Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Right now, there's a debate happening on left-leaning blogs and discussion sites about Obama's motives for coming out for gay marriage. The growing consensus is that it doesn't really matter, that his coming around on this issue shows he can be relied on with the right pressure. So this is going to help him with the constituency that let the Democrats lose in 2010, which is exactly what he needs. He would be better served IMO by moving sharply left on economic issues, but this will help him some.

Part of his credibility problem is that he too oftened chased the Republicans, even with the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. I have been advocating keeping the pressure on him since he was elected but too often was met with rebuttal and excuses for his actions.

If we want a president that fights for us then we will have to keep the pressure on him instead of enabling his chasing bat shit crazy ideas from the right.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One thing is clear, is that Republican turnout in primaries has been way down. Romney is not inspiring support. That will help Obama.

Mitt Romney is an uninspiring speaker. He seems to have gone to a rigid ideology from which he dares not depart. Such shows him as a follower and not a leader.

Mitt Romney won a heated primary but heated primaries with limited participation indicate trouble. It could be that the Tea Party movement has lost its steam (pardon the pun). One would think that the defeat of Barack Obama and remaining liberals in the Senate would be the most important concern of Republicans...

Speaking of Scott Walker -- Walker's political allies have been using sundry threats against people for 'failing' to support the dictator.... I mean Governor. Some large employers have told their subordinates down to the lowest levels that if they want to have jobs that they had better support Walker. People know that there could be fake pollsters who are in fact corporate spies on employees' political views. People have been told that if they don't want trouble they had better put up yard signs for him and affix Walker bumper stickers to their cars.

The Right wants a government of fear so that people can be compelled to acquiesce in lower pay, destruction of workers' rights, and a sell-off of public assets in sweetheart deals, and not only in Wisconsin but also nationwide. With that probably comes what supporters of vile social orders want -- the expansion of that vile social order into places in which it is unwelcome.

In a climate of fear people might not express their real opinions. So it was in Commie states, and so can it be when politics is rich in threats and impoverished in promises and solutions.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Speaking of Scott Walker -- Walker's political allies have been using sundry threats against people for 'failing' to support the dictator.... I mean Governor. Some large employers have told their subordinates down to the lowest levels that if they want to have jobs that they had better support Walker. People know that there could be fake pollsters who are in fact corporate spies on employees' political views. People have been told that if they don't want trouble they had better put up yard signs for him and affix Walker bumper stickers to their cars.

The Right wants a government of fear so that people can be compelled to acquiesce in lower pay, destruction of workers' rights, and a sell-off of public assets in sweetheart deals, and not only in Wisconsin but also nationwide. With that probably comes what supporters of vile social orders want -- the expansion of that vile social order into places in which it is unwelcome.

In a climate of fear people might not express their real opinions. So it was in Commie states, and so can it be when politics is rich in threats and impoverished in promises and solutions.

Regardless of your usual hyperbolic statements comparing Walker to various dictators, he is in good position to win. He received over 600,000 votes in an uncontested primary, more than all the dem candidates combined. The unions handpicked candidate lost and the DNC just announced it wont spend a dime more in the contest. All in all he stands a great chance of winning....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Obama's stance on gay marriage isn't going to help Romney, it's going to help Obama. The liberal position on this issue commands majority support nationwide. The voters who will see it as a reason to vote against Obama had plenty of other reasons and would have done so anyway.

Right now, there's a debate happening on left-leaning blogs and discussion sites about Obama's motives for coming out for gay marriage. The growing consensus is that it doesn't really matter, that his coming around on this issue shows he can be relied on with the right pressure. So this is going to help him with the constituency that let the Democrats lose in 2010, which is exactly what he needs. He would be better served IMO by moving sharply left on economic issues, but this will help him some.

Gay marriage will only help Obama in places he doesnt need it...CA, NY, WA etc. In many of the swing states like OH, PENN, IOWA VA and NC (as we have seen a serious swing already) the populations are either older, more catholic or culturally conservative. The economy is the main issue but this will help Romney bring out conservatives and depress Obama's support among catholics (who already have issues) and older voters prevelent in the rust belt.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Mitt Romney is an uninspiring speaker...

