U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[bergmann620]

So in other words, out of the options to either stay opposed to gay marriage or changing back to supporting it, changing back was more convenient.

Even that explanation ignores the idea that the whole thing was likely a ploy, throwing the Catholic out in front with a 'slip up' in order to grease the press- to intentionally cause a 'forced hand.'

If anything, this should finally quiet the "Obama=Muslim" crowd

[Stankymcgee]

I want to see a community organizer debate a person who has actually run a business .

For someone who is so against bailouts and actually recieved one for his bussiness, I fail to see how great of a bussiness man he is.In 1991, he convinced the federal government to forgive $10 million in debts owed by Bain & Co., a deal that helped prevent his company from failing and ultimately made him millions of dollars. Via Nexis, here’s a story about it published on October 25, 1994 in The Boston Globe:

Republican Senate nominee Mitt Romney’s rescue of a business consulting firm was achieved in part by convincing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to forgive roughly $ 10 million of the company’s debts, according to sources close to the deal and federal records obtained by The Boston Globe.

Romney, whose business acumen has been the cornerstone of his campaign, has said saving the Bain & Co. consulting firm from the brink of bankruptcy in 1991 was the accomplishment that most convinced him he had the mettle to be a US senator.

Bain & Co. and the FDIC agreed to the deal after months of intense negotiations. Moreover, bankers say debt forgiveness is relatively routine when a company is at risk of collapse.

But the $ 10 million cost to the FDIC raises the question of whether Romney’s success, as well as the resurrection of Bain & Co., came partially at the expense of the federal agency that protects US bank deposits.

No doubt Mitt Romney would defend that $10 million in federal aid to Bain & Co. as having prevented the bankruptcy of his firm and as having saved hundreds of jobs. But the corollary of that argument is that Mitt Romney saved Bain & Co. with a $10 million bailout from the federal government—and given that fact, he’s the last person on Earth who should be accusing anybody of crony capitalism.
http://www.marketwatch.com/video/ass...2-12BD6AA04145

[ptwonline]

So in other words, out of the options to either stay opposed to gay marriage or changing back to supporting it, changing back was more convenient.

He had his hand forced and chose to partake an action at a time that would minimize the damage. The "convenient" time would be to do it later when it wouldn't be an election potentially hanging over his head for choosing to do so. Being forced into a less damaging course of action is not what I would commonly call a choice of "convenience", which is a loaded term when used in a political context.

---------- Post added 2012-05-14 at 06:13 PM ----------

Even that explanation ignores the idea that the whole thing was likely a ploy, throwing the Catholic out in front with a 'slip up' in order to grease the press- to intentionally cause a 'forced hand.'

If anything, this should finally quiet the "Obama=Muslim" crowd

Honestly, I doubt the Obama Admin is dumb enough to do it this way intentionally. By having Biden go first it opened up Obama to several days of very harsh and completely predictable criticism from his base, and then when Obama finally did admit his new official position it made him look a bit weak and it reinforced the narrative of Biden always putting his foot in his mouth. Not exactly qualities you want on your Presidential ticket.

If this was a planned strategy there would have been a LOT more preparatory work upfront, including getting more (especially black) pastors on board to message the thing properly. I suspect he would have done it as part of a bigger event than instead of a simple, sit-down interview. There would have been lots of web-ready materials to go with it to make Obama look good. This was something that he could have milked in a much bigger way, but by having to open the curtain before he was really ready, it ended up as being something much more simple and stripped-down.

[Maharishi]

He had his hand forced and chose to partake an action at a time that would minimize the damage. The "convenient" time would be to do it later when it wouldn't be an election potentially hanging over his head for choosing to do so. Being forced into a less damaging course of action is not what I would commonly call a choice of "convenience", which is a loaded term when used in a political context.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the whole biden "error" was actually unintentional. I think it was played perfectly to minimize the view of Obama as having flopped on the issue, while bringing the difference in views on the issue to the forefront of everyone's mind for a week.

[ptwonline]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the whole biden "error" was actually unintentional. I think it was played perfectly to minimize the view of Obama as having flopped on the issue, while bringing the difference in views on the issue to the forefront of everyone's mind for a week.

What it did is make Obama look like a follower, not a leader. And it reinforced the narrative that Biden always goofs things up.

Considering the way this Admin usually messages things, this seems completely out-of-character. Much more likely that Biden simply opened his mouth and Obama was forced to respond.

[Maharishi]

What it did is make Obama look like a follower, not a leader. And it reinforced the narrative that Biden always goofs things up.

Considering the way this Admin usually messages things, this seems completely out-of-character. Much more likely that Biden simply opened his mouth and Obama was forced to respond.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the follower/leader remark. Sure, you're right about biden, but that narrative already existed, so there really wasn't any political fallout from that.

