Virginia Republicans Put a Seat into Play

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

Jenna Portnoy at WP:

Freshman Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.), who drew criticism from within his party for officiating at a same-sex wedding, lost his bid for renomination to challenger Bob Good, a former Liberty University fundraiser who describes himself as a “biblical conservative.”

The defeat of Riggleman, who was endorsed by President Trump, puts the central Virginia seat within reach for Democrats in the general election for the first time in more than a decade.

Good won a drive-through nomination contest outside Lynchburg with 58 percent of the vote, said Melvin Adams, chairman of the 5th District Republican committee. The results were announced early Sunday, more than six hours after voting ended.

Riggleman had not conceded as of Sunday morning, saying he was evaluating his options — which could include legal action against the party committee — amid reports of “voting irregularities and ballot stuffing.”

Trump, Existential Fear, and Evangelicals

In Defying the Odds, we discuss cultural reasons for Trump's victory.  The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

A.J. Nolte at The Bulwark:

...Obergefell came as a huge shock to conservative evangelicals. They’d rapidly gone from certainty that they were winning big cultural fights to a very real fear that their views on marriage would be regarded as proof of bigotry. Given that the Obama administration regarded forcing nuns to provide contraception as a moral imperative, this fear was, perhaps, not totally groundless. Bluntly put, many evangelicals panicked.

Existential fear’s impact on political behavior is something political scientists have studied extensively. One of the primary drivers of this type of fear they’ve identified is when rising expectations about the future are dashed. In essence, this explains what happened to evangelicals, just as it explains the role declining trade between Britain and Germany may have played in World War I. And, as in war, pretty much the first thing a political movement does when faced with existential fear is to look for allies: the tougher, stronger, and scarier, the better.

Counterintuitively, the fact that Trump is bellicose, bombastic, insulting, and lives according to a code at odds with evangelicals’ beliefs actually made him more attractive as an ally, not less. “Evangelical nice” is a real thing, and like all good satirical characters, there’s a solid core of truth in The Simpsons’ depiction of Ned Flanders. That made evangelicals unlikely to see one of their own as capable of defeating an existential threat. But Trump embodied the opposite values, and he seemed determined to fight the people they were fighting

...
 In the long run, of course, the evangelical alliance with Trump is almost certain to do more harm than good. Trump’s administration has certainly used executive action to follow through on some evangelical priorities related to abortion and religious freedom, and has appointed one, maybe two, reliably conservative Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, he’s also alienated millennials, ethnic minority voters, and college-educated suburbanites, and this alienation is making evangelicals and their positions more unpopular by proxy. It also doesn’t particularly help that, while past evangelical efforts on religious freedom (such as the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 1998 International Religious Freedom Act) were explicitly designed to apply to Christians and non-Christians alike, Trump’s flirtation with things like Muslim bans undermines this universal argument in significant ways. Critics of broad religious freedom protections argue that they amount to “Christian special pleading”; it’s not a particularly good idea for evangelicals to condone any of Trump’s actions that give support to that argument.

Cruz, Nuance, Marriage,and Immigration

Mike Allen reports at Politico:

In June, Ted Cruz promised on NPR that opposition to gay marriage would be “front and center” in his 2016 campaign.

 In July, he said the Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage was the “very definition of tyranny” and urged states to ignore the ruling.

But in December, behind closed doors at a big-dollar Manhattan fundraiser, the quickly ascending presidential candidate assured a Republican gay-rights supporter that a Cruz administration would not make fighting same-sex marriage a top priority.

In a recording provided to POLITICO, Cruz answers a flat “No” when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a “top-three priority,” an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.

While Cruz’s private comments to a more moderate GOP audience do not contradict what the Republican Texas senator has said elsewhere, they demonstrate an adeptness at nuance in tone and emphasis that befits his Ivy League background. Indeed, the wording looks jarring when compared with the conservative, evangelical rhetoric he serves at his rallies, which have ballooned in size and excitement as he has moved to the front of the pack in Iowa.

