Friday, May 11, 2012

Evidence Of President Obama’s Base Problems

A shaky economy. High unemployment. Skyrocketing deficits. Sinking poll numbers. And now a significant problem with his base.

Things certainly aren’t looking up for President Obama’s reelection efforts.

Following an abysmal showing in North Carolina where 20% of Democrat voters cast their ballots in favor of “no preference” and an utterly disastrous performance in West Virginia, losing over 40% of the vote to a convicted felon, Obama’s had a bit of trouble showing his base—the liberals that dominate the Democrat party—that he’s worth keeping around another four years.

And for further proof, you only need to look at his new position on same-sex marriage:
"At a certain point, I've just 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," Obama told ABC News.
Of course, this is a switch from his long-held belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. So why the about-face?

He’s losing his base, that’s why.

Look at the polling in North Carolina—the most recent state to define marriage as between a man and a woman:
  • Men and women supported it.
  • Independents supported it.
  • Every racial group supported it.
  • Everyone over the age of 30 supported it.
So who didn’t support it? Liberal Democrats. Those self-identifying as Liberals opposed it 77% to 22%. Democrats overall were in opposition by a much smaller margin at 53% to 40%. Clearly, the liberal wing of the party was carrying the statistical weight.

That means that, while almost every demographic group supports the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, President Obama is betting his political chips on the most liberal American voters—voters that should already be in his corner. But apparently, Obama isn’t too sure about the Democrat base coming out to support him this election.

Thus the switch.

And if the President is worried about losing his base less than 180 days from the election, well, it’s going to be a long several months for the Obama campaign.

Cross-posted at GOHP Blog.


  1. Serious question, why is it ok for gay marriage bills to be on the ballot? If states got to vote on individual rights, interracial marriage would still be illegal in states like Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, where poll numbers show that it is viewed about as favorably as gay marriage. Our grandchildren are going to look at us when it comes to gay rights as we look at our grandparents when it comes to civil rights. As in, they are going to say "I can't believe that this was a big deal to you peoeple..."

  2. To your first question, many states allow for citizen initiatives and referendum, giving private individuals the right to petition voters directly for change in the law or consitutionally. It's the reason why traditional marriage amendments are able to be on the ballot just the same as repeals of legislatively passed laws, like Senate Bill 5.

    In other words, it works both ways.

    As to the second, the issue isn't about discrimination, but rather the definition of constitutionally protected rights.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. MJL - actually, I think they will look back at us and say "I can't believe you thought it was OK to murder over a million innocent babies in the womb every year. What was wrong with you?" And your comparison to civil rights is BS. People's race is determined by their genetics. Sexual behavior is not. Now before you get your panties in a wad, note that I said sexual behavior, not preference. While I seriously doubt that sexual orientation/preference is genetic, the fact is that it does not matter. You wanna say gays are "born that way," fine. Then let's agree that alcoholics, kleptomaniacs, pedophiles and rapists are "born that way" also. But just because someone has the inclination to do something immoral does not make it OK. Maybe gays are born with that inclination. But it most definitely remains their choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Should gays be denied a job? No. But should we all be forced to accept their so-called "marriages" as OK? No. We are not forced to allow a 50 year old man to "marry" a 5 year old girl. And we should not have to accept so-called "gay marriage" either.

  5. Being gay isnt immoral, no matter what your close minded bigoted ways tell you. That right there is why the president came out as pro gay marriage. It was a rather brilliant political move, because if the GOP takes a hard lined stand on it, then they come off looking like the close minded bigots in this fight. He has painted them into a corner right now, and they don't really have a move to make.

    So you don't think sexual preference isnt genetic? Then explain to me how you specifically "Chose" to be attracted to women?

    Also studies have shown that addicts have a part in their brain that doesnt work right, so yeah, they are born that way...

    1. Anonymous - I figured you would look right past what I said despite the clarity of my comment. I will repeat what I said for your benefit. "Now before you get your panties in a wad, note that I said sexual behavior, not preference." I went on to say "just because someone has the inclination to do something immoral does not make it OK." And yes, I have the right to believe homosexual behavior is immoral just like you have the right to think pedophilia is OK if you wish. You would be wrong, but you are welcome to believe that. Also, I did not say addicts were not born that way - I said "let's agree that alcoholics ... are born that way also." Finally, as far as the conservatives coming out on the short end of this fight, go tell that to the 61% of North Carolinans that voted to ban same sex so-called marriage.

  6. “We’ve arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage,” Rush Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday."

    His first, second, third, and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.

  7. The point is Obama did it to energize his base period!

    He waited until AFTER the NC vote so the defeat could not be blamed directly on him.

    He took the safe way out and left it up to the states. It would have bold and significant if he supported a federal law. By leaving it to the states he can "eat his cake and have his pie to".

    Does anyone really believe Bush cared about the issue either? He used it to get his base out to vote.

    The D's in NC will still vote for Obama because he left it up to the states.

    It smoke and mirrors plain and simple!


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.