-So is Obama, without a teleprompter, and he's not that good with one, either.

Quick Test: Name one thing Obama has ever said that he didn't end up eating within a month...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Some large employers have told their subordinates down to the lowest levels that if they want to have jobs that they had better support Walker...

-That's because the state was heavily in debt before his reforms. A D would send things back; look at the trouble next door IL is in.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...People know that there could be fake pollsters who are in fact corporate spies on employees' political views. People have been told that if they don't want trouble they had better put up yard signs for him and affix Walker bumper stickers to their cars.

The Right wants a government of fear so that people can be compelled to acquiesce in lower pay, destruction of workers' rights, and a sell-off of public assets in sweetheart deals, and not only in Wisconsin but also nationwide. With that probably comes what supporters of vile social orders want -- the expansion of that vile social order into places in which it is unwelcome...

-Evidence? We know that such things, and worse, have been done by the unions:

http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/08/07/a...gnores-his-own
...A multistate UMW strike in 1993 provides a good example of union persuasion, Trumka-style. As union president, he ordered more than 17,000 miners to walk off their jobs. Among his goals was to ensure that nobody would find work in a mine without paying dues or agency fees to the union. Violence was frequent. That wasn't surprising given Trumka's explicit call to strikers to "kick the shit out of" employees and mine operators resisting demands. Trumka's enforcers vandalized homes of opponents, fired shots at a mine office, and cut power to another mine, temporarily trapping 93 miners underground.

Union goons in that strike also committed another act: murder. On July 22, 1993, heavy-equipment operator Eddie York was shot in the back of the head as he drove past strikers away from a work site. He died instantly. UMW heavies proceeded to assault York's would-be rescuers...

Originally Posted by Weave

Gay marriage will only help Obama in places he doesnt need it...CA, NY, WA etc...

-I've seen the polling, by Nate Silver pointed out that every time that gay marriage actually comes up in a referendum, it crashes and burns (flames out? ). I'll try to find it and edit.

It wasn't that hard to find:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tion-in-polls/
It should be remembered that support for same-sex marriage in polls has not necessarily translated into support at the ballot booth. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the latest state to adopt a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and did so by a margin of about 20 percentage points, somewhat larger than polls forecast. The North Carolina measure also banned domestic partnerships and other types of civil unions.

Still, even if polls have sometimes overstated support for same-sex marriage, and if some of the Americans who support same-sex marriage are less likely to turn out to vote than those who oppose it, the issue now seems to have a bit of wiggle room, with supporters slightly outnumbering opponents in recent national surveys.

Originally Posted by Weave

Regardless of your usual hyperbolic statements comparing Walker to various dictators, he is in good position to win. He received over 600,000 votes in an uncontested primary, more than all the dem candidates combined. The unions handpicked candidate lost and the DNC just announced it wont spend a dime more in the contest. All in all he stands a great chance of winning....

Too early to tell. No precedents.

Originally Posted by Weave

Gay marriage will only help Obama in places he doesnt need it.

I understand your argument here but believe you are misreading the dynamics within the voting population of so-called "swing states." In part, you seem to be buying into the myth of the swing voter. There almost is no such animal, and certainly there are a lot fewer genuinely swing voters than is commonly supposed. The overwhelming majority of self-styled "independents" have voting patterns indistinguishable from named adherents of one of the major parties. The number of true independents is trivial.

A swing state, therefore, is not a state with a lot of undecided voters, but rather a state with a voting population that isn't lopsided for one party or the other. In a swing state, the number of Democrats plus Democratic-leaning independents is not very much greater or smaller than the number of Republicans plus Republican-leaning independents. The voting dynamic for each of these two groups, which together make up almost all voters, remains the same as in all other states.

What that means in terms of practical politics is that winning doesn't consist of appealing to the mythical center but of getting your own voters to go to the polls more than you galvanize the other side's voters to do so. That's kind of tricky because on many issues what does the one will also do the other, but in this case Obama really, really needs to shore up his credentials with progressive voters which have seriously decayed. The benefits for that reason of any move to the left short of total absurdity far outweigh the shortfalls.