...
But an adviser to a rival campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wants to stay behind the scenes, said the Manhattan comments could help opponents portray Cruz as “calculating” at a time voters are rewarding authenticity.

“There’s an Iowa Ted and a New York Ted,” the adviser said. “He sounds different behind closed doors.”

At The New York Times, Jonathan Martin reports on a campaign memo from 1999:

As one of the architects of Mr. Bush’s immigration platform, Mr. Cruz, then 30, outlined calibrated positions that would appeal to conservatives concerned about border security while portraying Mr. Bush to moderates as an inclusive Republican. The memo, in which Mr. Cruz put his name on every page, was authenticated by another aide on the 2000 Bush campaign.

“America is stronger with the many immigrants who come here to make a new life and participate in the American dream,” Mr. Cruz wrote in capital letters about legal immigrants at the document’s outset.

He also advised that Mr. Bush state his support for increasing caps on visas for high-tech workers — a position that Mr. Cruz held after being elected to the Senate in 2012 but has recently abandoned.

Mr. Cruz urged Mr. Bush, again in capital letters, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions.

“But, at the same time,” he added in the next sentence, “we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life.”

Kasich and Same-Sex Marriage

Chrissie Thompson reports at The Cincinnati Inquirer:

John Kasich, who opposes gay marriage, thinks a Kentucky clerk should issue same-sex marriage licenses despite her religious beliefs.

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis is sitting in jail indefinitely after defying court orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Conservatives have cheered her for standing on her personal religious beliefs, saying the government is persecuting her.

Even though Davis personally opposes same-sex marriage, she's a government employee, Kasich told ABC's This Week on Sunday.

"She's not running a church. I wouldn't force this on a church, but in terms of her responsibility, I think she has to comply," said Kasich, Ohio governor and a GOP presidential candidate. He doesn't think she should sit in jail, he said, but "I think she should follow the law."

Battles over same-sex marriage might turn young people away from Christianity, said Kasich, a Protestant.

"When we see these kind of battles going on, I get a little bit afraid that it turns people off to the idea of faith in God," he said. "I think we need to talk a lot about the do's, about humility, about helping our neighbor, about the need to live a life bigger than ourselves."

Walker Flip-Flops

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin report at the New York Times:

After Mr. Walker moved to support Iowa’s prized ethanol subsidies, abandoned his support for an immigration overhaul and spoke out against the Common Core national education standards, his pointed tone on marriage caused some Republicans to ask publicly whether he is too willing to modify his views to aid his ambitions.

“It seems like pollsters gone wild,” said Scott Reed, a longtime Republican strategist and top adviser to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, discussing Mr. Walker’s call for a constitutional amendment.

To Republicans like Mr. Reed, Mr. Walker appears increasingly willing to lose the general election to win the primary.

Mr. Walker’s shifts on issues this year have created friction with a variety of people open to supporting him. He used to oppose what he called government mandates on the use of ethanol in gasoline, for example, but told Iowans this year that he was willing to continue one, the Renewable Fuel Standard. The reversal was not well received in the political network led by the industrialists David H. and Charles G. Koch, according to a Republican aware of the reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of sensitivities over the group’s deliberations.

But his stance on marriage is what has disquieted people who had counted on Mr. Walker taking a more restrained approach to the culture wars.

For several months, according to four people briefed on the discussions who were not authorized to describe an off-the-record meeting, Republican donors who were advocates for legalizing same-sex marriage had worked quietly to try to build bridges to Mr. Walker, whose wife has a lesbian cousin whose wedding reception Mr. Walker attended.

Cruz Proposes Judicial Retention Electins

In response to Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare, Ted Cruz proposes judicial retention elections:

Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.

Jindal Falling, 2015

Tyler Bridges reports at The Washington Post:

Just weeks before he is expected to announce his presidential campaign, Bobby Jindal is at the nadir of his political career.

