Talk Elections

Option 3 for me.  I have to question why so many Democrats seem to think that Obama's a secret supporter of what they support but can't say it in public, rather than taking the man at his word that he doesn't agree with you.  I hear Democrats say "Obama really wants to end Afghanistan immediately, but can't," "Obama's not really a Christian, but adapted it to get elected," and "Obama doesn't really oppose gay marriage, but opposes it for political reasons."  I, frankly, am inclined to take the man at his word that he doesn't hold positions, and I've always been very suspicious at people that project their own beliefs on a candidate they support and go, "there's no way he could possibly feel otherwise, he just fakes it."  What makes you think that Obama doesn't oppose gay marriage, or isn't a devout Christian, as he claims?

No idea what he really believes about gay marriage.  But I've got some good guesses about what he and those around him think of the electoral map.  If he says nothing overt about gay marriage, he won't lose New York.  If his says something overt about it, it could become a wedge in other states he wants to hold onto. 

There's that old political questionnaire from 1996 where he said he did support gay marriage. Just as importantly, though, basically every Democratic politician who isn't very religious (not Obama) or obviously and publicly homophobic (not Obama) supports gay marriage in private, outside of politics.

Put 100 people who are like Barack Obama but not politicians in a room, and they would basically all support gay marriage. Liberal college professors don't not support gay marriage.

He most likely doesn't.  He's just saying that to appeal to the moderate heros.  Nobody could ever be elected president openly supporting gay marriage.

Of course not.  He's faux moderate like most first term Presidents.

His official position makes no sense whatsoever. It is held by basically no one besides politicians. He is basically saying he opposes gay marriage but will do absolutely nothing to oppose it in reality(remember he wants to repeal DOMA and spoke out against Prop 8.) He had kind words about the New York vote. Does anyone believe that if he was a New York State Senator he would've voted against it?

Wow, this is the first time I can remember you saying anything negative about him.

He must be turning into a crypto-Republican hypocrite.

It's not negative, because him opposing gay marriage sincerely would be far worse.

No. And if he wanted to make me enthusiastically support him again in 2012, not being a pansy and just openly supporting it would be a pretty easy way for him to do so.

Nope, he'll have a "transformation" once he's out of office just like Clinton did.

Uh, it's been polling lately at about 51-53% approving depending on what you look at. Not everything will be like 2004 forever!

Barack Obama's views are very simple in their origin.

They can be determined by following two rules:

1. Which view is more likely to get him elected?

If that is ambiguous:

2. Which view is more excessive hyperbole?

So you're familiar with politics then?

You know, if someone like the President showed real leadership on this issue, it might actually have a boost in the polls and drive home swing voters on these propositions.

Too bad.

Thanks, jamespol.

I can't believe that he actually opposes it. He's an incredibly smart guy and he knows better. He's just far more cautious than necessary.

Probably not, but the reason he is being so mysterious about it is the fact he has more on his plate to deal with than this. Saying his position is "evolving" is just a nicer way of telling everyone to shut up about it so he can get on with more important things currently.

He is really for it. When he says he "struggles" with it, that's code for, "I really support it, but don't have the cajones to say it right now because if I do, the Republicans will use it against me in 2012." He's probably going to come out for it after he gets reelected in 2012.

No, but he doesn't have the balls to stand up for it.

It is certainly remarkable to see so many relatively intelligent people fervently hope that the leader of their political party is a craven liar.

That's pretty much what I was going to post.

I don't think you need fervent hope. We are all aware that all politicians are craven liars, idiots or fringe maniacs. The first is in most cases preferable to the others.

The first minority president doesn't believe that inequality is okay, he's only pretending to believe it is just to advance his own political career and win that 450th electoral vote.

For someone who supposedly has such terrific political instincts, his political instincts sure suck.

Corrected. If we were talking about it being remotely that one sided he would've come out in favor of gay marriage long ago.

^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Obama's instinct at the moment is that it will be a close race, and I'd bet that's right.  No politician up for reelection and facing a close race is going to take a strong position on an issue that 1.) no offense to anyone, is not the most important issue facing the whole country in the coming election, 2.) is as a matter of policy not decided by the president anyway, but by the states, and 3.) is a serious social hot-button and only polls favorably within a margin.  I'm not saying any of this because I think the issue is unimportant; I do think it's an equality issue and I fully support gay marriage.  But that's easy for me, and all of us, to say.  How many people on this forum, honestly, would otherwise vote for Obama in '12 but will decide not to vote for him only because he didn't explicitly advocate gay marriage?  How may people who otherwise wouldn't have voted for Obama would in '12 change their minds and vote for him only if he did explicitly advocate gay marriage?  If you can answer "me, I would" to either of these questions, than I'd say at least you have the right to call Obama a liar and a coward.  The rest of us really don't, and it's precisely us that justify his decision to deal with the issue in the way he is.

Voting for gay marriage would probably sink the president's campaign in Georgia, rendering him unable to compete for those electoral votes. Probably North Carolina and Virginia too, though those states are rapidly changing. Missouri would be a tough sell too, though Obama lost the state in 2008 -- he clearly doesn't need it to win in 2012.