I'm sure that's exactly the calculation he made before coming out with this statement.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Both of these statements are factually false. Obama's poll numbers are rising, not sinking, and the turnout in the primaries was not big, it was pathetic. If you are basing your optimism on these two things, you are basing them on false beliefs of fact.

1. Obama's approval ratings haven't changed much recently. Polls of Adults have him at about 48-48. Polls of Likely Voters have him at around 47-50 disapprove. I'm not aware of any poll numbers of his that are rising. What I was referring to is head-to-head match-ups against Romney, where his position is weakening.

2. The turnout I'm referring to is not presidential primaries, but recent primaries for other offices like Senate. There was also high turnout to vote for Scott Walker in an uncontested primary.

3. This is not "optimism" on my part. Until recently, I had been unsure whether I would vote for Romney or leave my vote for president blank. I have changed my mind and decided to vote for him, but it has nothing to do with enthusiasm for Romney. The Obama campaign's decision that it must divide the country to win has proved to me that he must be defeated.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...What that means in terms of practical politics is that winning doesn't consist of appealing to the mythical center but of getting your own voters to go to the polls more than you galvanize the other side's voters to do so. That's kind of tricky because on many issues what does the one will also do the other, but in this case Obama really, really needs to shore up his credentials with progressive voters which have seriously decayed. The benefits for that reason of any move to the left short of total absurdity far outweigh the shortfalls.

I'm sure that's exactly the calculation he made before coming out with this statement.

-At best, that's a wash on gay marriage:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tion-in-polls/

...In addition, there is no longer evidence of an “enthusiasm gap” with respect to same-sex marriage: an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in March found that 32 percent of Americans said they strongly favored same-sex marriage, while 31 percent strongly opposed it...

But Silver points out that the polls are different from actual voting:

It should be remembered that support for same-sex marriage in polls has not necessarily translated into support at the ballot booth.

FWIW, gay marriage has lost every time it's been put up to a referendum.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I understand your argument here but believe you are misreading the dynamics within the voting population of so-called "swing states." In part, you seem to be buying into the myth of the swing voter. There almost is no such animal, and certainly there are a lot fewer genuinely swing voters than is commonly supposed. The overwhelming majority of self-styled "independents" have voting patterns indistinguishable from named adherents of one of the major parties. The number of true independents is trivial.

A swing state, therefore, is not a state with a lot of undecided voters, but rather a state with a voting population that isn't lopsided for one party or the other. In a swing state, the number of Democrats plus Democratic-leaning independents is not very much greater or smaller than the number of Republicans plus Republican-leaning independents. The voting dynamic for each of these two groups, which together make up almost all voters, remains the same as in all other states.

What that means in terms of practical politics is that winning doesn't consist of appealing to the mythical center but of getting your own voters to go to the polls more than you galvanize the other side's voters to do so. That's kind of tricky because on many issues what does the one will also do the other, but in this case Obama really, really needs to shore up his credentials with progressive voters which have seriously decayed. The benefits for that reason of any move to the left short of total absurdity far outweigh the shortfalls.

I'm sure that's exactly the calculation he made before coming out with this statement.

My argument is this helps Romney shore up his base...the conservatives who are suspicious of him are much, much more likely now to vote for him. Also the Democrats from many of these states are not like the one you and I encounter here on the Left coast. The Rust belts Dems are the old school lunch bucket types, many catholic and its an older base in these states....these people are not enthusiastic about gay marraige...at all. In Virginia and NC this wont help much either with christian democrats (yes, they do exist) as well as among a small number of African Americans, who yes most will still supprt O. but a few percentage less could be the difference.

This decision basically has taken NC and Iowa out of play barring a major economic turnaround or the like. It will erode enthusiasm among his core base in the rust belt as well. Seattle and San Fran may be enthused but Des Moines, Pittsburg and Akron are not....

