Obama Support Among Black Voters

[TheKlown]

Obama Support Among Black Voters in NC Drops Dramatically

http://global.christianpost.com/news/obama-support-among-bla ck-voters-in-nc-drops-dramatically-76592/

The Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling group's recent poll of North Carolina voters shows that President Obama has lost his lead for the first time in nine months to the presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. But what is most notable is that black voters are moving away from Obama at an alarming rate.

Of black voters surveyed, 76 percent favored Obama, yet 20 percent said they were supporting Romney. "That seems like an unrealistically low share of African American voters for Obama," PPP noted.

The Rev. Bill Owens, president of the Coalition of African American Pastors said this latest poll comes as no surprise given the president's recent stance on controversial issues, especially same-sex marriage.

"This is a potential political earthquake for President Obama. We are not surprised because we have been hearing from hundreds of pastors and ordinary black Christians who are saddened and outraged that the President endorsed gay marriage," Owens said in a statement Tuesday.

"We love and respect our President. We admire him as the son that we who marched with Rev. King for civil rights hoped we would have. And many of us feel immense betrayal that he has ignored our views and values on marriage. It's not too late, Mr. President. You can continue to evolve on this issue. Come home to your roots in the black church and the genuine civil rights movement."

[TheKlown]

I agree, I don't believe in gay marriages since marriage is a religious term meant between a man and a woman. However I do believe gay couples should get the same rights as straight couples do but just don't use the term marriage.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/14/12 03:21 AM, TheKlown wrote: I agree, I don't believe in gay marriages since marriage is a religious term meant between a man and a woman. However I do believe gay couples should get the same rights as straight couples do but just don't use the term marriage.

Yeah...this really isn't the thread for that since it's going to most likely cause a tangent discussion to form that is better coped with elsewhere.

This article somewhat confuses me though since it at first makes it sound like this is something that should be "alarming" yet he's still got a vast majority of support (76%)...so um...I don't know why they want to act like the panic button should be hit yet, other then because it'll get eyeballs on them. Oh, guess I answered my own question then.

[TheMason]

At 6/14/12 03:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: This article somewhat confuses me though since it at first makes it sound like this is something that should be "alarming" yet he's still got a vast majority of support (76%)...so um...I don't know why they want to act like the panic button should be hit yet, other then because it'll get eyeballs on them. Oh, guess I answered my own question then.

Actually...yes a 76% support rate is alarming for a Democrat.

1) In Presidential Elections the Dem can count on anywhere from 80-95% of the black vote. So to be polling outside the margin of error below 80% is alarming. Especially when you're the first black president.

2) Obama's campaign strategy is heavily dependent on winning strong majorities in minority demographics. In a tight race (especially an electorally important state like NC) this number should terrify Team Obama.

3) This isn't Rasmussen coming out with these numbers. PPP is a Dem-leaning polling outfit.

On the positive side this could just be a "blip", response to a specific event (in this case Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage and issues). Five months from now on election day, this number could be back up.

However, if this a sustained trend instead of a blip...then it means our next president will be Romney because Obama's minority strategy will fail him if he can't keep his own demographic on his side.

[Angry-Hatter]

Mason is right that if Obama only got 76% of the black vote while Romney got 20%, that would be a record breaking bad result for a Democratic candidate among that demographic. Also, if turnout among black people is the same in 2012 as in 2008, this difference in black support would mean a loss of about 2.86 million votes for Obama, while it would mean a gain of about 2.54 million votes for Romney. In other words, a net loss of 5.4 million votes for Obama. All else being the same as in 2008, this alone wouldn't have been enough for McCain to win a majority in the popular vote, but all the signs are pointing towards 2012 being a significantly closer election than 2008. In short, an election in which the black vote split 76-20 between the candidates would be a disaster for the Democrats, especially in this election.

BUT, as mentioned, these poor polling numbers seem almost too bad to be true, so I would be very reluctant to take them at face value until more polling firms find similar results. This might just be a statistical outlier. I also don't find the conclusion that black folks are responding to Obama's support of gay marriage all that convincing; yes, black folks are statistically less likely to support gay marriage than Americans on average, but not by enough to explain a sudden 19 point drop in support. Furthermore, I don't think that anything short of Obama coming out in support of slavery would cause support to shift in the Republican direction the way this poll predicts. What's more likely, I think, is that if black people are dissatisfied with Obama, they will remember on election day that they also aren't that particularly fond of Republicans either, so they'll probably just stay home rather than vote for Romney.