On the other hand, supporting gay marriage wouldn't render him unable to win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,  New Hampshire, New Mexico, or Colorado. Honestly, with national support for gay marriage on parity with opposition, and with that opposition so intensely concentrated in states that are GOP locks, it's almost amusing to consider gay marriage to be the albatross it was even ten years ago.

I don't know.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22gay-chart.html

Here is where support for gay marriage sits in all of the states mentioned as otherwise-wins for Obama:

Minnesota               47%
Wisconsin               44%
Michigan                 46%
Pennsylvania          51%
New Hampshire      55%
New Mexico            49%
Colorado                 52%

This might at first glance look like safe territory, but the issue only polls above 50 and outside the margin in one state, and that's the one with the fewest EVs.

It's also worth noting that in other important swing states, this issue doesn't poll well at all.  In North Carolina it's at 36%, Missouri 37%, Florida 41%, Virginia 42% and Iowa 44%.

While it's a split issue, I don't think it's truly influential for most of the people that give an answer--yes or no--on their vote.

Well, perhaps.  I guess my thinking is that Obama giving forthright advocacy won't either win or lose him votes, and the goal is to win votes, so what is the motivation, beyond principle of course, for him to get off the dime if that's what he wanted to do?  Maybe unambiguous advocacy now might galvanize some otherwise lukewarm liberal turnout, but it might easily galvanize already energized conservative turnout in swing states more.  I know it's not 2004 anymore, but 2004 isn't Flintstone-era ancient history for Democrats, many still believe the issue cost them Ohio in the 2004 general.  And even without that, it's pretty hard to get any politician to jump headlong into a no-win issue with so many other difficult things on the table.  If it were me, to be honest, I think I'd wait till I got re-elected to give full and unambiguous support.  Maybe that makes me as much of a slug as everyone here thinks Obama is.  But sometimes the old saw "discretion is the better part of valor" is true.

It still puzzles me that folks freak more over the term "marriage" than the basket of rights and duties that attend marriage, with respect to which civil unions are essentially the equivalent. It is as if there is desire to give gays a second class labeling status as to their legal bond.  Rather an ugly sentiment actually.

It is an ugly sentiment, yes.

Ask benconstine, he used to be the primary advocate of that position here. No clue if he still adheres to it, he made a comment that sort of implies he's moved away.

On the other hand, maybe a social wedge issue is just the distraction Obama needs in 2012 to shift the discussion away from the economy...

In that case, he would have to make sure it was a wedge that broke for him in the right places, not one that split or went against him where he needed votes.  But wedge issues don't tend to work well with high unemployment, or even in just a generally sluggish economy.  I remember Bush 41 raised lots of wedge issues against Clinton in '92 that might have worked in 2000, but that year, they all flopped.   

I think he does, to be honest. I think he realizes that marriage is an institution that has been around for a long, long time, and that homosexual rights are also very important, but that gay marriage in and of itself is a temporary fad. Civil Unions, however, are a different story.

You honestly think Obama believes that gay marriage is a "temporary fad?"  Heck I give Obama more credit than that, and I am down on the man these days.  I am very disappointed in him.

I've noticed that those who invoke the term 'wedge issue' when talking about gay marriage don't hesitate to use said issues themselves.

And here's a good example of what I'm talking about as to why I'd rather have someone I support be a liar than buy into the mind-numbingly idiotic "logic" on display in this post.

Obama believes in gay marridge, he just has way bigger fish to fry, then to waste his time on a trivial issue. Its a states right, and New York did it right.

Truth.

Of course he doesn't. Hardly any mainstream Democratic elected official does in private. They mostly view it as a tricky political issue that they're still trying to figure out how to deal with. Several smart ones - such as Cuomo and Jay Inslee here in Washington - have figured out that publicly supporting it is a wise move. More will figure it out as time goes on.

I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that not only does Mark Dayton support it, he always had and did when he was in the Senate before it was "cool" to do so.

I appreciate it when conservatives here use the term "homosexual rights" or "homosexual marriage." It's a terrific signal that the rest of the post generally isn't worth reading. A real time saver.

Word on the street is that Cuomo and Inslee also realized that they are from New York and Washington respectively and this really isn't toxic at all in those states.

I should clarify - that comment is directed at the numerous Democrats who being in favor of marriage equality is now more political expedient than being opposed but haven't figured it out because of outdated thinking. Pretty much any Democrat in a state or district won by John Kerry should be in favor of marriage equality at this point.

There are of course, as you snidely imply, a number of Democrats where the political backlash would still be harmful. Though that number is rapidly shrinking.

In large part due to most of those Democrats losing in 2010.  ;)

That did "help", yes. ;)

No, of course not. He used to support it before he became prominent. What I do not get is why he feels that he cannot endorse it, when a growing majority of Americans support it.

So it's not safe to be FOR it........Leadership, in my view, isn't as high as I'd like to be in Obama's skill set.

I think Obama like most people of African descent is not in favor of gay marriage.

At the same time I'm sure he knows plenty of gay people and he doesn't want to see them mistreated.  I'm sure he would be fine with civil unions, but a federal blessing of two gay people getting married is a bridge too far.

