conservative states like North Carolina, then maybe.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Eve

Do you think that any slight Obama move gayward-ho would throw the election to the Republicans?

Hard to say. Black and latino voters tend to be opposed to gay rights.

That said I doubt they will vote against all their other interests and vote for Romney solely because of pro-gay rights stance by Obama.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The technical answer is no. The reality is that the election will come down to a number of swing states, which are by definition going to be close. Any and all of a mix of a gazillion issues will move that last few percent toward one or the other candidate, or make them stay home. I doubt that even a good after the fact regression analysis will ever to be able to tease out which factors were important to what degree.

Overall, polls indicate that as many people today are comfortable with gay marriage as aren't. That's of lesser meaning than it appears. The people who aren't comfortable are older, and older people vote in higher percentages. And the ones who are opposed are super OMG teh ghey! opposed. Obama was never likely to get a huge percentage of those voters in the first place, but he doesn't want that number to drop any either.

That's what elections are about these days. People who are not party-aligned vote against unless there's a spectacular reason to vote for. That gives any wedge issue disproportionate weight. Nobody could ever be sure that a stand on gay marriage would be the deciding negative factor, but the campaign is looking to minimize all negative factors just because.

Look, Obama should come out and support gay marriage just as Romney should come out and denounce people in his audience who declare Obama to be a traitor. It's not going to happen during the campaign. Wedge issues by definition aren't subject to reason or logic. The best course is to avoid them, even at the cost of disappointment to the base. That's how the two candidates wound up as the two candidates and they're not about to change strategies now.

I realize this answer is both ugly and mealymouthed. The only bright side is that I got to use mealymouthed in a sentence.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

The technical answer is no. The reality is that the election will come down to a number of swing states, which are by definition going to be close. Any and all of a mix of a gazillion issues will move that last few percent toward one or the other candidate, or make them stay home. I doubt that even a good after the fact regression analysis will ever to be able to tease out which factors were important to what degree.

Right. Obama has the pro-gay marriage vote in the bag anyways. Why piss off an independent who otherwise is going along with him?

Is there a block of pro-SSM voters who are planning on voting for Romney but for Obama coming out in support of SSM? If not, then it's just a risk not work taking.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

The technical answer is no. The reality is that the election will come down to a number of swing states, which are by definition going to be close. Any and all of a mix of a gazillion issues will move that last few percent toward one or the other candidate, or make them stay home. I doubt that even a good after the fact regression analysis will ever to be able to tease out which factors were important to what degree.

Yep. There are so many non-liberal types coming out in favor of SSM (Dick Cheney!) that I think it's time to stop giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He's for it, but doesn't want to say so for fear of the political repercussions.

All the creationists will get see a great example of what evolutionary biologists call "punctuated equilibrium" sometime during Obama's 2nd term. His position will abruptly "evolve" into support for SSM once he's on the other side of the election and safely in the WH for another term.

[BrainGlutton]

If I were a politician I would (I hope) tell the truth and offend everbody: "Yeah, I'm all for same-sex marriage because I see no good reason whatsoever not to be, but I don't consider it a high priority, when we have so many pressing dollars-and-cents issues to wrestle with. My priorities are all about social classes and distribution of wealth. I'm sure same-sex couples will be allowed to marry eventually anyway, in every state of the Union, once the G.I Generation dies off."

[Tom Tildrum]

The fact remains that voters have rejected gay marriage in nearly every jurisdiction where it has come to a referendum, so it wouldn't surprise me if Axelrod is telling Obama not to let the election become a referendum on gay marriage.

Exapno is of course correct that any number of factors inform voters' decisions, but Obama is presumably concluding that the marginal tipping effect among voters in swing states from a pro-SSM announcement would go against him. Florida is the big one, but he may also be thinking of Virginia and North Carolina.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If I were a politician I would (I hope) tell the truth and offend everbody: "Yeah, I'm all for same-sex marriage because I see no good reason whatsoever not to be, but I don't consider it a high priority, when we have so many pressing dollars-and-cents issues to wrestle with. My priorities are all about social classes and distribution of wealth. I'm sure same-sex couples will be allowed to marry eventually anyway, in every state of the Union, once the G.I Generation dies off."