If the poll had predicted a return to the historical norm of 80-90% support of the Democrat then I might have been able to buy it. As it stands, it just defies reason that black voters would abandon the first black President in droves like this.

[TheMason]

At 6/14/12 09:59 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: ... I also don't find the conclusion that black folks are responding to Obama's support of gay marriage all that convincing;...

Actually I think that would explain all of these numbers for the following reasons:

I think it's a "punishment poll". In other words, the black community feels ignored by the Democrats and this president. Recently, (according to polling data) there has been a sense that many in the black community are dissatisfied with the Dems because they think their vote is being taken for granted.

So for the president...and the first black president...to be seen as catering to another minority demographic (and one the black community finds immoral and illegitimate) is a huge sting. Especially when unemployment rates for blacks lag the rest of the country so horribly.

I don't think this reflects how they will vote in November as much as it reflects a message saying: "Hey...we're here...haven't gone anywhere...and you need to have our back so we can get yours."

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/16/12 02:22 PM, TheMason wrote: I think it's a "punishment poll". In other words, the black community feels ignored by the Democrats and this president. Recently, (according to polling data) there has been a sense that many in the black community are dissatisfied with the Dems because they think their vote is being taken for granted.

So for the president...and the first black president...to be seen as catering to another minority demographic (and one the black community finds immoral and illegitimate) is a huge sting. Especially when unemployment rates for blacks lag the rest of the country so horribly.

But that's the thing, this shouldn't be THAT big of a wedge issue in the black community. Polling on the subject before Obama's announcement showed African American opinion on gay marriage lagging behind the rest of the population by only four years or so (i.e. they are where the rest of the country was around 2008). Add to this that after Obama "came out" for gay marriage, polls showed a large jump in support for gay marriage among black people. Either the polling so far has completely misread African American sentiment on the issue, or this latest poll is an outlier (or about something other than gay marriage). I don't find it convincing that black people are feeling jealous of the attention the gays are getting.

I don't think this reflects how they will vote in November as much as it reflects a message saying: "Hey...we're here...haven't gone anywhere...and you need to have our back so we can get yours."

You might be right about that one, but I have to disagree with you that gay marriage is the cause of their sudden defection.

[TheMason]

At 6/16/12 03:19 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I don't find it convincing that black people are feeling jealous of the attention the gays are getting.

You have to also look at what I said later:

I don't think this reflects how they will vote in November as much as it reflects a message saying: "Hey...we're here...haven't gone anywhere...and you need to have our back so we can get yours."

Of the black political activists I've personally known, they tend to territorial about what they receive from the Democratic party. They typically understand that the more the Democratic party caters to other minorities...the less they receive.

Now Obama's presidency hasn't necessarily made the lot of urban blacks any better. So I think it is a combination of: economic stagnation in black communities + Obama's attention to another group(s) + a still high (although transitioning) opposition to homosexuality = some "punishment polls" for Obama.

What will be interesting is whether or not Obama's amnesty program for certain young illegals will effect his numbers in the black community. Whereas the gay marriage hit on two of the aforementioned variables: this also hits on two variables. And since one of them would be the economic variable, we could see Obama's support in his own demographic start a downward trend.

So I'd anticipate some policy coming out soon that is a pet issue of the black community to shore up support.

BUT this is a double edged sword. While shoring up his base and exciting the targeted demographics in his "majority of minorities strategy" it could:
* Make him appear less of a presidential leader and more of a pandering politician.
* If it's not already there...it could create or magnify an existing Bradley effect where voters claim to support Obama in polls so as not to appear racist.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/17/12 05:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Now Obama's presidency hasn't necessarily made the lot of urban blacks any better. So I think it is a combination of: economic stagnation in black communities + Obama's attention to another group(s) + a still high (although transitioning) opposition to homosexuality = some "punishment polls" for Obama.