No.  He is watching the polls and what happens at the state level.  He covers this by saying his position is "evolving," which is the same terminology Bill Clinton used.  At some point, he will decide that openly supporting marriage equality is worth it politically.  If we are lucky, this may actually happen sometime during his second term.  As a side note, I would look for Hillary Clinton to undergo a similar "evolution" after she finishes her term as SOS and no longer has to follow the White House script.

Yes he does. The only reason Obama can't openly admit he dislikes gay people and opposes it, is because he knows they wouldn't turn out for 2012.

Obama is probably more anti-gay in practice and in personal opinions than all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates besides Santorum.

That's a far bigger assumption than assuming that he really doesn't oppose it.

What this is I don't even......

One of our newer posters, who thoughtfully showed his true colors early so he got on my ignore list quickly.

Actually he's an older timer.

It's time for Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage, what he desperately needs is a wedge issue to push moderates to his side against Romney. Gay marriage would also energize young voters who don't really have a federal issue to motivate them at this point.

The more issues Obama has to distract voters from the economy, the better. Another important thing to remember: gay marriage polls well among white swing voters. A large chunk of people that are against gay marriage are stalwart minority Democrats who will never vote against Obama. Do you really think Jose Rodriguez cares about gays getting married when Republicans want to take away his unemployment benefits and deport some of his family members? Nope.

Here's a pretty good article which explains just how illogical his "official" position is: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/prop_8_ruling_reminds_everyone.html

If I believed he sincerely held it, I would probably be bothered. But as it is it just proves that there is no possible way he could hold such a position, as basically no one in existence does besides politicians.

Obama's public stance is probably the right one, for sake of political strategy - everyone that really cares (in the sense of wanting legal gay marriage) would choose Obama over most of the Republicans; even Huntsman if it came down to it. Young voters are inherently unreliable. But the old baby boomers will vote and Obama has to keep pretending to be on the same page as them.

Of course this strategy is going backfire when it comes to the debt - where he's now accepted the right's rhetoric over the "family budget" of the nation. Which is just unspeakably disappointing to me. Now that he's shown willingness to cut SS and medicare, he has no high ground - that was the wedge issue that the Obama needed. Not gay marriage.

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

How is States Rights a racist issue? States are automatically racist just because of the likes of Strom Thurmond.

Human Rights trump those of States, which are not, in fact, living entities.

Yes, they do. But the States are not trampling human rights anymore..besides, Gay Marridge is not a human right.

I have to agree with Sanchez on this.
Sure, I would love a world where the gays are equal but equating state's rights with equaling anti-black is illogical.  It is quite possible to be pro-federalist on some issues and not on others.  For example I could easily see Obama supporting nation wide Civil Rights but being against say nation wide legalization of marijuana.
Arguing that State's Rights=racism is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  By that argument states implementing their own income taxes are anti-black, so Obama should be against states implementing their own income tax because doing so is hateful to black people.
I mean for god's sake man, think before you talk.

First off, the term "states rights" has long since been a code word for racist segregational laws. You may not like it, but that's the connotation it has. If you want to avoid thte race trap, use different words. Second, because of the way federal laws are structured, the US gov't has to take a stand and either recognize or not recognize same-sex marriages. For the purposes of taxation, SS benefits, etc. the US has to see two gays in Iowa as either married or not married. Of course Obama is just trying to defuse the situation by playing moderate hero. I find it unlikely that he really has any objections to same-sex marriage, but it's just not a fight he wants to have right now with so many other problems needing his attention.

Cool, your opinions on queer and human rights issues are as pertinent as my opinions on local Floridian issues.

Connotation maybe mate, but I'm arguing technical details and honest debate here.
I will not allow this sort of dishonest debate where any and all uses of the words "state's rights" automatically equals racism.  I believe in equal rights for gay people, I believe in equal rights for people in wheel chairs, I even believe in equal rights for those damned furries.
However, what I don't support is using dishonest debate tactics to make a point.  What the hell am I supposed to refer to state's rights issues like marijuana, gay marriage, vehicle laws, environmental legislation, lawn mower laws, etc. etc. etc. if I can't call it state's rights because "OMG so racist!!!!!"?
I mean really?

Federalism is a perfectly good word. Terms have connotations. Accept it and move on.

Your right-every single person on this forum combined couldnt change a thing, but we can always express our opinions anyway.

Well I think the answer now is pretty obvious.

I love how this is right next to the "Obama endorses gay marriage" thread.

I'd like to express my horror at both my views on gay marriage and my grammer. The latter of which hasn't gotten any better. I still support States Rights, of course, but my brash and hateful tone is what embarrasses me.

I love it when people spell grammar with an e.

But he never did, just playing the political game.

Damn you spell check!

do i get a prize? :)

Only if you share it with me. :)

But does Barack Obama really support gay marriage?

ME TOO

I think he is 100% apathetic on the issue.

Simple political calculation. He needed a more enthusiastic base for the elections at the expensive of moderate religious voters and a more energised religious right.

Right.  If he were a third as tall as he is now here's how I'd envision his reply:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6088