Okay this is getting silly. We're less than 6-months out and people are still touting national polling as if it means much if anything - it doesn't unless there is going to be a blow-out.

Here's as good a place as any to start looking at the state-by-state situation.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...electoral-map#

Romney's got 170 "strong" electorial votes and 0 "leaning;" Obama has 237 "strong" and 47 "leaning." There are 84 votes in the "toss up"

Obama can win the needed 270 votes with less than his combined "strong" and "leaning;" Romney, however, would have to take his combination plus all the toss-ups plus either Michigan, Ohio, or Virginia - these being the three Obama-leaning states.


I find it very hard to believe that Obama won't win at least one "toss-up" (Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado and Arizona) and put the election completely out of reach for Romney. However, to make it interesting, let's amuse our friends on the Right and assume Romney is just too overwhelmingly appealing in those 6 toss-up states and will carry the day. With that it comes down to Romney stealing one of those three Obama-leaning states.

I find it really hard to believe that Michigan and Ohio voters will give more credence to two-guys-and-a wedding-cake over Romney’s destroy-the-auto-industry-and-flush-those-two-states'-economies-into-the-toilet-like-forever-dude! Those states are not Kansas, dude.

So, it’s down to Virginia. The good news is we may know the outcome of the election by 8:02pm Eastern on Tuesday night; on the West Coast (5:02 pm Pacific) before you get home from work. The bad news is if you live in Virginia you are going to be bombarded with PAC attack ad more than you have ever been in your entire life and I don't care how old you are.

And apparently analysis has gotten down to exactly what counties in Virginia will be under the biggest attacks -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1476140.html

It's the exurbs of Washington DC with a place called Prince William County being the penultimate determinant. Apparently, not so long ago, a place that Pat Robinson and Jerry Fawell would be comfortable, but now being inundated with commuters (metro males?) to DC and the Virginia inner suburb work areas like Tysons Corner.

Anyone living in or near Prince William? If so, you probable have more insight as to November's outcome than anyone here grasping at straws and national polling.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay this is getting silly. We're less than 6-months out and people are still touting national polling as if it means much if anything - it doesn't unless there is going to be a blow-out...

-PW is correct. Polling doesn't tell you much unless it's after the Labor Day Weekeend. It tells you less if it's before the 4th of July Weekend. It tells you even less if it's before the Memorial Day Weekend.

But since BR brought this up:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...Both of these statements are factually false. Obama's poll numbers are rising, not sinking, and the turnout in the primaries was not big, it was pathetic. If you are basing your optimism on these two things, you are basing them on false beliefs of fact.

...the polls, such as they are, don't support his wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Too early to tell. No precedents.

Well I'll never claim to be an expert on Wisconsin politics but Walker has a commanding lead at this point...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...rett-3056.html

Originally Posted by Weave

Well I'll never claim to be an expert on Wisconsin politics but Walker has a commanding lead at this point...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...rett-3056.html

...for an election in June, that's pretty good.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

1. Obama's approval ratings haven't changed much recently. . . .What I was referring to is head-to-head match-ups against Romney, where his position is weakening.

It would be very surprising if that were not the case, given where we are in the electoral cycle. You're reading far too much into this.

2. The turnout I'm referring to is not presidential primaries, but recent primaries for other offices like Senate. There was also high turnout to vote for Scott Walker in an uncontested primary.

Well, we are discussing the presidential election, aren't we? And the Republican nomination was sharply contested, was it not? So the fact that turnout was low in the presidential primaries surely has a lot more relevance than turnout in a few picked local elections.

3. This is not "optimism" on my part. Until recently, I had been unsure whether I would vote for Romney or leave my vote for president blank. I have changed my mind and decided to vote for him, but it has nothing to do with enthusiasm for Romney. The Obama campaign's decision that it must divide the country to win has proved to me that he must be defeated.

Your last statement conflicts with your first.

But no one here thinks that Obama's same-sex-marriage proclamation could cost him Pennsylvania - as well as Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida?

