The Politics on the Obama Change on Gay Marriage

Warfish · 05-11-2012, 10:40 AM

Obama is widely being described as "couragous" yet again for his "principled" stance-change on Gay Marriage. He's also being described as "taking a risk" politically by this move.

I would disagree with these claims.

1. First, the general electorate believes (D) is Pro-Gay and (R) is Anti-Gay. Obama has already made a number of Pro-Gay moves (DADT for example), and is generally considered Pro-Gay even before this change, far more so that Romney, minimizing any political risk.

2. Obama was under pressure from Pro-Gay donors that their money would be witheld without a more pro- stance. As has been reported, the day after the announcement Obama ranked in tens of millions in new donations from Holywood, pro-gay donors and beyond.

3. The biggest claim of risk is that Obama will be hurt (possibly) in the Black and Hispanic voting blocks. This claim ignores that blacks voted for Obama at over 95% last cycle, and Hispanics also went heavily in favor of Obama. Given all the issues at play, these racial groups are very unlikely to abandon Obama in any meaninful proportions over an opinion (Not a Law or proposal, just an opinion) when Obama is viewed as more "for them' on other issues, and the opponent (Romeny) holds an opinion (states can handle it) that is 100% in line with the President anyway.

4. I don't know about you, but the Political Stage Show of the past few days is one of the most obvious I call recall. The "oops, Biden leaked it" to the "Obama must now say something, he's been forced to", to the "Evolution of his viewpoint" to the laughable "Biden Apologizes to Obama", the entire cycle of events screams scripted to me. Right up to and including the tossaway line by Obama that "they had already decided to do this before the Convention, before the election" in his interview.

It is my contention this move is pure politics, of very limited political risk, and much political gain in the form of a stabalized portion of his base (pro-gay, youth) at no real risk to the supposed risked other bases (black/hispanics), a large increase in campaign donations and Holywood/media support (a psudo-event bump) and a low-risk position for a (D), the party of pro-gay, to take.

We already have a thread on the issue of gay marriage itself. Here, I'd prefer we talk purely about the political effects and risks of the move.

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 10:44 AM

Obama "evolves."

Romney "flip flops."

The MSM is an absolute joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on America.

JetPotato · 05-11-2012, 11:01 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4465871]
3. The biggest claim of risk is that Obama will be hurt (possibly) in the Black and Hispanic voting blocks. This claim ignores that blacks voted for Obama at over 95% last cycle, and Hispanics also went heavily in favor of Obama. Given all the issues at play, these racial groups are very unlikely to abandon Obama in any meaninful proportions over an opinion (Not a Law or proposal, just an opinion) when Obama is viewed as more "for them' on other issues, and the opponent (Romeny) holds an opinion (states can handle it) that is 100% in line with the President anyway.[/QUOTE]

Agree with your first two points, but some differences here on these.

Agreed it likely won't affect his black vote much, but may somewhat on the Hispanic vote. Bigger issue with your comment here though is that people won't hold opinion over someone, as opposed to legal proposal. Mainly because we know that we're full of dopey voters who assume they are one and the same. Otherwise, abortion would never be a political issue. Any mildly informed voter knows that a President is virtually powerless to ulimately change the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade.

[QUOTE=Warfish;4465871]
4. I don't know about you, but the Political Stage Show of the past few days is one of the most obvious I call recall. The "oops, Biden leaked it" to the "Obama must now say something, he's been forced to", to the "Evolution of his viewpoint" to the laughable "Biden Apologizes to Obama", the entire cycle of events screams scripted to me. Right up to and including the tossaway line by Obama that "they had already decided to do this before the Convention, before the election" in his interview.

It is my contention this move is pure politics, of very limited political risk, and much political gain in the form of a stabalized portion of his base (pro-gay, youth) at no real risk to the supposed risked other bases (black/hispanics), a large increase in campaign donations and Holywood/media support (a psudo-event bump) and a low-risk position for a (D), the party of pro-gay, to take.

We already have a thread on the issue of gay marriage itself. Here, I'd prefer we talk purely about the political effects and risks of the move.[/QUOTE]

You're giving them far too much credit for coming up with this chain of events. I believe this was bound to come out closer to the election. One thing we know about Biden is that he has a propensity for putting his foot in his mouth. Probably not a big deal in this case, just forced them to adjust their timeline. I'm sure they had calculated the date to maximize the impact on the election.

In the end though, I see this hurting BO. He'll get a short-term windfall of donations, but they'll tail off. And a majority of this country (even many on the left) still opposes gay marriage, and this won't be forgotten in November by them.

SafetyBlitz · 05-11-2012, 12:22 PM

This does help fundraising. It will fire up the base.

