Pew poll: Public not particularly happy about Prop 8 decision or contraception mandate
posted at 6:35 pm on February 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe
It’s interesting, isn’t it? This election cycle was supposed to be dominated by jobs and the economy, but, lately, social issues have saturated the news cycle. No less than the unemployment numbers, they work to the detriment of the president. The public just isn’t particularly happy about the direction we’re headed as a society — at least according to a recent Pew poll that explores Americans’ reactions to last week’s federal court decision to strike down a same-sex marriage ban and the to the president’s contraception mandate and subsequent “accommodation.”
According to the poll, more Americans express negative than positive reactions to a California appeals court ruling that struck down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the Golden State:
More than four-in-ten (44%) say they are disappointed (31%) or angry (13%). Just a third (33%) say they are pleased (20%) or very happy (13%). About one-in-five (22%) volunteer that they have none of these reactions (15%) or have no opinion (7%).
A majority of Republicans (58%) say they are disappointed (39%) or angry (20%) about the court decision. Just 21% are pleased (15%) or very happy (6%). Democrats, on balance, have a positive reaction to the court’s ruling: 46% are either pleased (27%) or very happy (19%), while 34% are either disappointed (26%) or angry (8%). Independents’ reactions mirror those of the general public, with 42% expressing disappointment (29%) or anger (13%) and 33% saying they are pleased (20%) or very happy (13%).
How’s that bad for the president, who ostensibly opposes gay marriage but says his views on the issue are evolving? Most voters suspect he actually supports gay marriage and that his rhetoric is a thin veil. They recognize that he’s trying to play the issue both ways. The Prop 8 decision — and, indeed, anything that keeps the issue in the public eye — is liable to make voters of all stripes impatient with the president’s politicking. Those who support traditional marriage will grow increasingly impatient with the president’s unwillingness to stand up for it. Those who support same-sex marriage will grow increasingly impatient with the president’s unwillingness to stand up for it.
Meanwhile, the Pew poll confirms other research that suggests voters are unimpressed with the president’s contraception mandate and totally unfazed by his much-touted “accommodation”:
About six-in-ten Americans (62%) have heard about the proposed federal rule that would require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover birth control as part of their health care benefits. Among those aware of the issue, opinion is closely divided over whether these institutions should be given an exemption to the rule if they object to the use of contraceptives: 48% support an exemption and 44% say they should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers. …
The Obama administration announced Feb. 10 that it would modify the mandate in response to criticism that the rule would force religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs in providing contraception coverage. The survey shows little difference in opinions among people interviewed before the administration’s proposed modification on Feb. 10 and those interviewed afterwards.
Those numbers aren’t quite as decisive as the numbers about Prop 8, but they still suggest Obama blundered with the mandate; he doesn’t have nearly the support he needs to ram this down the throats of suddenly convicted Catholic bishops and those sympathetic to the Church’s cause. As Michael Gerson writes, the effects of Obama’s decision on this will linger through the campaign.
The president might have just ensured that this won’t be the jobs and the economy election, after all. The trick for the GOP candidate will be to incorporate these issues into the campaign in just the right way, adequately reminding voters that the president is in the wrong on social issues, too, but then quickly returning to his biggest vulnerabilities of high unemployment and out-of-control spending.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2