I think that it set up gay marriage as a central issue in a way Obama just coming out and talking about it couldn't have, because it tricked the media into thinking they were the ones in control of the narrative. A full week of discussion was had about a subject that energizes Obama's base, and the issue itself is really hard to discuss on the GoP side, as they essentially have to argue the anti liberty position. They'd much rather keep the topic as a "personal belief issue," and not have to discuss it.

Maybe it was a mistake, but I think, if so, it worked out the best it could well for the Obama camp.

[bergmann620]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the whole biden "error" was actually unintentional. I think it was played perfectly to minimize the view of Obama as having flopped on the issue, while bringing the difference in views on the issue to the forefront of everyone's mind for a week.

It also sets up Biden to get pushed off the ticket, which is more than necessary if the Dems want any chance at the White House after Obama.

[Maharishi]

It also sets up Biden to get pushed off the ticket, which is more than necessary if the Dems want any chance at the White House after Obama.

I've been wondering about that. It seems like if that were in the cards, they would have a least started hinting the Biden might not be on the ticket. As it is though, he was alluding to a 2016 run himself a week ago.

[ptwonline]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the follower/leader remark. Sure, you're right about biden, but that narrative already existed, so there really wasn't any political fallout from that.

I think that it set up gay marriage as a central issue in a way Obama just coming out and talking about it couldn't have, because it tricked the media into thinking they were the ones in control of the narrative. A full week of discussion was had about a subject that energizes Obama's base, and the issue itself is really hard to discuss on the GoP side, as they essentially have to argue the anti liberty position. They'd much rather keep the topic as a "personal belief issue," and not have to discuss it.

Maybe it was a mistake, but I think, if so, it worked out the best it could well for the Obama camp.

I disagree. It did NOT work out the best it could for the Obama camp. Over the past several days there has been a mad scramble to get black leaders and pastors on board to try to control the message to blacks, especially black congregations who are by and large against gay marriage. They only had a few days to get try to build support before the first Sunday sermon. Had this been planned they would have gone out ahead of the message to try to build support.

As for Biden, saying that the narrative was already out about him doesn't exactly make reinforcing it something to shrug off. It's a serious charge against him because it makes people believe that he lacks the kind of discipline it would take to potentially be President. Baiscally, it makes him look less competent, and that's NEVER a message you want to reinforce. I think if they had actually wanted to test the waters they would have used other stand-ins (they have countless number of spokespeople) but really, that wasn't necessary. Feelings on this issue are pretty well-established at this point.

[Willeonge]

It also sets up Biden to get pushed off the ticket, which is more than necessary if the Dems want any chance at the White House after Obama.

Hillary as VP?

[Stanton Biston]

It also sets up Biden to get pushed off the ticket, which is more than necessary if the Dems want any chance at the White House after Obama.

(crazy)McCain/Palin was the best the Republicans could come up with in 2008. (I say crazy because 2008 McCain was much less awesome than 2000 McCain.)

Romney (Or Scrouge McDuck/Paul) was the best the Republicans could come up with for 2012.

I'm not holding my breath for them doing something reasonable in 2016.

---------- Post added 2012-05-14 at 11:41 AM ----------

Also I totally thought the Newsweek cover was a joke or something. It's frightening that it's real and really hurts Newsweek's credibility.

[Maharishi]

I disagree. It did NOT work out the best it could for the Obama camp. Over the past several days there has been a mad scramble to get black leaders and pastors on board to try to control the message to blacks, especially black congregations who are by and large against gay marriage. They only had a few days to get try to build support before the first Sunday sermon. Had this been planned they would have gone out ahead of the message to try to build support.

As for Biden, saying that the narrative was already out about him doesn't exactly make reinforcing it something to shrug off. It's a serious charge against him because it makes people believe that he lacks the kind of discipline it would take to potentially be President. Baiscally, it makes him look less competent, and that's NEVER a message you want to reinforce. I think if they had actually wanted to test the waters they would have used other stand-ins (they have countless number of spokespeople) but really, that wasn't necessary. Feelings on this issue are pretty well-established at this point.

I'll try to refine my point to : If they were going to come out about the issue at all, this was a good way to do it. No matter what, there was always going to be a shitstorm on the religious front. However, traditional christian conservatives were never going to throw in with Obama, and Obama's going to have to do some real crazy stuff to lose the black vote to a mormon.

As for biden, I haven't really been keeping track of stories on him lately, so all I can say is that this incident did not affect my opinion of him. You may be right about the popular opinion of him, I just am not in a position to know one way or another.

[ptwonline]

It also sets up Biden to get pushed off the ticket, which is more than necessary if the Dems want any chance at the White House after Obama.

I don't think there's much chance of Biden being at the top of any ticket in 2016. He's generally perceived as a serious, elder statesman competent enough to step in as a short-term caretaker for a Presidency, but I don't think many--inside the Democratic Party or not--are thrilled at the idea of actually choosing him as their President and having him be the leader and set the direction for the Party. His ceiling would likely be VP again, and at this point I have my doubts as to whether or not he'd want to do that again. He's already 69 turning 70 this year.