The Republican governor is at open war with many of his erstwhile allies in the business community and the legislature. He spent weeks pushing a “religious freedom” bill that failed to pass, while having little contact with legislators trying to solve Louisiana’s worst budget crisis in 25 years.

Jindal is now so unpopular in deep-red Louisiana that his approval rating plunged to 32 percent in a recent poll — compared with 42 percent for President Obama, who lost the state by 17 percentage points in 2012.

“This is very much a low point for Bobby Jindal,” said Pearson Cross, a political science professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who is preparing a book on the governor.

Much of the trouble swirling around Jindal is connected to his unannounced presidential campaign and his regular travels to early primary states, which have angered many of his fellow Republicans in the GOP-controlled legislature.

In recent months, Jindal has focused his political energy here on trying to appeal to social conservatives nationally by pushing the Marriage and Conscience Act, which would have prohibited the state from taking “adverse action” against those opposed to same-sex marriage. But the measure died last month in the legislature amid opposition from major corporations that feared boycott threats by gay rights groups viewing such measures as sanctioning discrimination.

Hillary, Liberal Again

Lisa Lerer reports at RealClearPolitics:

As a presidential candidate in 2008, she opposed gay marriage, equivocated on granting driver’s licenses to people who were living in the U.S. illegally and endured heavy criticism from rival Barack Obama over her stance on campaign finance.

During the opening week of her second presidential campaign, Clinton showed she had retooled her positions to line up with the views of progressive Democrats. On Monday, she called for a constitutional amendment that would limit “unaccountable money” in politics. Days later, she said through her campaign that she supports same-sex marriage being recognized as a constitutional right in a pending Supreme Court case. After that, her campaign said she now supports state policies awarding licenses to people in the country illegally.

Such do-overs are part of an effort by Clinton to rectify past missteps and assure the liberal wing of her party that in 2016, she will be change they’ve been waiting for.

What the Voters Said

Karlyn Bowman writes at AEI:

• The ballots have been counted and the results are in. The November issue of AEI’s Political Report provides a comprehensive picture of what voters had to say on Election Day, presenting a compilation of exit-poll data from significant demographic groups in national House elections since 1986. This month’s report also includes a closer look at voters’ opinions on politically contentious social issues.
• A sour mood: Of the 65 percent of voters who said the country is on the wrong track, a large majority (69 percent) voted for the Republican House candidate. Seventy percent of voters characterized national economic conditions as “not so good” or “poor.”
• The marriage vs. gender gap: In 2010, 48 percent of women voted for the Democratic House candidate, whereas 52 percent of women did so in 2014. The marriage gap remains larger than the gender gap: In this year’s election, 58 percent of married voters chose the Republican House candidate, compared to 55 percent of nonmarried voters choosing the Democratic one.
• Views toward government and the economy: Sixty-three percent of voters in this year’s House elections said the US economic system favors the wealthy. Forty-one percent said the government should do more to solve Americans’ problems, while 54 percent said the government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals.
• Legal or illegal? According to the exit-poll data, voters’ opinions of legalizing same-sex marriage vary by state. For example, 70 percent of voters in New Hampshire’s Senate race said gay marriage should be legal in their state. Almost the same percentage (69 percent) of voters in Arkansas’ Senate race said gay marriage should not be legal in their state.
• Assessing the Affordable Care Act: In 18 Senate races, voters were asked to register their opinion of the 2010 health care law. In 17 of those races, more than 40 percent said the law “went too far.” Oregon voters expressed most satisfaction with the law, with 34 percent saying the law “did not go far enough.”
• Looking ahead to 2016: Thirty-nine percent of Arkansas voters said Hillary Clinton would make a good president, while 50 percent said Mike Huckabee would. In Florida, 40 percent of voters said Jeb Bush would make a good president.