I'll grant you that Obama is having issues with his black constituents that are related to the economic problems facing a lot of black people in America, but this should have been already reflected in previous polls leading up to this one. The implication of what you are saying is still that Obama's new stance on gay marriage is somehow the straw that broke the camel's back, causing blacks to very suddenly withdraw their support of Obama, but I just don't see this issue as carrying that much weight (for the reasons I have mentioned). If it IS a punishment poll, then it would seem inconceivable to me that gay marriage was the deciding factor in pushing black voters away from Obama; it's just a straw, if even that.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 6/14/12 03:18 AM, TheKlown wrote: Obama Support Among Black Voters in NC Drops Dramatically

that President Obama has lost his lead for the first time in nine months to the presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. But what is most notable is that black voters are moving away from Obama at an alarming rate.

This is an interesting story. I am glad the more people are tired of Obama's work and want vote for him in the upcoming election.

[Warforger]

At 6/17/12 05:31 PM, TheMason wrote: * Make him appear less of a presidential leader and more of a pandering politician.

That's what always mystifies me, if a politician is succumbing to popular demand then he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in a Democracy. If for example he didn't support gay marriage nor have this dream child program then he'd be criticized for not listening to the popular demand, so a "pandering politician" should be exactly what a good politician is.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/12 04:30 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/17/12 05:31 PM, TheMason wrote: * Make him appear less of a presidential leader and more of a pandering politician.

That's what always mystifies me, if a politician is succumbing to popular demand then he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in a Democracy. If for example he didn't support gay marriage nor have this dream child program then he'd be criticized for not listening to the popular demand, so a "pandering politician" should be exactly what a good politician is.

1) It's pandering when a president, in an election year, pursues a quasi-legal policy that circumvents congress in order to garner votes. Especially when that same president a year ago told the target demographic that he was not able to pursue that course of action.

2) That same president signs into law a bill that is not supported by a majority of Americans (namely healthcare reform).

3) Sometimes a president needs to act against the will of the people. The founding fathers understand that the people do not always vote in the best interest of the Republic all the time. That's why are a Republic and not a Democracy. Furthermore, that's why they put into place checks on the will of the people (ie: Electoral College and appointment of Senators). A modern example is Social Security. It is a Ponzi Scheme and the math is determinate that it is going to crash and it will crash hard. Politicians (of all stripes, ideologies and parties) have used it as a slush fund to garner votes for re-election. In the next 20-30 year the bill will come painfully due. BUT anytime someone tries to fix it...we're told we're throwing grandma off the cliff!

[sharpnova]

At 6/14/12 03:21 AM, TheKlown wrote: I agree, I don't believe in gay marriages since marriage is a religious term meant between a man and a woman. However I do believe gay couples should get the same rights as straight couples do but just don't use the term marriage.

This is what I've been saying for a long time.

The real reason the liberals demand gay marriage is to piss off the religious right. If it was about rights, it would be called something else.

[TheMason]

At 6/20/12 10:28 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 6/14/12 03:21 AM, TheKlown wrote: I agree, I don't believe in gay marriages since marriage is a religious term meant between a man and a woman. However I do believe gay couples should get the same rights as straight couples do but just don't use the term marriage.

This is what I've been saying for a long time.

The real reason the liberals demand gay marriage is to piss off the religious right. If it was about rights, it would be called something else.

Using the 'marriage is a religious term' argument is self-defeating. Think about it:
* If you are a Catholic do you want the government coming in and demanding that an all-male, celibate priesthood is discrimatory to women and married men therefore they need to admit women and married men to the priesthood and allow them to say Mass?
* If you are Protestant do you want congress passing laws saying that wine and bread IS transformed into the blood and body of Jesus?

Ergo, if this is a religious question then it is up to individual churches and NOT any state or federal government. It is instead up to a) individual churches and b) individual citizen's personal belief structures. Thus if one believes that a same sex couple can be married...then nothing anyone else has to say matters.

[MrFlopz]

Ugh. Of all the things there are to dislike about Obama, THIS is the issue they disagree with him on? I like the hypocritical civil rights leaders who fail to see that gay rights is the next logical step to move toward equal rights.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/20/12 06:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Ergo, if this is a religious question then it is up to individual churches and NOT any state or federal government. It is instead up to a) individual churches and b) individual citizen's personal belief structures.