You would cease to be a politician of any standing, then. You'd have both sides pissed off with you again. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[jtgain]

I think that this is the exact reason that Biden is throwing out that trial balloon. In any event, on January 21, 2013, Obama's "evolving" position will have finished evolving.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by jtgain

In any event, on January 21, 2013, Obama's "evolving" position will have finished evolving.

Will yours?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Interesting subject......... especially since some on the left and most on the right will try to pin him down on the issue over the next six months.

We'll have to see what the fair and balanced news-drivers do, for how long and how hard.

Plays right into his whispers to the Russian leader a while back about how he'll do things differently after he is re-elected. I'm looking forward to some good political commercials that will include that scene.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Obama will be interviewed by Robin Roberts on ABC today .

I wonder who she voted for last time? Of course it would be tough to find anyone on ABC or any other major network that didn't.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Obama will be interviewed by Robin Roberts on ABC today .

I have little evidence to support this other than my gut feeling there is a political opportunity here, but I suspect Obama will use this interview to publically support gay marriage; his evolution ends today.

It's a guess, I agree, but after looking at some insider scuttlebutt on the web, nationwide polling on gay marriage--particularly support for it among independents and young voters--and the chance to own the news cycle for the next week or so (Romney will be immediately asked the same question, and I doubt he has an answer that will appease his base), I think Obama has weighed the calculus and decided the votes this will cost him in swing states are worth it. I respect Exapno's political analysis, but I still think Obama has good reasons to make this move.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

I have little evidence to support this other than my gut feeling there is a political opportunity here, but I suspect Obama will use this interview to publically support gay marriage; his evolution ends today.

I can't find out when this interview is being aired. Was it on today's show, or to be shown sometime in the future?

[Little Nemo]

If Obama was going to do something like this, he should have done in back in 2009. Yes, he would have taken a lot of heat over it but that would have faded with time. Doing it now would make it a fresh issue right before an election.

In addition, having waited three years shows Obama isn't really all that concerned about gay marriage. If he was, he would have done something about it before now. If he had made it a major issue right at the start, his opponents might have disagreed with his stance but he would have at least gotten some credit for making a principled stand.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

If Obama was going to do something like this, he should have done in back in 2009. Yes, he would have taken a lot of heat over it but that would have faded with time. Doing it now would make it a fresh issue right before an election.

In addition, having waited three years shows Obama isn't really all that concerned about gay marriage. If he was, he would have done something about it before now. If he had made it a major issue right at the start, his opponents might have disagreed with his stance but he would have at least gotten some credit for making a principled stand.

Color me surprised if he takes any significant heat over this position, except by those who already despise him.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I can't find out when this interview is being aired. Was it on today's show, or to be shown sometime in the future?

Tomorrow, with segments being aired tonight (presumably on tonight's newscast).

Here's a sneak peak of the sneak peak: Link.

[ladyfoxfyre]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009

[Lantern]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

I have little evidence to support this other than my gut feeling there is a political opportunity here, but I suspect Obama will use this interview to publically support gay marriage; his evolution ends today.

It's a guess, I agree, but after looking at some insider scuttlebutt on the web, nationwide polling on gay marriage--particularly support for it among independents and young voters--and the chance to own the news cycle for the next week or so (Romney will be immediately asked the same question, and I doubt he has an answer that will appease his base), I think Obama has weighed the calculus and decided the votes this will cost him in swing states are worth it. I respect Exapno's political analysis, but I still think Obama has good reasons to make this move.

Wow good call. When I first read your post I was skeptical but it actually kind of convinced me and it turns out you were right.

[hajario]

Nice call, CJJ*

[Marley23]

I guess we're going to find out, since today he told ABC News that same-sex marriage should be legal.

[PandaBear77]

SSM is the least of Obama's worries as far as getting re-elected goes.

That said his announcement today probably didn't do much for him bringing in the Muslim vote.

[Jack Batty]

The difference between Romney's flip-flops and Obama's (in this instance) is that Romney never admits that he had a different opinion at one point. He just goes right ahead with, "I've always been against mandated insurance coverage."

