"Hi! I'm Patrick, and I support gay marriage. Now, can I get a turkey on wheat, no mayo?"
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.
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.
The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.
It appears they have dropped the war part of this message in the last hour.
The average voter has no idea what the candidates think or intend. They vote for who they like.
Ha. Okay. That's a good headline.
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.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-09-2012 at 03:23 PM.
Righteous indignation > strategic realpolitik
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.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-09-2012 at 03:45 PM.
1. There ARE people who vote on social issues alone
2. There ARE enough of them, in the aggregate, to make a difference
It's about time he did something bold.
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?