If Obama endorsed same sex marriage, would it help his campaign?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

hurt...as the jmfcsts would be fired up.

And then you remember Romney is the nominee and go back to watching TV.

probably true...but the VP nominee could help launch the anger of the jmfcsts

[Progressive Realist]

hurt...as the jmfcsts would be fired up.

And then you remember Romney is the nominee and go back to watching TV.

probably true...but the VP nominee could help launch the anger of the jmfcsts

The jmfcsts don't win elections. It's the Independent swing voters Romney desperately needs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

hurt...as the jmfcsts would be fired up.

And then you remember Romney is the nominee and go back to watching TV.

probably true...but the VP nominee could help launch the anger of the jmfcsts

The jmfcsts don't win elections. It's the Independent swing voters Romney desperately needs.

Romney desperately needs a lot of things

[crypto-fascist superhero]

hurt...as the jmfcsts would be fired up.

And then you remember Romney is the nominee and go back to watching TV.

probably true...but the VP nominee could help launch the anger of the jmfcsts

The jmfcsts don't win elections. It's the Independent swing voters Romney desperately needs.

Well if we look at the swing states (between D+4 and R+4)



I'm guessing that it's only going to be a winning issue for Obama in NJ and NH if we assume the recent backslide in gay marriage support sticks (and possibly not even there with the usual "Bradley effect" in gay marriage polling).

[milhouse24]

It hurts obama, but the good news is that he will fundraise a lot more money from gay donors.

[angus]

Now that we have had nearly a week to chew on it, it really doesn't leave such a bad taste.

I'm not defending Obama's motives, but as a political manoeuvre, it seems to have been either a neutral.  (I voted that it'd be a net plus, by the way, and I think that in the long run it will be, not only for the reasons I mentioned but also because it'll force his opponent to come up with a solid statement one way or t'other.  And Mitt ain't very good at doing that sort of thing.)

[Reaganfan]

Now that we have had nearly a week to chew on it, it really doesn't leave such a bad taste.

I'm not defending Obama's motives, but as a political manoeuvre, it seems to have been either a neutral.  (I voted that it'd be a net plus, by the way, and I think that in the long run it will be, not only for the reasons I mentioned but also because it'll force his opponent to come up with a solid statement one way or t'other.  And Mitt ain't very good at doing that sort of thing.)

I'm gonna have to disagree, Angus. Many polls show a tightening of the race if not a lead for Romney. One of my female co-workers who is an Obama supporter mentioned how she saw Romney ahead by seven points, then eight points the following day. I mentioned how something must have given Mitt Romney a temporary bump. Instantly we thought about the gay marriage debacle and realized that Romney's gains are probably just a temporary backlash from it.

The funniest thing is all across the county, from here in Medina County, Ohio to Houston, Texas to Central Florida to the cowboys out west...nearly everyone you talk to dislikes large government, spending, and is opposed to gay marriage. You can't do your "Well...um...let me be clear...um...I...um...Michelle and I...um" statement the day after a state that voted for you overwhelmingly bans gay marriage and not expect some kind of backlash.

That's why I know already there is no way this election is 365 electoral votes for Obama. He will be lucky to break 290. I'm just hoping on election night I see many crying faces in Grant Park and hear Stevie Wonder's music as we await the conclusion of the concession call from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney.

[Ebowed]

nearly everyone you talk to dislikes large government ... and is opposed to gay marriage.

Can you explain how a smaller government would deign to determine who marries who?

[angus]

Now that we have had nearly a week to chew on it, it really doesn't leave such a bad taste.

I'm not defending Obama's motives, but as a political manoeuvre, it seems to have been either a neutral.  (I voted that it'd be a net plus, by the way, and I think that in the long run it will be, not only for the reasons I mentioned but also because it'll force his opponent to come up with a solid statement one way or t'other.  And Mitt ain't very good at doing that sort of thing.)

I'm gonna have to disagree, Angus. Many polls show a tightening of the race if not a lead for Romney. One of my female co-workers who is an Obama supporter mentioned how she saw Romney ahead by seven points, then eight points the following day. I mentioned how something must have given Mitt Romney a temporary bump. Instantly we thought about the gay marriage debacle and realized that Romney's gains are probably just a temporary backlash from it.

The funniest thing is all across the county, from here in Medina County, Ohio to Houston, Texas to Central Florida to the cowboys out west...nearly everyone you talk to dislikes large government, spending, and is opposed to gay marriage. You can't do your "Well...um...let me be clear...um...I...um...Michelle and I...um" statement the day after a state that voted for you overwhelmingly bans gay marriage and not expect some kind of backlash.

That's why I know already there is no way this election is 365 electoral votes for Obama. He will be lucky to break 290. I'm just hoping on election night I see many crying faces in Grant Park and hear Stevie Wonder's music as we await the conclusion of the concession call from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney.

Maybe, but it's hard to separate from the noise.  Rasmussen tracking poll has Romney ahead by 2 with 1500 likely voters, up from a week ago.  Here's the six-month graph:



But if look more deeply at the data, it trends with opposition to Obamacare, banking, and the perception of a global conflict between the West and Islam.  Not from gay marriage, apparently, since opposition is steady at about 40 to 55%, depending upon which polls you believe.

Now, there's a NYT/ABC poll from yesterday, and the results were mixed:  67% said they thought Obama's announcement was made "mostly for political reasons," while 24% said it was "mostly because he thinks it is right."  That could be significant, but most of those polled say it will not impact their vote.  On the other hand, among those who say it will influence their choice, 26 percent said they are less likely to vote for Obama as a result, while 16 percent say they are more likely to.  That last bit suggests that it might hurt Obama more than help.

Here's a link to the pdf if you're interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/15/us/politics/20120515-polling-docs.html

[milhouse24]

nearly everyone you talk to dislikes large government ... and is opposed to gay marriage.

Can you explain how a smaller government would deign to determine who marries who?

Gay marriage would increase the government benefits available to gay couples including tax breaks, government subsidies, social security benefits, free military housing, green cards, health insurance, etc. 

Gay marriage is not just a symbolic gesture, it will increase government spending to comply with laws and subsidies to make them available to gay couples. 

Gay couples admit that they want these government subsidies, instead of living as roommates or single people. 

[Gravis Marketing]

Naso's coworker follows the Rasmussen tracking polls. Uh-huh.