But the country is divided on this issue. It's polled at 50/50 but many important states have banned same-sex marriage when it's come down to a vote.

And you know, it's not really a big flop flop to go from supporting civil unions and repealing DADT, to supporting gay marriage.

Guantanamo Bay is a flip flop.

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 12:24 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465979]
And you know, it's not really a big flop flop to go from supporting civil unions and repealing DADT, to supporting gay marriage.

Guantanamo Bay is a flip flop.[/QUOTE]

Is it a flip flop to state unequivocally that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and then years later to support gay marriages?

SafetyBlitz · 05-11-2012, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4465982]Is it a flip flop to state unequivocally that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and then years later to support gay marriages?[/QUOTE]

If that person was against Civil Unions, than yes.

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 12:28 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465985]If that person was against Civil Unions, than yes.[/QUOTE]

What a crock of sh:t. The issue is gay marriage, not civil unions. Keep on doing mental gymnastics to fool yourself into believing whatever you want to believe, but Obama did a 180 degree FLIP FLOP on GAY MARRIAGE.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html[/url]

SafetyBlitz · 05-11-2012, 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4465987]What a crock of sh:t. The issue is gay marriage, not civil unions. Keep on doing mental gymnastics to fool yourself into believing whatever you want to believe, but Obama did a 180 degree FLIP FLOP on GAY MARRIAGE.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html[/url][/QUOTE]

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage?

How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage?

Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465993]What's the difference between civil unions and marriage?

How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage?

Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.[/QUOTE]

How far does one have to "evolve" :rolleyes:to go from "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," to "I think same sex couples should be able to get married" ? They are diametrically opposed positions.

"Evolve." What a transparent joke.

cedk · 05-11-2012, 12:41 PM

Hurts the enthusiasm of moderates independents and the African community.

I think its a real killer in the swing states.Just dumb politically.

Where states that love this move Obama already had them locked up.

Bill Clinton is right Obama is a amateur.

JetPotato · 05-11-2012, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465993]What's the difference between civil unions and marriage?

How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage?

Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.[/QUOTE]

The difference between supporting civil unions and marriage is only the crux of the issue :rolleyes:

SafetyBlitz · 05-11-2012, 12:53 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4466009]The difference between supporting civil unions and marriage is only the crux of the issue :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?

JetPotato · 05-11-2012, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466015]What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you what: instead of me doing your homework for you, why don't you ask your nearest gay couple what the big deal is - why can't they just accept civil unions as the alternative to marriage.

Let us know how that goes.

JetPotato · 05-11-2012, 12:57 PM

Or maybe just contemplate for a second why gay marriage supporters of Obama were threatening to withhold campaign contributions until he expressed support. And why a day after he did, he received millions.

Don't strain yourself doing so.

SafetyBlitz · 05-11-2012, 12:59 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4466018]I'll tell you what: instead of me doing your homework for you, why don't you ask your nearest gay couple what the big deal is - why can't they just accept civil unions as the alternative to marriage.

Let us know how that goes.[/QUOTE]

I don't know any gay couples.

I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage?

Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.

JetPotato · 05-11-2012, 01:03 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples.

I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage?

Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE]

Uh, what's my side of the aisle?

Warfish · 05-11-2012, 01:13 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples.[/quote]

Really?

[quote]I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage?

Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE]

I think you're going to find the "your side" a bit misplaced my friend. Tater, like me, is generally of the "Libertarian+Fiscal Conservative" mold, which doesn't as yet have a "side of the aisle" I regret to say.

The issue of difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage" is one that falls most squarely in those who support it all being called Marriage (i.e. Liberals and Gay Rights Activists) and those who stand against that, generally Social Conservatives and Relgious Conservatives.

As such, I doubt Tater or I could tell you why the difference matters, as neither of us is Gay, and neither of us is particularly a Social Conservative as much as we are Social Libertarians.

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 01:30 PM

[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples.

I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage?

Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE]

If there's no difference between civil unions and marriage, why weren't civil unions good enough for Obama, and for gay marriage supporters?

Let's see you answer that.

quantum · 05-11-2012, 01:42 PM

This whole thing was entirely scripted for maximum effect. Unfortunately, who knows what percent of the electorate will see it for what it is: don't look at the economy or foreign policy failures, I'm PRO-GAY!!! :rolleyes:

shakin318 · 05-11-2012, 01:44 PM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4466069]If there's no difference between civil unions and marriage, why weren't civil unions good enough for Obama, and for gay marriage supporters?

