From "Flip" to "Flop" and back again. The President's publicly stated views on this issue apparently developed (and re-developed) over time. The Wall Street Journal provided the following earlier conflicting quotes from candidate and President Obama as follows:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriage"
Running for the Illinois state senate (1996)

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."
Running for the U. S. Senate (2004)

"My feelings are constantly evolving" on gay marriage.
As President (2010)

"I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
As President (2012)

See Wall Street Journal article, After 'Evolution,' Obama Backs Gay Marriage, by Carol E. Lee, Thursday, May 10, 2012 @ page A6.

First, it is important to understand why the President might have decided to change his position on this issue....or more importantly, why change it now?

For starters, doing nothing (i.e., not changing his public position between now and November) was an option. President Obama has already noted on other important issues, that he expects to have "greater flexibility" in a second term. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/politics/obama-caught-on-microphone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html.

Charles Krauthammer was particularly scathing on this aspect of the Obama presidency, characterizing it as "assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people." See http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-flexibility-doctrine/2012/03/29/gIQA9ZMtjS_story.html. Krauthammer has commented that he thinks the President's decision on same-sex marriage is consistent with this approach. See http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/09/krauthammer-likens-obama-gay-marriage-stance-to-flexible-posture-with-russia-on-missile-defense-video/.

That said, there was no immediate decision point forcing a public announcement or comment on this issue, other than Vice President Biden's remarks on Meet the Press.

Additionally, while two cases on same-sex marriage may be headed to the Supreme Court later this year, neither is likely to be decided prior to the election. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-usa-marriage-legal-idUSBRE84A1CQ20120511.

In short, the President could have finessed the issue, but instead chose to address it at this time.

The carrot. So what were the positives that could have drawn President Obama (and his White House and campaign staffs) toward making this decision? The President's decision primarily appears to be about campaign cash and also about appealing to young voters and energizing his base.

Campaign Fundraising. There have been several articles written about how the President's most important 2008 contributor groups have been less financially supportive in 2012. See http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/19/troubling-signs-obama-fundraising/ and http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rove-Obama-campaign-fundraising/2012/03/15/id/432679.

Consider the following:

It's not clear that this explanation will hold.....it's too pat (and convenient) for them to imply that this decision was made without calculation.

Additionally, the part of this explanation that explains that President Obama came to his new position based on discussions with his daughters potentially risks him being seen as not serious (see http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/05/bristol-palins-gay-marriage-rant-obama-girls-watch-123071.html). It risks reminding voters of President Carter comments about asking his daughter, Amy, for her opinion on nuclear weapons in his 1980 Presidential debate with Ronald Reagan. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76229.html and http://www.loriferber.com/ask-amy-she-knows.html.

At this point, the "simply inevitable and no big deal" line does not appear to be holding. Some liberal bloggers are starting to characterize the President's decision less as an evolution and more as a major decision based on principle. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/obamas-bold-stroke_b_1505691.html and http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/is-the-black-church-guilty-of-spiritual-hypocrisy-in-same-sex-marriage-debate/. The New Republic has gone so far as to describe the President's new position on gay marriage as "brave" (See http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/103263/gay-marriage-obama-equalty-same-sex-rights) and Newsweek this week used its cover story to proclaim Obama "the first gay President" (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143889/Newsweek-names-Obama-The-First-Gay-President-shocking-cover-talking-support-sex-marriage.html).

The carrot in comparison to the (more obvious) stick. The downside associated with the President's decision to "evolve" (i.e., flip-flop) on this issue has been discussed in the press, but primarily at a surface level. The press and political observers have noted the "wedge" potential of this issue with certain D core constituencies, particularly with respect to the more culturally conservative elements in the black and Latino communities (but also for working class and other more traditional religious and ethnic constituencies), i.e., those whose thinking is apparently not as "evolved" on this issue. See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-calls-pastors-explain-gay-marriage-support-black/story?id=16342670#.T7FNu3n0Txs and http://www.npr.org/2012/05/14/152691171/latino-voters-can-be-anti-gay-marriage-but-still-pro-obama.

For example, last year in Maryland, a "gay marriage" bill fell apart in the state legislature at the last minute due to defections among legislators representing the minority community, largely in response to those legislators taking heat from their supporters at the local level. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Mar/12/maryland_gay_marriage_bill_dies_with_no_final_vote.html. It subsequently passed earlier this year by one vote. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-senate-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill/2012/02/23/gIQAfbakWR_story.html.

Just this last week, however, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly (61%-39%) banned gay marriage by amending their state constitution in a state-wide referendum. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/north-carolina-votes-on-same-sex-marriage-amendment-with-support-strong-for-ban/2012/05/08/gIQAnaCpBU_story.html and http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_%28May_2012%29. Unlike Maryland, North Carolina is one of the key states that President Obama's team sees as critical to locking up the 270 electoral votes in the coming election and a potential swing state that they seriously want to keep in play. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-13/black-churches-gay-marriage-obama/54941862/1.

Overall, the legality of same-sex marriage is currently recognized in eight states (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States), while thirty-one other states have, like North Carolina, banned it within their legal system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wi.3ki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type).

The surface analysis by D's pushing this issue with the Obama campaign is that while this has the potential to be a difficult matter in the short term, there will be time to get these culturally more conservative elements in the various minority and ethnic communities used to the position, in effect anticipating that they will "move on" once they appreciate the stakes of the President not being re-elected. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143503/How-religious-black-Americans-agreeing-disagree-Obama-gay-marriage--vote-elect-President.html.

Again, this surfaces the view that given all the President has done for the black and Latino communities and the historical significance of his election, it would not be a viable option for these groups to take their votes to the President's opponent.

The less obvious stick is bigger and more important. Even if the Obama team is right about the potential willingness of these constituencies to get past their fundamental concerns on this issue by November, what hasn't been fully focused on is the overall impact of these developments on House and Senate races and the overall electoral map, which potentially is very significant.

To begin with, the President's new position has the potential to impact the 2012 Congressional races. Fellow D's, particularly those running in several close Senate races, are already starting to distance themselves from the President's new stance. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-11/some-congress-democrats-split-with-obama-on-gay-marriage.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/marriage-debate-may-carry-risks-for-kaine-obama-in-virginia/2012/05/10/gIQA3LsoGU_story.html. The 2012 senate election contests were already close prior to the President's announcement with the overall political terrain favoring the R's picking up seats and with the R's already seen as having the potential to re-capture Senate control. See http://egopnews.com/schott_12Mar26.htm.

Additionally, the decision to support same-sex marriage will likely impact the 2012 Presidential electoral contest. The President's new position on same-sex marriage are expected to have significant ripple effects in each swing states that will be different in nature and importance in each such state.

Up to now, the President's re-election team has been focused on expanding the contested electoral map to include states (like NC and VA) that the R's feel they need.