Obama off to a good start

[SoulDischarge]

"Hi! I'm Patrick, and I support gay marriage. Now, can I get a turkey on wheat, no mayo?"

[PotVsKtl]

Kony 2012.

[boarderwoozel3]

I should be more specific: People vote based on their perceived personal economic well-being. Social issues make for fiery conversation but ultimately people vote their perception of the bottom line. Or so says James Stimson's scholarship on the matter, and he provides ample evidence to support that claim.

[RageAgainstTheAoki]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...203159510.html
Good for Shep Smith. This isn't the first time he's said something that doesn't tow the party line. How has he remained in the employ of Fox News all these years?

Dude. That's exactly why he's remained in the employ of Fox News. He's one of the highest paid news anchors too. Shep's role is to add legitimacy (or the appearance of it) to the network. Anyway, I wonder who will come out first. Shep or Andy Cooper.

[chairmenmeow47]

i wholeheartedly disagree with jeff.

talk to anyone who supports gun rights or abortion.

[Stickjohn]

I liked that he referenced his daughters (by name even!) in his statement. Surely a deliberate choice to to help portray this as a family issue and reinforce his role as a father in addition to being President, but I thought it was a nice touch and added to the "my views have evolved" type of thinking.

Good job Mr. President.

[RageAgainstTheAoki]

i wholeheartedly disagree with jeff.

talk to anyone who supports gun rights or abortion.

Right. Or just look at the Kerry v. Bush election. The republicans got lots of state initiatives on abortion, gun rights and marriage equality on local ballots which in turn helped contribute to conservative turnout. Sure, the economy's still issue number 1 in this election, but I think it's a bit premature to write off the impact of “social values” voters – especially in swing states.

[boarderwoozel3]

i wholeheartedly disagree with jeff.

talk to anyone who supports gun rights or abortion.

That's ok, I'll still gay marry you

[chairmenmeow47]

hahaha

seriously though, people talk about the economy, but vote on the social issues they deem important because frankly that's the only thing most of us can understand.

[TomAz]

The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.

[jackstraw94086]

hahaha

seriously though, people talk about the economy, but vote on the social issues they deem important because frankly that's the only thing most of us can understand.

This would be almost true if it werent for the fact that the exact opposite of this happens to be true

[faxman75]

485756_2887139592608_1683730381_1851018_710286370_n.jpg

It appears they have dropped the war part of this message in the last hour.

[PotVsKtl]

The average voter has no idea what the candidates think or intend. They vote for who they like.

[chairmenmeow47]

This would be almost true if it werent for the fact that the exact opposite of this happens to be true

you really think people understand the economics of this country more than they understand they want a gun to shoot invaders?

[PotVsKtl]

[RageAgainstTheAoki]

Ha. Okay. That's a good headline.

[jackstraw94086]

you really think people understand the economics of this country more than they understand they want a gun to shoot invaders?

voting according to the economy does not imply that people need degrees in it or can understand its underpinnings. Generally the sitting president/party wins in an up economy, and loses in a down economy, and they generally let the media tell them which they're in. When it's ambiguous, they still vote with where their gut tells them the economy is going.


Of course there are a few nuts who actually may let gun rights influence their entire vote, but they are a very small minority.

And there's really no significant amount of people that actually let abortion influence even congressional votes, much less a presidential one. It's just a party platform staple, a bonus if anything. But there's nobody who will vote for someone they weren't going to vote for already just because they happen to agree with them on abortion. Even a presidential candidate who blathers on about attempting to overturn roe v wade is only doing so to reinforce a few votes, but he has no real hope for a significant number of new ones. And he there's really very little chance he'd ever actually do it if elected. Everyone knows it.


If what you were saying is true then the parties would be mainly split by gun and pro-life lines, which is not what we actually see. pro gun and pro-life may be slanted in favor of republicans but it's not the primary division in this country. The two major parties are mainly characterized by their economic philosophy. If democrats all of a sudden espoused gun rights, you wouldn't expect to see a significant shift in voting.

[PotVsKtl]

But there's nobody who will vote for someone they weren't going to vote for already just because they happen to agree with them on abortion.

You're coming across as more than a little naive here.

[gaypalmsprings]

I want to know what GPS Bob thinks about that.

I want full civil rights and I want them now. Obama is taking too much time.

[TomAz]

Righteous indignation > strategic realpolitik

[jackstraw94086]

You're coming across as more than a little naive here.

please reread your post previous to that one.

Of course there are groups of hardcore anti-abortion voters, but not enough to sway elections. It may only seem that way in localized elections because anti-abortion happens to correllate with another more significant issue. Even when republicans attempt to insert some of the pro-life rhetoric into actual politics (i.e. defunding planned parenthood) it's clear that it's just a bargaining chip, and they give it up as soon as they get something else they wanted. The general public largely ignores the loud minority until they actually attempt a foothold and then there's always a wave of popular uproar against it.
And there's always examples like the Susan Komen Foundation fiasco. Generally popular figure comes out against abortion they generally get ostracized.

Resting your opinion on the sensationalized news stories about abortion in politics is the naive stance. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but IMO strongly leaning towards my opinion.

[PotVsKtl]

Of course there are groups of hardcore anti-abortion voters, but not enough to sway elections.

But it's not just abortion. It's perfectly viable to collect enough of the generally smaller social coalitions to tip an election. Abortion, gay rights, gun rights, immigration, Muslims, etc etc etc. Add these things up and you're looking at a not inconsiderable voting bloc. I guarantee you that

1. There ARE people who vote on social issues alone
2. There ARE enough of them, in the aggregate, to make a difference

[jackstraw94086]

But it's not just abortion. It's perfectly viable to collect enough of the generally smaller social coalitions to tip an election. Abortion, gay rights, gun rights, immigration, Muslims, etc etc etc. Add these things up and you're looking at a not inconsiderable voting bloc. I guarantee you that

1. There ARE people who vote on social issues alone
2. There ARE enough of them, in the aggregate, to make a difference

of course this might be true when the economy does not trump them. If it can, it will. I was speaking about gun rights and abortion on their own, which of course is not necessarily the end of the story, but the more issues you lump together to form your voting bloc, the smaller it gets. People vote generally vote with their wallets. Congratulations for identifying some exceptional folks. Of course when I say "nobody" I don't mean literally not a single person. Your little voting bloc isn't going to elect a president.

[hippityhip]

^Don't underestimate voter apathy and the ease to sway them by fear. John Kerry was a "no doubt" winner for a bit there too.

Truth

[SlowMotionApocalypse]

It's about time he did something bold.

[Taylor]

I don't see how this was a bold move at all. He made sure to stress the fact that he still wants the decision to go to each individual state - which is exactly what his policy has always been. Was anyone under the impression that President Obama, the most liberal president ever, didn't personally support gay marriage/gay rights?

[SlowMotionApocalypse]

I don't see how this was a bold move at all. He made sure to stress the fact that he still wants the decision to go to each individual state - which is exactly what his policy has always been. Was anyone under the impression that President Obama, the most liberal president ever, didn't personally support gay marriage/gay rights?

Negroes hate gays though I understand he is somewhat racially different than the typical American negro. It was really getting out the black vote in California in 2008 that passed Prop 8

[Taylor]

Negroes hate gays though I understand he is somewhat racially different than the typical American negro. It was really getting out the black vote in California in 2008 that passed Prop 8

wat

[PotVsKtl]

Desperate.

[paulb]

I want full civil rights and I want them now. Obama is taking too much time.

Cause Romney is going to speed up the gay marriage process?