Let's see you answer that.[/QUOTE]

[url]

05-11-2012, 10:40 AM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	The Politics on the Obama Change on Gay Marriage Obama is widely being described as "couragous" yet again for his "principled" stance-change on Gay Marriage. He's also being described as "taking a risk" politically by this move. I would disagree with these claims. 1. First, the general electorate believes (D) is Pro-Gay and (R) is Anti-Gay. Obama has already made a number of Pro-Gay moves (DADT for example), and is generally considered Pro-Gay even before this change, far more so that Romney, minimizing any political risk. 2. Obama was under pressure from Pro-Gay donors that their money would be witheld without a more pro- stance. As has been reported, the day after the announcement Obama ranked in tens of millions in new donations from Holywood, pro-gay donors and beyond. 3. The biggest claim of risk is that Obama will be hurt (possibly) in the Black and Hispanic voting blocks. This claim ignores that blacks voted for Obama at over 95% last cycle, and Hispanics also went heavily in favor of Obama. Given all the issues at play, these racial groups are very unlikely to abandon Obama in any meaninful proportions over an opinion (Not a Law or proposal, just an opinion) when Obama is viewed as more "for them' on other issues, and the opponent (Romeny) holds an opinion (states can handle it) that is 100% in line with the President anyway. 4. I don't know about you, but the Political Stage Show of the past few days is one of the most obvious I call recall. The "oops, Biden leaked it" to the "Obama must now say something, he's been forced to", to the "Evolution of his viewpoint" to the laughable "Biden Apologizes to Obama", the entire cycle of events screams scripted to me. Right up to and including the tossaway line by Obama that "they had already decided to do this before the Convention, before the election" in his interview. It is my contention this move is pure politics, of very limited political risk, and much political gain in the form of a stabalized portion of his base (pro-gay, youth) at no real risk to the supposed risked other bases (black/hispanics), a large increase in campaign donations and Holywood/media support (a psudo-event bump) and a low-risk position for a (D), the party of pro-gay, to take. We already have a thread on the issue of gay marriage itself. Here, I'd prefer we talk purely about the political effects and risks of the move.

05-11-2012, 11:01 AM	#3
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=Warfish;4465871] 3. The biggest claim of risk is that Obama will be hurt (possibly) in the Black and Hispanic voting blocks. This claim ignores that blacks voted for Obama at over 95% last cycle, and Hispanics also went heavily in favor of Obama. Given all the issues at play, these racial groups are very unlikely to abandon Obama in any meaninful proportions over an opinion (Not a Law or proposal, just an opinion) when Obama is viewed as more "for them' on other issues, and the opponent (Romeny) holds an opinion (states can handle it) that is 100% in line with the President anyway.[/QUOTE] Agree with your first two points, but some differences here on these. Agreed it likely won't affect his black vote much, but may somewhat on the Hispanic vote. Bigger issue with your comment here though is that people won't hold opinion over someone, as opposed to legal proposal. Mainly because we know that we're full of dopey voters who assume they are one and the same. Otherwise, abortion would never be a political issue. Any mildly informed voter knows that a President is virtually powerless to ulimately change the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade. [QUOTE=Warfish;4465871] 4. I don't know about you, but the Political Stage Show of the past few days is one of the most obvious I call recall. The "oops, Biden leaked it" to the "Obama must now say something, he's been forced to", to the "Evolution of his viewpoint" to the laughable "Biden Apologizes to Obama", the entire cycle of events screams scripted to me. Right up to and including the tossaway line by Obama that "they had already decided to do this before the Convention, before the election" in his interview. It is my contention this move is pure politics, of very limited political risk, and much political gain in the form of a stabalized portion of his base (pro-gay, youth) at no real risk to the supposed risked other bases (black/hispanics), a large increase in campaign donations and Holywood/media support (a psudo-event bump) and a low-risk position for a (D), the party of pro-gay, to take. We already have a thread on the issue of gay marriage itself. Here, I'd prefer we talk purely about the political effects and risks of the move.[/QUOTE] You're giving them far too much credit for coming up with this chain of events. I believe this was bound to come out closer to the election. One thing we know about Biden is that he has a propensity for putting his foot in his mouth. Probably not a big deal in this case, just forced them to adjust their timeline. I'm sure they had calculated the date to maximize the impact on the election. In the end though, I see this hurting BO. He'll get a short-term windfall of donations, but they'll tail off. And a majority of this country (even many on the left) still opposes gay marriage, and this won't be forgotten in November by them. Last edited by JetPotato; 05-11-2012 at 11:03 AM.

05-11-2012, 10:44 AM	#2
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	Obama "evolves." Romney "flip flops." The MSM is an absolute joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on America.

05-11-2012, 12:22 PM	#4
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	This does help fundraising. It will fire up the base. But the country is divided on this issue. It's polled at 50/50 but many important states have banned same-sex marriage when it's come down to a vote. And you know, it's not really a big flop flop to go from supporting civil unions and repealing DADT, to supporting gay marriage. Guantanamo Bay is a flip flop.