Demographics, Social Issues, and the Vote

At The New York Times, Thomas Edsall writes:

As traditional economic divisions in politics have weakened, other factors are helping to determine partisan affiliation.

Lesthaeghe and Neidert have found, for example, that the higher the non-Hispanic white birthrate of a state, the stronger its vote in 2004 for Bush. Figure 5 shows the striking correlation:

Neidert and Lesthaeghe are looking at voting behavior both as a driver of the contemporary demographic transition and as stemming from it — from the differences, that is, between states and other localities in the embrace of new behavioral norms. Factors shaping political choices are less tied to classic class distinctions and increasingly related to values conflicts regarding family formation.

Writing with Johan Surkyn, Neidert and Lesthaeghe consider the impact on voters of same-sex households, cohabiting households, births to teenagers, births to unmarried women, divorce and separation, the percentage of two-parent households, fertility postponement, fertility decline brought on by contraception and abortion, the percentage of women without children in the household, rates of early or late marriage, the disconnection between marriage and procreation, and so forth.

These topics both feed and reflect what social scientists call “ideational” transformation, which is emerging from trends toward “secularization and the subsequent accentuation of individualistic expressive values,” as well as from the backlash against such trends.

Democratic strength is now concentrated in fewer but more heavily populated areas. Polarization has intensified as voters in over half the nation’s counties cast landslide margins for one presidential candidate or the other. These tendencies are intensifying and have spilled over to Congressional elections, leading to legislative paralysis. Self-perpetuating clusters of the like-minded lead voters and their representatives away from the center.

In the States

Reuters reports on state legislatures:

Democrats were on track to capture more state legislative seats than Republicans in Tuesday's election, as President Barack Obama's re-election spilled into local races, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported on Wednesday.

"Democrats will almost certainly net more seats than the GOP, continuing a strong 'coattails' trend," the bipartisan organization said in a statement. "Including this year, the party winning the White House has gained seats in legislatures in 21 of the past 29 presidential-cycle elections."

Democrats wrested the Colorado House and New York Senate from Republicans and gained control of the Oregon House, which had been tied, the NCSL reported.

The president's party also took back both chambers of the Minnesota legislature that went to Republican control in 2010's midterm election. While the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee said the party won control of Maine's chambers, which Republicans also captured in the 2010 wave, the NCSL said it could not confirm the takeover.

Meanwhile, Republicans took over the Wisconsin Senate, where Democrats held a short-lived majority as a result of a June recall election touched off by a Republican-led effort to limit the power of public sector unions in that state.

Republicans also gained control of the House and Senate in Arkansas, the last southern state where Democrats were the majority in both chambers, the NCSL reported. Alaska's tied Senate also swung to Republicans.

AP reports on key ballot measures:

Altering the course of U.S social policy, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, while Washington state and Colorado set up a showdown with federal authorities by legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

The outcomes for those ballot measures Tuesday were a milestone for persistent but often thwarted advocacy groups and activists who for decades have pressed the causes of gay rights and drug decriminalization.

"Today the state of Washington looked at 70 years of marijuana prohibition and said it's time for a new approach," said Alison Holcomb, manager of the campaign that won passage of Initiative 502 in Washington.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who opposed legalization, was less enthused. "Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly," he said.

The results in Maine and Maryland broke a 32-state streak, dating to 1998, in which gay marriage had been rebuffed by every state that voted on it. They will become the seventh and eighth states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact

Gallup reports:

A majority of Americans, 60%, say President Barack Obama's newly announced support for same-sex marriage will make no difference to their vote. Twice as many say it will make them less likely to vote for Obama as say more likely, though roughly half of the "less likely" group are Republicans who probably would not support Obama anyway.