How long until churches refusing to marry same-sex couples is deemed "discrimination" though and congress forces them to marry everyone?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/23/12 10:05 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How long until churches refusing to marry same-sex couples is deemed "discrimination" though and congress forces them to marry everyone?

About the same time that the Catholic Church not allowing women to become ordained priests in deemed "discrimination" and Congress forces them to ordain women (i.e. never).

[TheMason]

At 6/23/12 10:05 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 6/20/12 06:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Ergo, if this is a religious question then it is up to individual churches and NOT any state or federal government. It is instead up to a) individual churches and b) individual citizen's personal belief structures.

How long until churches refusing to marry same-sex couples is deemed "discrimination" though and congress forces them to marry everyone?

That's actually my point. The government needs to recuse itself from religious affairs.
Congress: should not make laws regarding religious issues.
Courts: They should not rule on religious beliefs.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/24/12 12:01 PM, TheMason wrote: That's actually my point. The government needs to recuse itself from religious affairs.

In other words, if a church wants to marry a man and another man together in holy matrimony, they should have the right to do so?

[TheMason]

At 6/24/12 01:27 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 6/24/12 12:01 PM, TheMason wrote: That's actually my point. The government needs to recuse itself from religious affairs.

In other words, if a church wants to marry a man and another man together in holy matrimony, they should have the right to do so?

Yes, as well as if a church believes that same-sex marriage is a sin and against their religion, or that there are specific gender roles (ie: only men can be priests and women nuns) then that is their right to practice that religion.

Now where a faith steps over the line is when they do not respect the free will of people to follow their own internal moral/religious compass. A good example is honor killings.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/24/12 06:28 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes, as well as if a church believes that same-sex marriage is a sin and against their religion, or that there are specific gender roles (ie: only men can be priests and women nuns) then that is their right to practice that religion.

Then we are in agreement. I would never dream of forcing any particular church or priest to perform any kind of marriage ceremony that they believe to be against their own religious teachings, nor would I deny any particular church or priest the right to perform that same ceremony and to have it recognized as legally equal to any other marriage ceremony performed by any other church.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/24/12 12:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: About the same time that the Catholic Church not allowing women to become ordained priests in deemed "discrimination" and Congress forces them to ordain women (i.e. never).

That is a clearly religious practice. One of the whole thrusts of gay marriage advocates is that marriage is not religious.

[Feoric]

At 6/24/12 09:16 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 6/24/12 12:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: About the same time that the Catholic Church not allowing women to become ordained priests in deemed "discrimination" and Congress forces them to ordain women (i.e. never).

That is a clearly religious practice. One of the whole thrusts of gay marriage advocates is that marriage is not religious.

i dont think that's true at all. the argument they make is they should be able to enter a civil union, which isnt religious at all. it's done in town hall.

[Thecrazyman]

I just hope they come to the realization that neither the active running candidates aren't worth voting for, there already in two political parties that aren't doing what there suppost to be doing for the American People but instead being fueled by the personal agendas by these so-called Special Interest Groups.

That said, I honestly hope they don't vote for our current President in Office as I also hope for those who haven't already come to the realization there isn't anybody to turn to, nobody to turn to but themselves as Independents.

Some people who live in the United States of America even to this very day have forgotten that THIS is the Land of the Free and is meant to be treated as the Land of the Free.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/24/12 09:16 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 6/24/12 12:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: About the same time that the Catholic Church not allowing women to become ordained priests in deemed "discrimination" and Congress forces them to ordain women (i.e. never).

That is a clearly religious practice. One of the whole thrusts of gay marriage advocates is that marriage is not religious.

Handing out marriage licences isn't. And think about it, forget the religious part of the person performing a marriage ceremony, the priest, rabbi, pirate captain, whatever. Marrying someone is not a duty, and anyone with that authority (vested in them by the state of [whatever]) can choose whether or not to take on any couple for whatever reason. If a couple comes and asks someone to marry them, that person can turn them down. I don't see why this would change if the state made it possible for same sex couples to be issued marriage licences.