May 15, 2012

NYT/CBS poll: 67% think Obama came out for SSM for political reasons.

"Most Americans suspect that President Obama was motivated by politics, not policy, when he declared his support for same-sex marriage, according to a poll released on Monday, suggesting that the unplanned way it was announced shaped public attitudes."

You mean if it had seemed more planned, it would have looked less political? I think they planned it to look unplanned so it would seem less political, and the 67% opinion would be even higher if they hadn't created the appearance that it was not planned.

But why plan — why deliberately take the position that most Americans reject?
About 4 in 10, or 38 percent, of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 24 percent favor civil unions short of formal marriage. Thirty-three percent oppose any form of legal recognition. When civil unions are eliminated as an option, opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.
And why do people think he's being political if he's taking the position that's rejected?
Mr. Obama’s team is counting on the notion that whatever he might lose in votes or intensity of support will be offset by increased excitement among young voters and his liberal base....
Much of the analysis at the link is about Obama's campaign for reelection. But the survey was of American adults — not voters or even likely voters. 

42 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The "young voters" will be of no help until they can use facebook or twitter to cast their votes.

Scott M said...

The best Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter could come up with is that the poll was flawed.

Christopher in MA said...

And why do people think he's political if he's taking the position that's rejected?

Because it isn't about "taking the position that's rejected." As even Hat obliquely admitted, everyone knows he's in favor of gay marriage. He's gambling (as Hat is) that the future makeup of the country will be to the benefit of "friendly" politicians like himself.

I forget where I saw it, but someone made the point today that, even if this costs him the election, he's set up for another run in 2016, using not only the excuse that we're too stupid and too racist to give him a chance, he was also too far ahead of his time for all those gay-lynchin' rubes in flyover country.

Lyssa said...

I favor gay marriage. I think that, in the next 20 years, give or take, most people will favor gay marriage.

I don't think that it's a winning position for a national politician to take today.

Andy R. said...

The political part was him lying about his position before. His hand got forced, and I don't think it was a well-thought out political calculation when he came clean on his beliefs.

Shifting Tide: All National Democratic Leaders Now Support Civil Marriage Equality

Obama wasn't going to be able to get away with being the one hold-out.

Also, does anyone know if there are any national Republican leadership folks that support marriage equality?

Scott M said...

The political part was him lying about his position before. His hand got forced, and I don't think it was a well-thought out political calculation when he came clean on his beliefs.

What are you basing this on? Do you know him personally? Projection? Wishful thinking? The fact he's a Democrat?

Why would you believe a thing this guy says? He's turned out time and again to be lying.

TobyTucker said...

If people don't see this as a purely political ploy, it just shows they haven't been paying close attention to the news, i.e, the LGBT donor boycott threat.

bgates said...

does anyone know if there are any national Republican leadership folks that support marriage equality?

To the best of my knowledge, all of them think a marriage should have an equal number of men and women. One apiece.

cheeflo said...

Robert Cook, if Obama's election campaign depends on thirty-year-old hearsay from teenagers about the screw-ups of a teenage boy you're pretty much doomed.

The incident was actually forty-seven years ago.

traditionalguy said...

Anybody who counts on Mr Obama sticking with a position any longer than it takes him to dream up a better one is being silly.

Let the Narcissit be the Narcissist.

After all, it's interesting to watch him transform before our eyes while he smiles mesmerizingly at us and in all sincerity tells the latest version of the Story of Himself.

Give that man an Oscar. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, he has earned one.

Andy R. said...

What are you basing this on? Do you know him personally? Projection? Wishful thinking? The fact he's a Democrat?

He said in 1996 that he supports marriage equality. Since then, everything he has said and done pointed to the conclusion that he was pretending not to support equality for political reasons. He also made clear he would eventually note that he does in fact support equality.

Was this not obvious to you?

EDH said...

And naive little me, I thought it was because of the Hollywood money.

Scott M said...

Was this not obvious to you?

It's obvious that he's a standard politician cut from decidedly icky cloth (ie Chicagoan). What's your proof that he was pro-SSM prior to 1996?

I understand this is a problem for you. I'm just trying to understand where your proof comes from besides someone who thinks it's okay to lie to a great mucking group of people rather than stand on principle.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

He said in 1996 that he supports marriage equality.


No he didn't.

The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. - June 2011

Jay said...

Since then, everything he has said and done pointed to the conclusion that he was pretending not to support equality for political reasons.

Oh you silly little gay boy, the lies you tell yourself are endless.

OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television.

Andy R. said...

What's your proof that he was pro-SSM prior to 1996?

I didn't claim that he was. I have no idea if marriage equality had occurred to him as an issue prior to 1996. I'm not sure how much it was on the radar before DOMA got passed.

I understand this is a problem for you.

