US Politics -- with all sorts of platforms

[Shryke]

The only reason you're sitting here calling it a masterful piece of political theatre was because there wasn't a huge outcry when Biden tested the waters.

However, if there had been significant resistance to Biden's announcement, then Obama would not have persisted in coming out in support of gay marriage. Instead, he would have walked back Biden's remarks by saying they were his personal opinions and not administration policy.

So maybe I should say that he projects an illusion of strength to cover up his weakness.

That doesn't even make sense.

What are you talking about?

[Reek]

Yeah, because firing from the hip and a propensity for making snap judgments really turned out well for our last president.

I'm not sure being politically savvy with regards to public relations is in any way an indicator of strong leadership.

[Shryke]

What's not to understand?

The only reason Obama came out in favor of gay marriage is because Biden didn't get a lot of blowback for coming out in favor. That's not the image of a strong leader in my mind.

No, he came out for gay marriage because he's for it and because he thinks now is a time he can express that opinion without compromising his political future/power.

As for leadership:

The NAACP's announcement over the weekend was a direct result of Obama's remarks, and it's likely shifting attitudes in Maryland were heavily influenced by the president as well.

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Maryland finds a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage among African American voters following President Obama's historic announcement two weeks ago. The referendum to keep the state's new law legalizing same-sex marriage now appears likely to pass by a healthy margin. [...]

The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed.

What's more, the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found 59% of African Americans expressing support for same-sex marriage, which is "up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama's announcement of his new position on the matter."

As PPP's Tom Jensen explained, "While the media has been focused on what impact President Obama's announcement will have on his own reelection prospects, the more important fallout may be the impact his position is having on public opinion about same-sex marriage itself."

http://maddowblog.ms...e-equality?lite

He's certainly leading the public somewhere.

The presidency is, if nothing else, a position with some pretty strong effect on public opinion. Obama is using it to advance gay rights.

You are confusing political acumen with weakness.

[Sci-2]

I maintain my right to think most Americans are fucking idiots.

What separates you from the idiots? A deeper awareness of your own confirmation bias? In depth studies into economics and statistics? A comprehensive awareness of....something every else is lacking?

I'm curious, because people say this a lot, and I wonder what excludes them from the idiot camp.

[Shryke]

Polling with some interesting points following it:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/24/11859035-first-thoughts-mr-48

What’s striking about our new NBC/WSJ poll -- as well as ournew round of NBC-Marist polls -- is the consistency of the numbers for President Obama: He’s at or near 48% every way you slice it. In our new national NBC/WSJ poll, the president’s approval rating is at 48%, and his percentage against Mitt Romney in the ballot test is 47% (vs. Romney’s 43%). Then look at these numbers from our brand-new NBC-Marist state polls: In Florida, Obama leads Romney, 48%-44%; in Ohio, he’s up 48%-42%; and in Virginia, he’s ahead, 48%-44%. What does this mean? Is 48% a good thing or bad thing? On the one hand, he’s leading and in the high 40s, despite what’s been a rocky and volatile last few weeks (the April jobs numbers, the worries out of Europe, the rushed gay-marriage announcement, etc.). On the other hand, he remains below that important 50% threshold that’s usually considered safe haven for an incumbent president, and Romney is well within striking distance, especially given all of Europe’s economic uncertainty. Bottom line: 48% is really the knife’s edge; not quite close enough where you can just fall over the 50% finish line, but close enough that it doesn’t take much. It’s a number to follow in the months ahead.

Crazy cellphone shit:

Want to see how cell phones make a difference in political surveys? In our NBC-Marist poll of Florida, Romney leads with landline respondents, 48%-45%. But Obama leads among cell phone respondents, 57%-34%. And in Virginia, Romney’s up one among landline folks, 47%-46%, while Obama is up 54%-36% with cell users. (By the way, 28% of our interviews in OH and FL were conducted on cell phone; 27% in VA.)

The important bit:

Here’s something else to consider regarding our new NBC-Marist polls of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia: All Obama has to do is win ONE of these, and he’ll likely surpass 270 electoral votes. Yet even if Romney wins all THREE, Obama still has a viable, though, slim path to 270 (if he wins Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire). But make no mistake: Romney most likely needs to win all three states, while Obama’s goal is to win two -- or maybe even one. Why is this the case? It’s the president’s advantage in the West right now. If Romney can’t pull at least Nevada, it puts a TON of pressure on him to sweep these three battlegrounds.

[Lord Mord]

In a world where strength is defined to any substantial degree by courage of convictions, then I can see the argument for political theater demonstrating that Obama is weak. On the other hand, that does seem to pit courage and strength in opposition to the savvy it takes to actually get shit done, so I don't know if either that definition is at all useful. Even if you accept the definition, surely there's "the better part of valor" to consider.

Obama may, for all that I'm convinced either way, be a morally bankrupt weasel, but nothing about this event so much as hints UN that direction.

[Shryke]

If coming out pro-gay-rights was a position that took no courage, there'd be alot less politicians who were anti-gay-rights.

[Kalbear]

As long as they're for equal marriage rights I don't care if it's heartfelt or pragmatic. The important thing are the rights, not whether they were gotten in some nonperfect way.

