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.

[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.

[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.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by 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.

Like the 2004 election was, very nearly.

[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.

[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.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by jtgain

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

Will yours?

[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.

[Marley23]

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

[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

[Eve]

Wow! Who knew Obama read The Straight Dope!

[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*

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

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

Huh. I guess that means that the election is over and Obama feels he literally cannot lose. Probably because of the 294-170 lead that page gives him in electoral votes.

Can we please, please, please just take this as the sign it is and not go through the next six months of idiocy and tedium?

[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.

[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.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Huh. I guess that means that the election is over and Obama feels he literally cannot lose. Probably because of the 294-170 lead that page gives him in electoral votes.

Can we please, please, please just take this as the sign it is and not go through the next six months of idiocy and tedium?

I know you know better than that.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

I know you know better than that.

Yes. Tedium and idiocy it is.

Sigh.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Huh. I guess that means that the election is over and Obama feels he literally cannot lose. Probably because of the 294-170 lead that page gives him in electoral votes.

I suspect it means just the opposite: it means the election is close, and they've decided this is the way to play it. You don't switch on a controversial issue months before election just for the sheer hell of it.


As politics, it's a very good move IMO. It very much energizes the young progressives who are his base and whose money and campaign work he needs. It hurts him with african-americans, but probably not too much. It energizes social conservatives against him ... but they were already energized. More upside than down IMO.

Really, it speaks to a weak economy combined with rapidly changing public opinion: they'd rather be in an election about gay rights than in one about the economy.

The only downside, AFAICT, is that it now makes it awfully hard to campaign against Romney as an insincere flip-flopper on issues.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by furt

The only downside, AFAICT, is that it now makes it awfully hard to campaign against Romney as an insincere flip-flopper on issues.

It's not a flip-flop, technically, and that's not how they're campaigning against Romney.

[furt]

To add: As I understand him, he's only saying that he, personally, supports gay marriage -- not that he supports a federal law or constitutional amendment intended to override state laws/constitutions. The latter would be a much different proposition.

[Marley23]

Nobody thought otherwise. There is zero chance a federal law or Constitutional amendment could pass.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's not a flip-flop, technically,....

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...bama-on-mtv-i/

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...t-married?lite

If you can find a way to make that into a single, unchanged position, explainable in two sentences or less to the typical voter ... well, run for congress.

[Marley23]

I'd forgotten about that comment. I was thinking of the "evolving" line.

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by furt

If you can find a way to make that into a single, unchanged position, explainable in two sentences or less to the typical voter ... well, run for congress.

A "flip-flop" isn't just changing your mind on an issue. That happens all the time in politics. The difference is when the change in position appears to be politically motivated and that the person holding the opinion will change sides just to pander to whoever they want to impress that day.

This is pretty much the opposite of a flip-flop.

[Absolute]

I think this is a huge gift to Romney. There is lots of support for gay marriage among young people, but sort of in an apathetic, "Yeah, why not?" kind of way. I do not think this will significantly increase young voter turnout.

On the other hand, I think there are lots of older, conservative, or evangelical voters who care deeply about the issue and would definitely make an effort to show up on election day and vote against gay marriage (i.e. vote for Romney). I think it will help pro-Romney turnout a lot.

Obviously Obama either disagrees, or thinks he has enough margin to win even despite this effect, or cares more about making a principled stand than winning.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Absolute

I do not think this will significantly increase young voter turnout.

Obama does need to recapture more of the enthusiasm and support he had from young people in 2008 - not just in terms of votes, but in terms of money. (Gay groups are apparently also working hard for him.) I can't think of a better way than this. Since he took office people have been hoping he'd move faster on these issues.

On the other hand, I think there are lots of older, conservative, or evangelical voters who care deeply about the issue and would definitely make an effort to show up on election day and vote against gay marriage (i.e. vote for Romney).

And you thought those people were going to stay home otherwise?

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

A "flip-flop" isn't just changing your mind on an issue. That happens all the time in politics. The difference is when the change in position appears to be politically motivated and that the person holding the opinion will change sides just to pander to whoever they want to impress that day.

This is pretty much the opposite of a flip-flop.

Yeah, how so? That's certainly what it looks like. I don't think Obama has really changed his opinion on gay marriage in the past few years. I think he just kept his mouth shut until now for political reasons.

[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.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Can we please, please, please just take this as the sign it is and not go through the next six months of idiocy and tedium?

Hibernate.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Absolute

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.

This is the problem with casting this (or any) issue strictly in terms of morality. Even if you happen to agree with the moral imperative to permit gay marriage (as I do), the issue also has a social dimension, and as a political leader (as opposed to, say, a minister bloviating from the pulpit) he has a duty to consider that. Obama's on record saying he was in favor of civil unions, and that he thought these were adequate for the issue at hand.

Yes, I wish he had publically supported gay marriage sooner, I wish he hadn't used "states rights" as a fig leaf for his opinion, and he'll have to live with the embarassment of his "evolution". But I'll take him at his word on it.

[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.

[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.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Absolute

I think this is a huge gift to Romney. There is lots of support for gay marriage among young people, but sort of in an apathetic, "Yeah, why not?" kind of way. I do not think this will significantly increase young voter turnout.

Could manage to polarize the issue though. Forces Romney to come out solidly against it. Makes it a campaign issue now. It may seem as if it's an eventual given, but pushing Romney to come out against it makes it seem almost threatened. That could motivate.

On the other hand, I think there are lots of older, conservative, or evangelical voters who care deeply about the issue and would definitely make an effort to show up on election day and vote against gay marriage (i.e. vote for Romney). I think it will help pro-Romney turnout a lot.

Framing it as a matter of "equal rights" could make some hard liners squishy though. It's easy to be against something when it seems like a minor issue or one in which it seems like an even split. If gay marriage supporters start pushing hard enough, people will rethink their position and possibly soften with the exception of the hard liners, but they likely weren't going to vote for Obama anyways.