Just yesterday, in North Carolina, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, and its status as a 2012 battleground state was guaranteed by Democrats' decision to hold their convention in Charlotte this summer.
Obama's likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state's highest court, as governor, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage.
EDIT: I think "Will" rather than "Should" is the better question.
ziptnf
Obviously this was a political move, and a brilliant one at that. Makes him look more progressive and Romney look like a stick in the mud. We should all just go ahead and prepare to have him for another term. All Obama needs to do now is decriminalize marijuana and he'll win in a landslide.
OrangestO
Not necessarily.
He'll likely get the popular vote, but the electoral vote is what's at question.
ziptnf
I honestly can't see him losing the electoral vote either. He still took NC in 2008, it makes me wonder if he could still take it again this year. Blacks and Latinos are largely anti-gay marriage, but who are they going to vote for, Romney?
OrangestO
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
I honestly can't see him losing the electoral vote either. He still took NC in 2008, it makes me wonder if he could still take it again this year. Blacks and Latinos are largely anti-gay marriage, but who are they going to vote for, Romney?
They won't vote at all. And that could be a problem, as well.
It's too early to think this will result in determining the election, but the possibility of it happening when there's a plethora of other issues exemplifies how divided this country is.
Dj Nacht
quote:
Originally posted by OrangestO
Not necessarily.
He'll likely get the popular vote, but the electoral vote is what's at question.
I never understood how this works. I thought electors were voted in by the people if they pleged to vote for a certain candidate. If the majority of the people want Obama then how can the Electorate vote much differently?
srussell0018
Obama could win more popular votes, since population-heavy states like California and New York almost inevitably vote Democrat. But if his opponent won more states, even if they have lower populations like Alabama, Mississippi, etc., they could still win the electoral vote. It's kind of weighed since higher population = more electoral votes, but funky things can still happen.
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Nacht
I never understood how this works. I thought electors were voted in by the people if they pleged to vote for a certain candidate. If the majority of the people want Obama then how can the Electorate vote much differently?
A couple reasons:
(1) The number of electors given to a state is not exactly proportional to the state's population, since in addition to the electors that correspond to the state's House representatives (which are apportioned by population), every state has two senators and gets one elector for each, regardless of population. This means that less populated states have a larger effect on the electoral tally than they would in a strictly proportional system.
(2) If a candidate receives a plurality of the popular vote in an individual state, the candidate then receives all of the state's electoral votes. Even if, say, only 51% of a state voted for a candidate, that candidate will get 100% of the electoral votes for that state. Electors are a "winner take all" system, not a proportional representation of the popular vote.
So obviously there can be a discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral one.
OrangestO
The 2000 election is a good example of this.
Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the electorate.
Looney4Clooney
this has to be the least liked republican candidate among republicans. It will not even be close. He doesn't have the christian vote, the woman vote, the minority vote, the middle class vote. Obama killed Osama. This race is so uneven they should just capitulate and save the money.
OrangestO
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
this has to be the least liked republican candidate among republicans. It will not even be close. He doesn't have the christian vote, the woman vote, the minority vote, the middle class vote. Obama killed Osama. This race is so uneven they should just capitulate and save the money.
Yea, I think Santorum would have had a better chance against Obama.
At least he stands for something.
This is going to be more about voting against Obama rather than voting for a Republican.
Vector A
I'm not so sure about that (re: Santorum). I think that Santorum would end up getting a lot more Democrats to the polling places, which would probably wash out the increased Republican participation. As it is the greatest threat to Obama's re-election now is probably just that too many of his supporters will consider it a certainty and decide that they can stay home on election day.