What is a problem for me?

Other than Ron Paul, I think every single politicians isn't candid with the American people about at least some of their personal beliefs. Obama did a little wink wink thing about his position on marriage equality, but he made clear what his true beliefs were and now he has come out and said them.

Blue@9 said...

Since then, everything he has said and done pointed to the conclusion that he was pretending not to support equality for political reasons.

It's definitely been part of Obama's game for years now. Obama's gift is that he can say one thing, but intimate that he's for the exact opposite, and his supporters will still make excuses for it. I've heard for years now that "Oh, you know Obama supports gay marriage--he just can't say it publicly."

Many of his supporters feel the same about his religious beliefs too, "Oh, you know Obama's too smart to believe in that god stuff--he just goes to church because of politics."

I'm really curious if Democrats will ever wake up to the notion that something is wrong when they have to hide their own beliefs. Ever notice this? They'll get in an uproar if you call Obama a socialist, as if it were a terrible insult, and then turn around and talk about how wonderful is European socialism.

Andy R. said...

The broader point, is that we are seeing an avalanche of politicians coming out in support of marriage equality. In many states it is now the default Democratic position, and as my above link notes, is also uniformly supported by the Democratic leadership.

Some of these people are doing this out of sincere support. Others are doing it for the gay-money I would imagine. Others are doing it out of political calculation. (It's actually kind of mind-blowing that based purely on political calculation, it makes sense to support marriage equality.)

When marriage equality comes to the entire US, I'm not going to be concerned about the individual reasons why each person supported it. I don't care why the various Republicans in New York supported it, I'm just glad it had the votes when the time came.

Christopher in MA said...

Obama did a little wink wink thing about his position on marriage equality but he made clear what his true beliefs were and now he has come out and said them.

A "little wink wink thing," as Jay's 2004 example proves, is lying. But you don't mind, because you knew he was on your side all along.

And that's how we get the government we deserve.

Andy R. said...

House of Delegates rejects gay judge Tracy Thorne-Begland

“He holds himself out as being married,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is running for U.S. Senate. Noting that gay marriage is not legal in Virginia, he said that Thorne-Begland’s “life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”

The way Obama can really use this to his advantage is by drawing attention to all the nutjob bigots opposed to marriage equality. When Americans who aren't motivated by hate see the kinds of people opposed to marriage equality, it will be a big boost to Obama and the Democrats.

chickenlittle said...

Andy R linked: "Shifting Tide: All National Democratic Leaders Now Support Civil Marriage Equality"

But why fret about the tide when a tsunami is coming?

Scott M said...

When marriage equality comes to the entire US, I'm not going to be concerned about the individual reasons why each person supported it.

Are you including polygamists in this or are you arbitrarily limiting marriage as being between two people?

If so, why?

dreams said...

The liberal media doesn't like likely voter polls because they are usually not favorable to the Dems. Romney even leads in this poll.

Andy R. said...

Gay Couple Barred from Entering High School Prom in Kentucky

Obama couldn't wish for a better foil to run again. How do the bigots possibly think they aren't going to lose on marriage equality?

damikesc said...

The political part was him lying about his position before. His hand got forced, and I don't think it was a well-thought out political calculation when he came clean on his beliefs.

So, Andy R --- who admits that Obama lies for political gain --- just assumes he's telling the truth NOW.

Got it.

That's the problem with supporting a guy that you know is a liar --- the sheer level of cognitive dissonance to believe them is high.

He said in 1996 that he supports marriage equality. Since then, everything he has said and done pointed to the conclusion that he was pretending not to support equality for political reasons. He also made clear he would eventually note that he does in fact support equality.

...sure, he now has the identical stance of Dick Cheney who is probably an anti-gay bigot in Andy's world, but he isn't lying THIS time.

Those other times? Sure.

Don't worry, Andy --- he only punches you because he cares.

I've seen sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome who make more sense.

Joe said...

The politics is that it's an empty statement which Obama affirmed! He said, "I support same sex marriage and fuck you if you think I'm going to do anything about it."

(I've said before and will say again; that as long as we have the tax code as we have and social security is structure as it is, this isn't just a states issue.)

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

The way Obama can really use this to his advantage is by drawing attention to all the nutjob bigots opposed to marriage equality.


Idiot,

Those "nutjob bigots" are a majority of voters.

Andy R. said...

That's the problem with supporting a guy that you know is a liar

All politicians lie. Did you not know this?

Jay said...

dy R. said...
The broader point, is that we are seeing an avalanche of politicians coming out in support of marriage equality.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

30 STATES Voting against gay marriage = ignorned.

5 Democrats coming out in favor of gay marriage = avalanche.

You're a moron.

damikesc said...

Obama couldn't wish for a better foil to run again. How do the bigots possibly think they aren't going to lose on marriage equality?