I don't believe I've ever heard Romney say, "You know, I've given it some thought and I've changed my mind on that." He's just always been at war with Eurasia.

[CJJ*]

This is technically a change in position when compared against previous statements. But in Obama's case there really seemed to be a clear evolution--he got rid of DADT, he told the Justice Dept. to stop with DOMA; in short, you can argue that he was legitimately wrestling with his conscience and that now he's taking the politically dangerous position.

And as Jack Batty points out, Obama acknowledges his past statements and owns the fact that he's changed his mind. Romney's flip-flops aren't even comparable; they always seem to be calculated to take advantage of the latest political wind, and he just ignores whatever quotes are played in the past.

I too wish Obama had done this sooner, and that he didn't need to be pushed by other WH staffers to do it (though those may have been trial baloons sent up to test the political fallout in advance). But he deserves credit for finally getting there on his own, and he deserves to be defended from the inevitable screeching on the right. I can predict those doublethink clowns on Fox will claim it's both a savvy political strategy yet also hugely unpopular with "main-stream America".

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

But in Obama's case there really seemed to be a clear evolution--he got rid of DADT, he told the Justice Dept. to stop with DOMA; in short, you can argue that he was legitimately wrestling with his conscience and that now he's taking the politically dangerous position.

You can make that argument, but I'm not sure who is going to believe it. He moved on gays rights issues when he felt it was prudent and workable. I wish those moves had been made earlier and more strongly, but a lot of people are idiots on these issues and they vote, too. He's been moving toward the right position on these matters (and it's likely that's been the position he always held), and he got closer today.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

This is technically a change in position when compared against previous statements. But in Obama's case there really seemed to be a clear evolution--he got rid of DADT, he told the Justice Dept. to stop with DOMA; in short, you can argue that he was legitimately wrestling with his conscience and that now he's taking the politically dangerous position.

The idea that Obama is some kind of social conservative at heart, and has been having an internal debate about the morality of gay marriage for the past several years, is absurd.

He's been wrestling with whether it would be politically damaging for him to reveal his true opinions on the issue. That's all.

It is still different from Romney, who simply seems to calculate what positions would be politically expedient for him to adopt, regardless of his own opinions.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Absolute

The idea that Obama is some kind of social conservative at heart, and has been having an internal debate about the morality of gay marriage for the past several years, is absurd.

He's been wrestling with whether it would be politically damaging for him to reveal his true opinions on the issue. That's all.

I disagree. I think it's a bit of both. I don't find it unreasonable to consider the fact that he changed his mind. A lot of people do - especially in regard to this issue, for which there is a lot of focus and analysis lately. I hope Bricker doesn't mind me using him as an example (and I hope he corrects me if I'm misstating his position), but he change his opinion in the matter. Obama isn't as good as Bricker?

That said, I don't think Obama takes a shit without considering the political ramification, but I won't pretend to know what strategies - long or short term - they're working by coming out with this now.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

I disagree. I think it's a bit of both. I don't find it unreasonable to consider the fact that he changed his mind. A lot of people do - especially in regard to this issue, for which there is a lot of focus and analysis lately. I hope Bricker doesn't mind me using him as an example (and I hope he corrects me if I'm misstating his position), but he change his opinion in the matter. Obama isn't as good as Bricker?

I just find it hard to believe that Obama, given his positions on other issues, wouldn't have reached the rational conclusion on gay marriage a long time ago.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

The difference between Romney's flip-flops and Obama's (in this instance) is that Romney never admits that he had a different opinion at one point. He just goes right ahead with, "I've always been against mandated insurance coverage."

Actually, what he says is that he was always opposed to federal mandates. States, he says, are and were different.