[bergmann620]

I've been wondering about that. It seems like if that were in the cards, they would have a least started hinting the Biden might not be on the ticket. As it is though, he was alluding to a 2016 run himself a week ago.

That would be the most amazing thing to happen to the Republican Party since Abe Lincoln.

Like I've said, 2012 is a throw-away as far as the Republican Party is concerned. More than likely, Romney won't even get a decent VP, because they won't want to attach themselves to Romney. Any possible VP would be a bigger star than Romney going forward.

[ptwonline]

I'll try to refine my point to : If they were going to come out about the issue at all, this was a good way to do it. No matter what, there was always going to be a shitstorm on the religious front. However, traditional christian conservatives were never going to throw in with Obama, and Obama's going to have to do some real crazy stuff to lose the black vote to a mormon.

As for biden, I haven't really been keeping track of stories on him lately, so all I can say is that this incident did not affect my opinion of him. You may be right about the popular opinion of him, I just am not in a position to know one way or another.

I don't understand how you think this was the best way to do it. I think it was one of the worst ways they could have planned to do it. If it was going to cause so much fuss with the religious front, then why not wait until AFTER the election? Why send Biden out to stir up the pot to force your hand on an issue you'd rather stay quiet about? If you were going to stir things up, why do it with so little preparation to control the message and mitigate the potential damage? This Admin is pretty pro at trying to control messages, and so if what happened was planned then it is really out-of-character for them.

And while black Christians are not likely to vote for the Mormon Republican, they could also choose to stay home and not vote at all.

[bergmann620]

(crazy)McCain/Palin was the best the Republicans could come up with in 2008. (I say crazy because 2008 McCain was much less awesome than 2000 McCain.)

Romney (Or Scrouge McDuck/Paul) was the best the Republicans could come up with for 2012.

I'm not holding my breath for them doing something reasonable in 2016.

---------- Post added 2012-05-14 at 11:41 AM ----------

Also I totally thought the Newsweek cover was a joke or something. It's frightening that it's real and really hurts Newsweek's credibility.

2016? Christie/Rubio

Newsweek... Credibility... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[Maharishi]

I don't understand how you think this was the best way to do it. I think it was one of the worst ways they could have planned to do it. If it was going to cause so much fuss with the religious front, then why not wait until AFTER the election? Why send Biden out to stir up the pot to force your hand on an issue you'd rather stay quiet about? If you were going to stir things up, why do it with so little preparation to control the message and mitigate the potential damage? This Admin is pretty pro at trying to control messages, and so if what happened was planned then it is really out-of-character for them.

And while black Christians are not likely to vote for the Mormon Republican, they could also choose to stay home and not vote at all.

Because it gets people talking about the issue. Civil rights are an issue where it's really hard to make the negative argument, and the last week has forced the gop into a corner. Romney's making awkward vague remarks about where he is on the issue, remarks that seem to conflict with his platform.

If Obama was going to come out about the issue, it had to be in a way that got people talking about it as a major issue. This did.

They've also stated they were planning to come out about this before the election already, though it's impossible to say if it was damage control.

[ptwonline]

Because it gets people talking about the issue. Civil rights are an issue where it's really hard to make the negative argument, and the last week has forced the gop into a corner. Romney's making awkward vague remarks about where he is on the issue, remarks that seem to conflict with his platform.

If Obama was going to come out about the issue, it had to be in a way that got people talking about it as a major issue. This did.

They've also stated they were planning to come out about this before the election already, though it's impossible to say if it was damage control.

It would have been very easy to get people to talk about the issue: just have a bill come up in the House or Senate that proposed some kind of gay marriage rights. But you don't even have to do that--it's in the news because of what state legislators are doing.

Having Biden get ahead of the President got the issue more into the news, but most of the chatter was extremely negative to the President from his base. That was entirely predictable because they have been unhappy for a long time for his stance on gay marriage, and they expressed it again quite harshly just like they have every previous time the issue has come up in some way.

As for them saying that they were going to announce it at the convention, it's possible that was true. it could have been a part of a much wider message--well-prepared over the summer--about justice (both social and economic). There would have been a big roll-out to go along with it. It could have really gotten the base fired up going into the home stretch. That's exactly the kind of thing I expect this Admin to do, and not to tepidly send out Biden to test the waters that are already known.

[Lenonis]

That's not the case. I'd like ALL of them to be a bigger poll size. Asking 1000, 1500, 2000, or 2500 random people is way too small of a sample size for my taste to be some sort of projector of how ~120M people will vote from 50 different states.

Statistically speaking you don't need more than 1600 to get a high level of confidence for sample size. There is a point where adding more people doesn't move the error much.

[ptwonline]

Statistically speaking you don't need more than 1600 to get a high level of confidence for sample size. There is a point where adding more people doesn't move the error much.

Yup. The sample size is large enough. The question is really the accuracy of their sampling methods. For example, are they still relying mostly on land lines.