It does tend to poll poorly in the only poll that matters --- actual votes.

If it passes via vote, I'm fine with it. By judicial fiat? It will never be taken seriously.

The way Obama can really use this to his advantage is by drawing attention to all the nutjob bigots opposed to marriage equality.

...like black churches, who overwhelmingly oppose it.

Or Catholic Hispanics, who also oppose it.

What you're not presenting is a single reason why a Republican should support it? When the gay vote tends to be a monolithic bloc for Democrats, it immediately marginalizes you into irrelevance.

Just like you don't see anybody worrying about courting the black vote --- you don't see a lot of concern about the gay vote either.

damikesc said...

All politicians lie. Did you not know this?

Andy Translated:

THIS time, he's honest. Sure, he lied all of those OTHER times...but NOW, totally honest.

Do you realize how much you're self-identifying yourself as a rube?

chickenlittle said...

Obama couldn't wish for a better foil to run again. How do the bigots possibly think they aren't going to lose on marriage equality?

@Andy R: Too bad they didn't try that a public school--they'd probably be allowed.

The public will see that case just as just another fluke.

Jay said...

What you're not presenting is a single reason why a Republican should support it?

Of course not.

His "thinking" is at the level of namecalling.

Hence the continued references to "bigot" (I love these white prissy liberals calling blacks "bigots" by the way) and "equality"

Two words he has no clue as to their meanings.

BarrySanders20 said...

Scott,

Most of the gays are willing to live by the same rules as everyone else (one at a time, minimum age, and no close relations) if they get SSM.

I acknowledge my "wide stance" on SSM but it is consistent with my belief in indivdual liberty and limited government. I don't know why civil unions that grant the exact same legal status are unacceptable, but I might think differently if I could only have that recognition.

The multiple wife promoters will have to work to change society's perception that they, too, deserve equal recognition. I don't see that cause as equivalent to SSM in any way. I acknowledge and embrace my hypocricy.

Scott M said...

I don't see that cause as equivalent to SSM in any way. I acknowledge and embrace my hypocricy.

You're in a club of exactly two.

edutcher said...

There is hope for the body politic, after all.

I'm just surprised Black Rock and the Gray Lady are reporting this. They must figure it's over.

Andy R. said...

Shifting Tide: All National Democratic Leaders Now Support Civil Marriage Equality

Sure, that's why so many Demos running for re-election to the Senate <are trying to get as far away from this as humanly possible.

Also, does anyone know if there are any national Republican leadership folks that support marriage equality?

Only the ones that don't want to win.

dreams said...

"whose sample of registered voters is weighted in favor of Democrats (36 percent Democrats, 30 percent Republicans, and 34 percent independents)" From Commentary Contentions blog.

This poll has more Democrats than Republicans so it obviously has a Democrat bias.

Plus, a poll of likely voters is more reliable.

Pookie Number 2 said...

How do the bigots possibly think they aren't going to lose on marriage equality?

There's a sizable group out there that recognizes that notwithstanding all of the foot-stamping and name-calling, Andy Hat's condition is simply a psychological disorder that will probably be treatable or curable in due course.

(Well, not the fact that he's a jerk, just his non-reproductive proclivities.)

Geoff Matthews said...

Mickey Kaus cites Tammy Bruce, who gave an interesting reason for Obama's evolution.
He needs a base to pay to hear him speak after he loses the election.

Geoff Matthews said...

BarrySanders20,

Multiple studies on male homosexuals suggest that monogamy in their long-term relationships is rare. There is more tolerance for extra-marital relationships.

What stops this from becoming the new normal?

America's Politico said...

POTUS Obama will make history. He will win the 2nd term with the LARGEST margin ever. Americans will be focused on putting him on Mt. Rushmore after the election day.

GOP: It is over and you know it. You are finished.

B said...

Andy R. said...yada yada

Are you daft?

What exactly in he current discourse in this country makes you think that supporting SSM is a winning position?

What makes you think that SSM will be acceptable in the future when it hasn't in the past? Wouldn't history and anecdotal evidence be more indicative that the current dalliance with SSM is a societal aberration and that what you are seeing across the country is the opposition groundswell?

And being against SSM is not about hatred, you numbskull. It is resistance to forcing a patina of fraudulent normalcy and legitimacy onto SS relationships by leveraging the institution of marriage. It's about protecting marriage as an institution, not a referendum on approval or disapproval of alternative lifestyles.

Answer Scott M. Where do you stop? Polygamist marriages? Incestual marriages?

BTW: The highest divorce rate - rate, not actual numbers - in the Scandinavian countries that have allowed SSM for over a decade is for lesbian marriages. Approaching 60%. Then gay marriages. Just about 50%. This is in just over 10 years.

A really binding exchange of vows.