401 replies to this topic

[IheartTesla]

In which we respectfully discuss how Obama shamelessly pandered for gay donations so he could lose the general election come November.

Its gonna be a long grind till November if Romney cant even muster sufficient outrage for Obama's announcement. My gut feeling is he doesn't care that much personally about these side issues.

[Sci-2]

I'm more interested in what Romney plans to do about the economy and immigration.

Romney just doesn't seem like a person who has real ideas. As for solvency, the article Shryke posted seemed to clearly indicate he was good at making sure his investment doesn't fail but the surrounding financial "entropy", so to speak, seems to go up.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Lummel

Quote

The interesting thing for me as a foreigner looking in on the US debate is that the Obamacare reform is not a subsidy, but virtually the biggest imaginable gift to the US health care industry, at least a 20 per cent increase in the size of their potential market and gratis to them.

It's not quite as good a gift, since within the ACA there is a provision that now caps the profit margin of health insurance plans where 80% to 85% of a customer's premium must go towards medical care and not administrative cost and/or profit. However, there are some people who doubt the efficacy of this cap (read some of the reader comments there to get an idea on why this doubt may not be a very good one).

[TrackerNeil]

An interesting post by the smart (and huggably cute) Ezra Klein, about how Republican primaries polarize and their Democratic counterparts don't.

[Lummel]

Thanks for that TerraPrime, though I do believe that Tim Worstall is something along the lines of an idiot, some interesting comments too.

[Cocomaan]

Lummel, on 10 May 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Thanks for that TerraPrime, though I do believe that Tim Worstall is something along the lines of an idiot, some interesting comments too.

That's why I try to read the idiots anyway. Sometimes the comments are far more illuminating than the piece itself. Gotta love the internet.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

IheartTesla, on 10 May 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

In which we respectfully discuss how Obama shamelessly pandered for gay donations so he could lose the general election come November.

Considering that Obama, until he ran for President, was on the record supporting gay marriage, we should perhaps be talking about he has finally backtracked from his shameless pandering to homophobes to win the general election last cycle.

[awesome possum]

NestorMakhnosLovechild, on 10 May 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Considering that Obama, until he ran for President, was on the record supporting gay marriage, we should perhaps be talking about he has finally backtracked from his shameless pandering to homophobes to win the general election last cycle.

Pretty sad when that's the best you got.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

awesome possum, on 10 May 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Pretty sad when that's the best you got.

Um... what?

[Angalin]

Is Obama's announcement a total gift to Republicans, then?  I'd have thought it would get the vote out for the pro-gay-marriage Democrats as well as the anti-gay-marriage Republicans, and might even balance out.

[drawkcabi]

I definitely don't see it as a total gift to the repubs, and I am not sure if it is any gift at all, I think the excitement of Obama's base is a bigger net gain than the further alienation of those who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

I think this issue will effect the decision very minimally to not at all for those who are anti marriage equality but still Pro-Obama or undecided.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

drawkcabi, on 10 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I definitely don't see it as a total gift to the repubs, and I am not sure if it is any gift at all, I think the excitement of Obama's base is a bigger net gain than the further alienation of those who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

I think this issue will effect the decision very minimally to not at all for those who are anti marriage equality but still Pro-Obama or undecided.

I almost hesitate to wade into this issue because it's pretty clear to me that partisan supporters or any major political candidate are generally unable to differentiate between a description of how their candidate is likely to be impacted by any particular event with a prescription of how they think their candidate should be impacted by any particular event. Any suggestion that an event is likely to impact Obama negatively is therefore viewed as an attack on Obama. The same goes for our few stalwart Republicans valiantly attempting to explain how nothing Romney has ever done or said could ever sway an undecided voter away from him. It's part of why these political threads are so interminable.

Be that as it may, and despite the fact that I will not be voting for Obama, but will be cheering for Obama to defeat Romney in the general election, I don't see how Obama's newly re-discovered support for gay marriage can do anything but hurt him in the general election. Gay marriage is a hot button issue for conservative, blue-collar democrats and socially conservative African Americans, both of whom I think are otherwise predisposed to vote for Obama. I have no way of knowing whether that's going to be enough for some of those traditionally democratic voters to vote against him, but I can't see it helping. I also suspect that "undecided" voters, as a whole, are not predisposed to favor outright support of gay marriage. Again, who is to say that that's going to be the deciding factor in their vote, but I can't see it helping. On the other hand, I suspect gay rights supporters were always going to vote for Obama anyway because he'd be better than Romney in any case.

[Sci-2]

His position is still that it is up to the states isn't it? So it doesn't change anything at all in the political sphere?

Also, sometimes it is better to lose standing up for something you believe in than to win by hedging your bets. I read through the article on Bloomberg possibly cutting funding for the gay youth shelter, then went through the stories of some of the kids abandoned by their parents or running away from physical/verbal abuse....

It must be nice for a lot these kids, and all those suicidal LGBT teens, to hear the president say what we know is right. Even if Obama loses, at least he can say he had a spine on this issue.

[Horza]

sciborg2, on 10 May 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

His position is still that it is up to the states isn't it? So it doesn't change anything at all in the political sphere?

Not policy-wise no. The impact's going to be on the political debate itself (which isn't nothing).

[Triskele]

http://tpmdc.talking...reagan-bush.php

The Republicans are so good at playing this game.

They've had increased government employment to cover the output gap in all of their recessions, and they're doing everything that they can to make sure that Obama doesn't.  I'd admire the strategy were it not so evil.

[Baitac]

No serving President has ever publicly supported marriage equality. I think this is a very good thing, even if it doesn't sway many voters.

[Jon Sprunk]

Triskele, on 10 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

http://tpmdc.talking...reagan-bush.php

The Republicans are so good at playing this game.

They've had increased government employment to cover the output gap in all of their recessions, and they're doing everything that they can to make sure that Obama doesn't.  I'd admire the strategy were it not so evil.

I've been wondering for a while now if Obama hasn't been too clever. I understand his reasoning: trim the government fat so that he can point to that during the election as another point in his favor. But one result is that unemployment has not dropped as fast as people would like. My gut tells me that most voters are more concerned about jobs than the size of government at this particular moment in time.

Of course, Obama has surprised me time and time again, pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat. Maybe the administration has foreseen this and laid plans.

[Jon Sprunk]

sciborg2, on 10 May 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Also, sometimes it is better to lose standing up for something you believe in than to win by hedging your bets. ... Even if Obama loses, at least he can say he had a spine on this issue.

Hell yes. How many times do we complain that politicians don't have any balls? Obama just put his (metaphorically) on the table and dared Romney to pony up. I can see this happening all the way till November, with Obama raising one issue after another, and Romney flailing about to find an answer that will satisfy both the GOP base and the American center.

[aghrivaine]

Jon Sprunk, on 10 May 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

with Obama raising one issue after another, and Romney flailing about to find an answer that will satisfy both the GOP base and the American center.

Do you really see the American center as being in favor of marriage equality?

[Jon Sprunk]

aghrivaine, on 10 May 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Do you really see the American center as being in favor of marriage equality?

The latest poll I saw puts Independent voters at 57% approval for marriage equality. I guess we can argue whether Indepenents = political center, but it's still pretty telling.

http://campaignstops...iage-maneuvers/