...
Specifically, 23% of independents and 10% of Democrats say it makes them less likely to vote for Obama, while a smaller 11% of independents and 2% of Republicans say it makes them more likely to vote for Obama. Those figures suggest Obama's gay marriage position is likely to cost him more independent and Democratic votes than he would gain in independent and Republican votes, clearly indicating that his new position is more of a net minus than a net plus for him. However, those figures also underscore that it is a relatively limited group of voters -- about one in three independents and fewer than one in 10 Republicans or Democrats -- whose votes may change as a result of Obama's new stance on gay marriage.

The president's stand is helping on the fundraising front, as AP reports:

President Barack Obama has seen an uptick in fundraising since he announced his shift on gay marriage, with some Democratic rainmakers citing renewed interest from gay and lesbian donors who had been urging the president to clarify his stance on the divisive social issue.

"The phone calls went on until one in the morning after the president spoke — people calling saying `Where do I go, what can I do to help, what events are coming up,"' said Robert Zimmerman, a Long Island, N.Y., Obama bundler. "People I've been seeking out for campaign support for months have been calling me saying, `I'm ready to give."'

Obama Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Vice President Biden's comments on marriage have prompted a White House shift. In an ABC interview yesterday, President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage.  At Politico, Charles Mahtesian writes:

No doubt, Obama gets some political pluses out of supporting same-sex marriage Wednesday — energizing LGBT voters and donors, adding a new line to his Mitt Romney’s-a-throwback brief, kick-starting college turnout or in simply reminding people that yes, he came to Washington to do big things.

But for all the polls showing movement toward greater public acceptance of gay marriage, for all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.

He identifies seven states where the president's change of position may hurt:

• North Carolina, which just passed a ban on same-sex marriage (and where some voters may see the president's statement as a rebuke);
• Florida: "Four years ago, Obama and an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment shared the Florida ballot. Obama won the state narrowly, the amendment won by a landslide. And the amendment won 600,000 more votes than Obama."
• Colorado, home of Focus on the Family;
• Nevada, with lots of Mormons;
• Iowa, where in 2010 voters ousted three judges who voted to allow same-sex marriage;
• Missouri, with many social conservatives;
• Ohio, where "polls continue to show that a majority in Ohio oppose gay marriage, compared with only about one-third of voters who support it.

Michael Barone writes:

Barack Obama certainly made news today with his announcement that he has changed his position and now favors same-sex marriage. But one part of his statement has evidently aroused a firestorm in the conservative blogosphere. “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors,” he said, “who are out there fighting on my behalf . . . .” “My behalf”? They are fighting on behalf of the United States of America of which Obama is, like all his predecessors have been and all his successors will be, temporarily president and commander-in-chief. Obama could have accurately said “at my command,” since that is literally true. But that would conflict with his campaign message that he ends wars rather than wages them. And if he were a constitutional monarch like Elizabeth II he could, I suppose, say “on my behalf.” But we're not a monarchy and he's not royal.

(Mostly) Bad Numbers for Democrats

Gallup reports a good number for Democrats:

Registered voters are nearly twice as likely to say Barack Obama, rather than Mitt Romney, is the more likable of the two presidential candidates. Obama's 60% to 31% advantage on this characteristic is the largest for either candidate on five separate dimensions tested in a May 1-2 USA Today/Gallup poll.

Another Gallup number is not so good:

Thirty-two percent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed in April, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment. This is up from 30.1% in March and is slightly higher than the 30.7% of a year ago.

At the Daily Beast, Ben Jacobs reports an ominous number from Wisconsin:

Tuesday was a bad night for the labor movement. In Wisconsin, with only token opposition, incumbent Gov. Scott Walker got 97 percent of the vote in the Republican primary, and almost as many votes were cast for him than in the entire Democratic primary combined. This is a bad sign for Democrats. The percentage of the vote Walker received seemed more appropriate for Mugabe than the former county executive of Milwaukee.