I bring up Pennsylvania here because it is the only Eastern state north of the Potomac that grants gays no legal protection whatsoever - not even against job and housing discrimination, let alone any marriage rights/civil unions.

New Fox News poll: Obama ahead of Romney 46% to 39%
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...race-heats-up/

Although I think we're too far out from the election for these polls to be very accurate.

Originally Posted by Weave

My argument is this helps Romney shore up his base...the conservatives who are suspicious of him are much, much more likely now to vote for him.

I realized that as I was typing the above post, which is why I put in that bit about galvanizing the opposition. It's a risk, but one the president has to take. You say Romney rouses suspicions on the right, but it's also true that Obama rouses suspicions on the left and that he has earned those suspicions during his first term by failing to walk the walk he talked so well. Putting people like Geithner in high office, taking single-payer off the table at the start of health-care negotiations, failing to close Guantanamo, keeping in force the Bush policies that seem so objectionable and against the Bill of Rights, these are things that don't sit well, not with me, and not with a lot of other people.

That's the real reason why the Democrats lost the 2010 election. It wasn't overreach by them and a turn to the right by the people, it was underreach and disgust. Obama, in order to repair that damage, must move left. This is a fairly safe issue for him to do that, in that it has no economic impact and has the support of a majority of the people. Plus -- and here I'm being really cynical -- it's not anything he actually has to DO anything about, since marriage is outside the scope of federal authority anyway.

Also the Democrats from many of these states are not like the one you and I encounter here on the Left coast. The Rust belts Dems are the old school lunch bucket types, many catholic and its an older base in these states....these people are not enthusiastic about gay marraige...at all.

I think you're understating the cultural change that has taken place since the 1980s, when those Democrats voted for Reagan in such large numbers. People who were in their 40s then are in their 70s now, and it's their children and grandchildren who are today's Democrats. It's a different world, all over the country.

Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud

I was listening to a radio show about Evangelicals' values in the political arena. The conclusion was they are an untapped source of votes for the Dems! You heard that right. At least some of them.

A poll in 2006 found that the top three political priorities for Evangelicals over 50 years old were, in order: abortion; gay marriage; and intrusive govt - nothing new there. However, from the same poll, the top three political priorities for the under 30 years old Evangelicals were: helping the poor; the environment; and Darfur. Moreover the top political priorities of one group were pretty far down the list of the other group.

It was not that the younger Evangelicals felt abortion and gay marriage were okay for them personally; it was more that they are not much of a larger social issue to be hashed out in the political arena in comparison to other (some may say, more traditional Christian) priorities.

The same show touched on the news story yesterday that the births of white infants has now slipped below 50% of total births in the US and will continue to decline on a percentage basis from here on out. Essentially the US is going to be looking more and more like California already does.

The country is becoming vastly different in the eyes of a lot of people, particularly white males over 50 with traditionally conservative views on sexuality, and it scares them. I have little doubt that this is what is at the heart of the T-party. The 2012 election may be their last hurrah, and even that is in somewhat of a doubt.


Some good insight on the Evangelicals' struggle with value priorities here -

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v2...-wil-whey.html

Heh -- that's the problem with Christianity from a right-wing political point of view. Buried and suppressed under layers of Christian doctrine, but still available to those willing to read the Bible, lurk the teachings of Jesus, no friend to the greedy rich or the rigidly doctrinaire.

Actually this goes beyond politics as one might expect in a religious subject. I was talking about that last night with a Christian friend of mine. Christian doctrine and the teachings of Jesus are in violent opposition. Jesus was all about empowering people to know the presence of God within and their own divinity. Christian doctrine is all about the divinity of Jesus himself, uniquely, rather than the divinity of man, which Christian doctrine explicitly denies. But Jesus said that human beings -- mere mortals -- can do anything he could do, and more, with faith. When he sent the disciples out to spread the word, he told them to heal the sick and raise the dead, in full confidence that they would be able to do so. (Matthew 10:8.) He did not say, "I can say to the mountain, move, and it will move" -- he said, you can do that, by the presence of God within you. He did not say, "The Kingdom of God is within me." He said, "The Kingdom of God is within you."