[Ser Greguh]

What's not to understand? The only reason Obama came out in favor of gay marriage is because Biden didn't get a lot of blowback for coming out in favor. That's not the image of a strong leader in my mind.

Step 1) Invent a justification for an action out of thin air with no evidence.

Step 2) Use said justification to reinforce negative feelings toward the instigator of that action.

Nice feedback loop you got goin' there.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not sure why Powell wouldn't get full credit for coming out in favor of marriage equality.

I never said he doesn't get credit; I said Powell never takes a stand unless it's a safe one, and right now, pro-marriage-equality is pretty safe. I still think so.

That being said, I'm glad that his endorsement seems to have moved the needle in Maryland. Similarly, I am sure Robert was grateful for Walder Frey's support after the Trident, even though I am sure he wished it had materialized earlier.

[bbqq]

I never said he doesn't get credit; I said Powell never takes a stand unless it's a safe one, and right now, pro-marriage-equality is pretty safe. I still think so. That being said, I'm glad that his endorsement seems to have moved the needle in Maryland. Similarly, I am sure Robert was grateful for Walder Frey's support after the Trident, even though I am sure he wished it had materialized earlier.

I'd agree with you here. I'm certainly no expert on these things but his explanation of why he supported 'don't ask don't tell' and is now pro-gay marriage read to me like the backtracking of a man who supports the majority decision, and found himself on the wrong side. However, this doesn't neccessarily seem a bad thing to me - if a man who only backs a safe opinion is backing gay marriage, that just shows how it's one step closer to becoming a non-controversial civil rights issue, and a commonly accepted opinion. I'd like to ask though, what are the legal differences between a civil partnership and a marriage in the USA? (English myself, and I haven't been able to find much information on this. Ironically, it's our conservative leader who's pushing for gay marriage at the moment)

[Brienne the Beauty]

If coming out pro-gay-rights was a position that took no courage, there'd be alot less politicians who were anti-gay-rights.

Let's charitably assume they are all honest homophobes.

[Guest]

Similarly, I am sure Robert was grateful for Walder Frey's support after the Trident, even though I am sure he wished it had materialized earlier.

:lol:

Bravo!

[Commodore]

Everyone acknowledges that laws require enforcement - this is not some brainchild of libertarians.

True, but the question is which laws (and the violence necessary to enforce them) are moral.

[drawkcabi]

I really really hope Maryland passes the referendum in support marriage equality. I don't like civil rights issues having to be decided this way, but if it must, then I'm excited that it might be my state that finally bucks the trend and I get to vote on the right side of history for it.

[TrackerNeil]

I really really hope Maryland passes the referendum in support marriage equality. I don't like civil rights issues having to be decided this way, but if it must, then I'm excited that it might be my state that finally bucks the trend and I get to vote on the right side of history for it.

I know...I am totally excited about this. The anti-equality forces have for a long time stated "no gay marriage measure has survived a popular vote", ignoring of course that this was a fall-back position from "no gay marriage measure has survived a legislative vote." What happens if MD breaks that barrier? At that point, equality advocates will have won at court, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box, so what is NOM's last stand?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm still confused. It's awesome and fabulous if someone you like (or whose politics you like) comes out and supports a position you support, but it's not good, suspect and potentially dangerous if someone on the other side of the aisle says "I agree"?

In other news, what about the Supreme Court's latest on double jeopardy in Blueford? (6-3 decision. Capital murder trial. As usual, several lesser offences were included in the indictment - 1st degree murder, manslaughter, etc. Jury deadlocked, but in saying they deadlocked, forewoman said that they were unanimously for acquittal on capital murder and 1st degree murder. Court ruled that there was no official verdict on the first counts and on retrial, all offenses could be considered).

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

With regard to your remarks on courage in re marriage equality: that may be, but it's irrelevant.

The discussion wasn't about supporting gay marriage in a vacuum, but rather supporting it after testing the social clime with a Biden pinata. The point being argued isn't about variable politician (x) coming out in favor, but about an incumbent President with a ready stooge who can take the shit if it goes bad. What's the risk, when you can lay off the brunt of your losses? Where's the courage if there's no risk?

[Shryke]

Shryke, With regard to your remarks on courage in re marriage equality: that may be, but it's irrelevant. The discussion wasn't about supporting gay marriage in a vacuum, but rather supporting it after testing the social clime with a Biden pinata. The point being argued isn't about variable politician (x) coming out in favor, but about an incumbent President with a ready stooge who can take the shit if it goes bad. What's the risk, when you can lay off the brunt of your losses? Where's the courage if there's no risk?

Your framing is faulty here. You are assuming that there is no risk at all, which simply isn't true. Using Biden to test the waters is risk assessment, it's figuring out what the reaction might be like before you jump in. It doesn't mean there's no risk at all. ~40% of Americans are still AGAINST gay marriage, remember?

Shit, why don't you look at the initial reactions to his announcement just in this thread. "It's gonna cost him the election!" was something that many here and elsewhere bandied about.

[Sci-2]

This conversation of courage seems sort of silly to me. Were political calculations involved? Water is wet.