At The Washington Post, Rachel Weiner reports a bad number from West Virginia:

Keith Judd, who is serving a 17 1/2-year prison sentence for extortion at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, took 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia’s Democratic primary Tuesday night — 72,000 votes to Obama’s 106,000. He would qualify for convention delegates, if anyone had signed up to be a Judd delegate. (No one did.)

How did Judd get so many votes?

It’s likely not his past careers as a superhero and religious leader. Or his passionate FEC report ramblings. Simply put, West Virginia does not like Obama.

Alex Roarty writes at The Atlantic:

The overwhelming North Carolina vote to define marriage as legal only between a man and woman is an unequivocal reminder that gay marriage remains unappealing in many parts of the country, even as its support grows overall nationally.

That's a warning for President Obama, who is currently positioned somewhere between supporters of gay marriage -- who include campaign backers and members of his own administration -- and resistant voters like those who helped pass the gay marriage ban this week in the Tar Heel State.

Obama's description of himself as "evolving" on the issue amounts to a public flirtation, and has prompted speculation that he'll become a gay-marriage supporter in time for the Democratic National Convention this summer in Charlotte. But the president is counting on North Carolina and demographically similar states, like Virginia, to lift him to a second term. Assuming an unpopular position on such a high-profile issue is politically perilous in those states and others where he may need every last vote to beat back Republican foe Mitt Romney.

The Administration's Gay Marriage Muddle

At The Washington Post, Dana Milbank goes full-metal snark:

If Vice President Biden continues to make public appearances during this campaign, White House press secretary Jay Carney should be offered a membership in the janitors’ union. 

As things stand, the spokesman does not have the supplies necessary to clean up the mess Biden made in his appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Biden gave his full support to same-sex marriage — a position conspicuously at odds with the public stance of his boss, President Obama, who is widely assumed to share Biden’s views but who says that his own thinking is “evolving.”

At Politico, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, and Glenn Thrush report:

“They had the best of both worlds going up until this weekend where they didn’t have to rock the boat of actually coming out for it. The gay community was fully happy in their belief that he ‘wink, wink’ supported it,” a top Democratic communications strategist said. “Now, in their efforts to contain the [Joe] Biden fallout, they seem to be digging in against gay marriage, emphasizing how they are not for it. That is the opposite of what they have successfully been doing all along.”

At The Washington Post, Peter Wallsten and Dan Eggen add a fascinating datum:

About one in six of Obama’s top campaign “bundlers” are gay, according to a Washington Post review of donor lists, making it difficult for the president to defer the matter. Activists are planning a campaign for the adoption of a pro-gay-marriage plank in this year’s Democratic Party platform. And a series of referendums this year on same-sex marriage — including one in the swing state of North Carolina on Tuesday — are putting the issue at the forefront.

And today, North Carolina voters will probably pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  The Democratic national convention is taking place in that very state, leading a Daily Kos blogger to write:

This is very, very, very late in the game to consider, but does Charlotte, North Carolina deserve to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention if the state passes a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions?

Logistically, it is past the point of no return to suggest that the 2012 DNC be moved to another host city. And it is destructively punitive to hold the city of Charlotte responsible for the bigotry of an entire state, but how can the Democratic Party reward such deplorable electoral behavior?

CA: Same-Sex Marriage Stand Hurt Campbell

Capitol Weekly reports:

Tom Campbell still would have lost his Republican primary for U.S. Senate even if he didn't support gay marriage, according to a survey of GOP voters. But he probably wouldn’t have been trounced as badly as he was.

That’s the conclusion of a poll commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposing same-sex marriage that ran an ad campaign targeting Campbell on the issue.

Even though most voters didn’t know Campbell’s position, there was a significant minority who did. The poll showed that the latter turned against Campbell in large numbers.

The post-election poll of 300 GOP primary voters found that those who voted for Campbell’s opponents were more aware of his gay-marriage stand. Of the voters who supported Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, three in 10 said Campbell’s opposition to Proposition 8 was a factor in their decision.

NOM's release on the poll is here.