No way would Jesus ever be a Christian.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Heh -- that's the problem with Christianity from a right-wing political point of view. Buried and suppressed under layers of Christian doctrine, but still available to those willing to read the Bible, lurk the teachings of Jesus, no friend to the greedy rich or the rigidly doctrinaire.

Actually this goes beyond politics as one might expect in a religious subject. I was talking about that last night with a Christian friend of mine. Christian doctrine and the teachings of Jesus are in violent opposition. Jesus was all about empowering people to know the presence of God within and their own divinity. Christian doctrine is all about the divinity of Jesus himself, uniquely, rather than the divinity of man, which Christian doctrine explicitly denies. But Jesus said that human beings -- mere mortals -- can do anything he could do, and more, with faith. When he sent the disciples out to spread the word, he told them to heal the sick and raise the dead, in full confidence that they would be able to do so. (Matthew 10:8.) He did not say, "I can say to the mountain, move, and it will move" -- he said, you can do that, by the presence of God within you. He did not say, "The Kingdom of God is within me." He said, "The Kingdom of God is within you."

No way would Jesus ever be a Christian.

I think why it went off the rails has to do with memento mori, the memory of death. We are the only species that comprehends are inevitable demise - it drives us crazy one way or another, in big and small ways. Jesus basically said, buck up, it is within you to be calm and secure and the key way to do that is to help others.

The problem comes with that other human trait of having to constantly "check in" with one another - essentially to see if my reality is your reality and I am not insane. Some people can do this just by observing others or perhaps with a few loved ones and friends. Others have to organize; maybe into entire worldwide religions with lots of highly scripted guides that span both space and time. All to give reassurance that first they are not insane and second that this whole thing about ultimate demise has various escape hatches.

That's just the set-up to the real problem, however. The real problem comes when "the other" comes along. That "other" doesn't align with your group's belief system (e.g gay marriage = bad). This is not just about the particular question at hand, this is an affront to your group's whole belief system! If gay marriage is okay, then maybe my group is wrong about other things, our reality is not correct, we might just be insane, we might not have our particular escape hatch from our eventual demise! OMG, we're going to die! We have to fight the other; we have to prove ourselves right, our very lives depend on it!

Jesus was not a wuss; and as much as he tried to convince us to be the same, many of us fall short of his mark.

It is too early to argue polls. However, I think Obama will be reelected. His opponent has got to be the most stereotypical stuffed shirt rich guy politician outside of Mayor Quimby on the Simpsons. However, I think the more important outcome is what happens with Congress. They currently have the absolute worst rating ever.

Originally Posted by Kate

It is too early to argue polls. However, I think Obama will be reelected.

A few months ago I felt fairly certain that Obama would probably win. I'm not so sure about that anymore. Most Americans feel the economy is not good. When I try to point out that actually it is getting better on this forum and point out several indicators showing falling unemployment, rising real estate prices, increased manufacturing etc., even the most ardent liberal supporters on this forum come back and tell me I'm wrong. They tell me the numbers I'm pointing to are not accurate, and these posters are basically suggesting we are still doomed. If Obama's strongest supporters don't believe we are headed in the right direction, then what makes anyone think swing voters do?

The other day I saw Romney responding to the superpac ads in which they were thinking about doing a smear campaign and dragging up the whole Rev. Wright issue from 4 years ago. Romney was rebuking that idea and saying he would not support those tactics. Instead he said, "My campaign is going to focus on jobs and our children." And I thought...Pretty smart stragedy there, Romney. Going after the Xer vote...Furthermore, for those who were counting on the Republicans not going out and voting because they aren't in love Romney, I think they are going to be pretty disappointed come election day, because the Republicans will be in out in full force. They may not love Romney but they dislike Obama even more.

A few months ago Romney was trailing in the polls, but today he is tied with Obama and in some polls he is winning. I realize that the election is long way a way, but unless something unforeseen happens, I can't see any reason why this trend will won't continue. So I agree with James Carville...The democrats should be panicking right now.