Now that's a real distinction, so it's defensible. You can't prove he's lying. But a fine one, and one he never made before, so while his fans may buy it, most people not predisposed to believe whatever comes out of his mouth hears it and goes

In the same way, Obama can defensibly claim that he just changed his mind. You can't prove he's lying. But it's a little bit hard to imagine what specifically happened to change it. Did he make his first gay friend? Did he read some book that changed his mind? What? Unless he comes out and clearly explains the logic behind the switch in a convincing way (and no, "I just thought it over for the first time" is not convincing), most people not predisposed to believe whatever comes out of his mouth hear it and go

It's okay to admit he's not perfect. He's a politician. This is what they do. Frankly, I think it reflects better on him as a politically-motivated flip-flop than to think he was that far behind other people of his age/education/political demographic. YMMV.

[DigitalC]

The people who are against gay marriage are still a lot more against it than the people who are for it. It doesn't matter if it polls favorably, as long as the people against it are rabidly against it and the people who are for it are only mildly enthusiastic it is an overall loss of votes.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

The people who are against gay marriage are still a lot more against it than the people who are for it. It doesn't matter if it polls favorably, as long as the people against it are rabidly against it and the people who are for it are only mildly enthusiastic it is an overall loss of votes.

You seem to have mixed up numbers and enthusiasm at the end of the post, but regardless, I think your premise is false. If people are only mildly supportive of gay marriage, who is rallying in support of it and why is it becoming legal in more states? Who got politicians to support it in New York and Maryland and who is challenging Prop 8 in California?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Marley23

You seem to have mixed up numbers and enthusiasm at the end of the post, but regardless, I think your premise is false. If people are only mildly supportive of gay marriage, who is rallying in support of it and why is it becoming legal in more states? Who got politicians to support it in New York and Maryland and who is challenging Prop 8 in California?

As stated on tonight's news, every state that is expected to be a swing state in November has made SSM illegal. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if solid Blue states support it. The only thing that counts in the election are swing voters in swing states.

[Eve]

Well, we now have two identical threads in this forum, since someone started one in Great Debates and it got moved over here--why don't we merge them or just close mine?

[Marley23]

Since we now have two threads on this topic (the other was started in Great Debates) and with the OP's agreement, I'm closing this thread. The discussion continues here.

[BigAppleBucky]

This decision made by the president feels totally right to me. It was the clear moral choice.

I came to believe same sex marriage should be legal before the president, but it took me longer to arrive at it.

On the gay-straight scale I'm very far to the straight extreme. That's not a brag or an apology, just a fact of my birth. The only mention of homosexuality in my youth was the use of "homo" as an insult - "YOU HOMO!". So for many years I was uncomfortable around gay people. But over those years all of my limited experiences with homosexuals were positive.

What finally convinced me, was my wife relating about ten years ago how "nice" the adapted children of a local gay couple were. Our three kids knew three of theirs and found them all to be good people and I've grown to completely trust my childrens' judgments in that regard. Raising an adapted child is hugely difficult and that pair was successful at least three times. Enough for me.

It might help if people think of marriage as primarily as the contract it is. Generally speaking a contract must be made between two competent (think adult) and consenting persons. This precludes the whole slippery slope marry an animal argument.

Protecting the rights of same sex couples can do nothing but strengthen the social fabric.

I predict President Obama will be far prouder of this decision than he will be of his Nobel Prize or the killing of Bin Laden.

For this, Obama would be a candidate for an updated version of Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Romney would never take a stand that might lose him the election.

[furt]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

I came to believe same sex marriage should be legal before the president, but it took me longer to arrive at it.

So, it took him a lot longer than it took you to even start thinking about it, and he should get extra credit for that? Really?


I swear, these efforts to lionize the guy make him look so much worse.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by furt

So, it took him a lot longer than it took you to even start thinking about it, and he should get extra credit for that?


I swear, these efforts to lionize the guy make him look so much worse.

And efforts to make his admirable decision look expedient make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?

Really?

[Gagundathar]

Regardless of how long it took him to decide to go public with what I think was a privately held position, the fact remains that Mr. Obama took a courageous position by merely declaring that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The political fallout from the right could be considerable, but in the long run, this could prove to be a real rallying point for the progressives who have felt somewhat abandoned by their chosen leader.

