Which states that Obama won in 2008 would he lose in 2012 if he supported marriage equality?

Obama's personal opinion, stated publicly often, is the indefensible position that marriage equality is wrong.

The WH has recently been suggesting his position is 'evolving'. While this is a ridiculous statement that opens the president up to much criticism, it is more likely a hint that he might at some uncertain point in the future become fully evolved to the radical idea that institutionalized discrimination is wrong.

This is obviously a political ploy.

My question is, what states do you (or Obama's advisers) think would flip from blue to red?

Keep in mind public support, nationally, for marriage equality has broken 50%. With NY recognizing marriage equality, a watershed will likely follow for deep blue states. Also, remember it is the liberals and the Democrats who greatly support civil rights.

Repukes that would be so offended by Obama's potential evolution probably didn't vote for him before, so it would not likely be a lost vote.

I would like to see how this obvious ill-advised political calculation makes sense.

To answer your question... VA, NC, MO, IN, and probably CO.

marriage equality. Seriously? That one issue would be enough to push it over the edge?

Rarely do Presidential campaigns ever hinge on a single issue, but you wanted to know what states would be in jeopardy, and those are the most likely ones.

That number is growing. There are simply not a significant number who are so opposed to it, that supported Obama to swing the election.

Democrats will support it in higher percentages than this, but the Independents who are critical in swing states will support it in lower numbers.

Indina may be gone regardless.

Virginia,NC,and Florida could all flip to Republican If he did that.

Iowa supereme court mad gay marrage legal and It didn't create a end of the world ruckus over It so Obama could win It.

Colorado might flip If Obama came out for gay marriage.

FL and VA are over 40%. NC is close to 40%. Again, you would have to show that it is so strongly opposed by a significant number of 2008 Obama supporters for this argument to make sense.

I will say I am wrong on that.But the southern Obama states are probally the ones that would be the most In danger of flipping
If he came out for gay marrage publicly.

Day In and Day Out you would hear this If he did it.

The day Is clearly coming when Republicans won't be able to use this as Issue.Things have changed a lot from 2004.

Let's say that Romney is the GOP candidate ... much of the crazy right wing base will want to stay home. They hate him.

Give the crazies gay marriage as an issue, and they might actually vote for the Mormon.

Obama won NC by a very small margin, in part because Republicans in NC didn't like McCain (not the right kind of Christian), and they didn't know Palin well enough, yet.

This time around, if they have a Romney / Bachmann ticket (Bachmann is Palin 2.0), and Obama goes strong on Gay Marriage, the crazies will vote in larger numbers for Romney / Bachmann than they did for McCain / Palin.

These are religious zealots we're talking about ... and the only way they can erase the sin of voting for a Mormon (false Christian) is with the spiritual defense, that they voted for God, and against the gays.

Mitt's history will not play well to balance the Mormon part. He can be see on tape in a debate saying he'd be "provide more effective leadership" than Ted Kennedy on GLBT issues, in 1994. Compares himself to Ted Kennedy, says he's more pro-gay. And they hate him, and he's a Mormon.
So, they might vote for A Mormon over that, but Mitt? I hardly think so.

is that these right wing zealots face a "moral dilemma".

Do I vote for the Mormon, a fake Christian ... and risk eternity in a lake of fire ... or ... do I stay home, and let Obama, who supports gay marriage, become President.

They will struggle with "which sin is the worst sin".

In action is rarely a sin. Voting for the Mormon is an active sin.

So there is that aspect.

The question is, can they RATIONALIZE a Romney vote? Can they take the position that, yes, voting for Romney was wrong, but it HAD to be done to stop Obama and those gays.

I actually think that this is a rationalization that these zealots could make, particularly with Bachmann on the ticket.

But having said that ... you are correct that Romney's prior statements hurt him here with that insane base. But if he claims to have "evolved" away from those prior positions, the crazies might still be able to rationalize a vote for him, just this once.

So I agree that his past statements could weaken him ... and that's probably why you won't see those on Fox News.

And my bet is that CNN and MSNBC won't say much about it either. They will take the "liberal view" that it doesn't really matter.

marriage equality...I agree with Obama, marriage has traditionally been a state issue and it should stay that way. That is why he no longer defends DOMA in court. Not sure why liberals and the PL don't think Obama supports marriage equality....weird.

And it isn't a purely a state issue. Who the feds recognize as married has a huge influence in people's lives.

States are not capable of supporting equality - that has been proven time and again.


LEAVING IT TO THE STATES IS NOT SUPPORTING EQUALITY.

it makes their proclaimed support suspect at best.

Do you think that they should do so? Marriage rights that matter are almost entirely Federal level rights, tax, inheritance, immigration.
Obama says he does not support equality, so your word games just look so vulgar.

Although the state did ban gay marriage, civil unions, etc., it was a very close vote. Besides, the hatred toward Rick Scott and his teabagger agenda would probably be enough to out vote anything concerning gays, or right wing religion.

I've had some rather horrid experiences in that state. I'm not a gay man, but am a "furriner," as they say there.