05-11-2012, 12:24 PM	#5
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465979] And you know, it's not really a big flop flop to go from supporting civil unions and repealing DADT, to supporting gay marriage. Guantanamo Bay is a flip flop.[/QUOTE] Is it a flip flop to state unequivocally that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and then years later to support gay marriages?

05-11-2012, 12:26 PM	#6
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	[QUOTE=shakin318;4465982]Is it a flip flop to state unequivocally that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and then years later to support gay marriages?[/QUOTE] If that person was against Civil Unions, than yes.

05-11-2012, 12:28 PM	#7
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465985]If that person was against Civil Unions, than yes.[/QUOTE] What a crock of sh:t. The issue is gay marriage, not civil unions. Keep on doing mental gymnastics to fool yourself into believing whatever you want to believe, but Obama did a 180 degree FLIP FLOP on GAY MARRIAGE. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html[/url]

05-11-2012, 12:34 PM	#8
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	[QUOTE=shakin318;4465987]What a crock of sh:t. The issue is gay marriage, not civil unions. Keep on doing mental gymnastics to fool yourself into believing whatever you want to believe, but Obama did a 180 degree FLIP FLOP on GAY MARRIAGE. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html[/url][/QUOTE] What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage? Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.

05-11-2012, 12:40 PM	#9
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465993]What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage? Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.[/QUOTE] How far does one have to "evolve" :rolleyes:to go from "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," to "I think same sex couples should be able to get married" ? They are diametrically opposed positions. "Evolve." What a transparent joke.

05-11-2012, 12:41 PM	#10
cedk Practice Squad Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 462	Hurts the enthusiasm of moderates independents and the African community. I think its a real killer in the swing states.Just dumb politically. Where states that love this move Obama already had them locked up. Bill Clinton is right Obama is a amateur.

05-11-2012, 12:48 PM	#11
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4465993]What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? How far does one have to 'evolve' to go from supporting civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage? Just look at polls from the past decade, a lot of Americans 'evolved' on this issue.[/QUOTE] The difference between supporting civil unions and marriage is only the crux of the issue :rolleyes:

05-11-2012, 12:53 PM	#12
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4466009]The difference between supporting civil unions and marriage is only the crux of the issue :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?

05-11-2012, 12:55 PM	#13
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466015]What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?[/QUOTE] I'll tell you what: instead of me doing your homework for you, why don't you ask your nearest gay couple what the big deal is - why can't they just accept civil unions as the alternative to marriage. Let us know how that goes.

05-11-2012, 12:57 PM	#14
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	Or maybe just contemplate for a second why gay marriage supporters of Obama were threatening to withhold campaign contributions until he expressed support. And why a day after he did, he received millions. Don't strain yourself doing so.

05-11-2012, 12:59 PM	#15
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4466018]I'll tell you what: instead of me doing your homework for you, why don't you ask your nearest gay couple what the big deal is - why can't they just accept civil unions as the alternative to marriage. Let us know how that goes.[/QUOTE] I don't know any gay couples. I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage? Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.

05-11-2012, 01:03 PM	#16
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples. I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage? Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE] Uh, what's my side of the aisle?

05-11-2012, 01:13 PM	#17
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples.[/quote] Really? [quote]I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage? Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE] I think you're going to find the "your side" a bit misplaced my friend. Tater, like me, is generally of the "Libertarian+Fiscal Conservative" mold, which doesn't as yet have a "side of the aisle" I regret to say. The issue of difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage" is one that falls most squarely in those who support it all being called Marriage (i.e. Liberals and Gay Rights Activists) and those who stand against that, generally Social Conservatives and Relgious Conservatives. As such, I doubt Tater or I could tell you why the difference matters, as neither of us is Gay, and neither of us is particularly a Social Conservative as much as we are Social Libertarians.

05-11-2012, 01:30 PM	#18
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	[QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4466027]I don't know any gay couples. I'm asking what is the big difference between civil unions and marriage? Nobody on your side of the aisle is willing to answer that.[/QUOTE] If there's no difference between civil unions and marriage, why weren't civil unions good enough for Obama, and for gay marriage supporters? Let's see you answer that.

05-11-2012, 01:42 PM	#19
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,877	This whole thing was entirely scripted for maximum effect. Unfortunately, who knows what percent of the electorate will see it for what it is: don't look at the economy or foreign policy failures, I'm PRO-GAY!!! :rolleyes:

05-11-2012, 01:44 PM	#20
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,168	[QUOTE=shakin318;4466069]If there's no difference between civil unions and marriage, why weren't civil unions good enough for Obama, and for gay marriage supporters? Let's see you answer that.[/QUOTE] [url]