Personally, the entire argument seems ludicrous to me. How in the world would anyone challenge the right for two adults to express their love for one another publicly by declaring that they are jointly responsible for their lives together? How can love be limited by gender preference? For years, the religious right has denigrated same-sex relations as immoral in much the same way as premarital sex was considered immoral. And yet when these couples choose to bond one to another in a heartfelt ceremony of love and fidelity, the right declares that this, too, is immoral. Marriage isn't about sex, y'all. It is about commitment and love and honesty and fidelity and all of those other virtues that the right so dearly holds sacred.

It makes me sad that we, the citizens of the 21st century, are even having this debate.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

So it doesn't matter in the slightest if solid Blue states support it. The only thing that counts in the election are swing voters in swing states.

It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.

That's a point, and it doesn't appear to be coincidence that the announcement was made just before a Hollywood fund-raiser.

But as an effect, the additional increment that will come from this stance is probably too small to be noticed. People have been estimating that the campaign will need a billion dollars. Is there really a possibility that any increase will be larger than rounding error?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.

Will it be that much more, though? That's the many, many, many dollar question.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

Marriage isn't about sex, y'all.

Just ask anyone who is married.

[kaylasdad99]

Allow me to rephrase:

And efforts to make an admirable decision look merely politically expedient (and therefore somehow tawdry) make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?

Really?

[Measure for Measure]

From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago... politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don't Ask Don't Tell back into the military.

Yes, this could cost him the election. No, the election is not a sure thing, though I think intrade underestimates Obama's strength when they give him 60% odds.

For the moment, Romney gets irritated when reporters ask him about gay marriage, medical marijuana or in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants: "Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?" But I suspect that Rove's Super Pac will have a more politically adept take on the issue.

[BrainGlutton]

It just now occurred to me, Biden's statement last week was not a gaffe, it was a trial balloon!

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago... politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don't Ask Don't Tell back into the military.

Maybe. But sometimes when Presidents get out ahead of history, it becomes a lasting and defining moment of their careers. LBJ would be remembered very negatively for getting us into Vietnam, but he rightly gets a lot of credit for pushing through Civil Rights legislation, to the point where he's frequently remembered positively. This issue may not be quite as big as the Civil Rights movement in the '60s (or it may; we're probably too close to judge it accurately) but Obama would do well to be on the right side of it if he's got his eyes on the history books.

[furt]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Allow me to rephrase:

And efforts to make an admirable decision look merely politically expedient (and therefore somehow tawdry) make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?

I got no skin in Romney's game, either, dude. But the guy I will be voting for ... well, he engages in the occasional BS, too. It's all in the game, every grown-up realizes it, and plenty of very good policy decisions have come from politicians doing what was politically expedient. Hell, Clinton didn't have a sincere bone in his body and he did a pretty good job.


But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay heroically adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by furt

But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay heroically adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you.

OK. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

[Maastricht]

This Dutch woman says kudos' to Obama.

I would have thougth you guys in the US would have gone the same route we did in the Netherlands, in 2001, as the first country in the world. . First same-sex civil unions, "registered partnerships" were allowed; when that went okay, marriage followed about five years later. But apparently, Obama goes straight to marriage.

Parliament decided in 1995 to create a special commission, which was to investigate the possibility of same-sex marriages. At that moment, the Christian Democrats (Christian Democratic Appeal) were not part of the ruling coalition for the first time since the introduction of full democracy. The special commission finished its work in 1997 and concluded that civil marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples. After the election of 1998, the government promised to tackle the issue. In September 2000 the final legislation draft was debated in the Dutch Parliament.

The marriage bill passed the House of Representatives by 109 votes to 33. The Senate approved the bill on 19 December 2000. Only the Christian parties, which held 26 of the 75 seats at the time, voted against the bill. Though, after 2006, the Christian Democratic Appeal Party became the largest party in the coalition, it did not indicate any intention to repeal the law.

On 1 January 1998, registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch law. The partnerships were meant for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, though they can also be entered into by opposite-sex couples, and in fact about one third of the registered partnerships between 1998 and 2001 were of opposite-sex couples. In law, registered partnerships and marriage convey the same rights and duties, especially after some laws were changed to remedy inequalities with respect to inheritance and some other issues.