Obama doesn't need to accuse Romney of being a flip flopper - the narrative is already there, and firmly ingrained in the public consciousness.  Obama has already had 'evolving' positions on a number of issues (FISA, health care mandate), and the label doesn't stick.

Obama hasn't really "flip flopped" the way Romney has. Romney has done complete 180s on a number of issues, throughout his political career. And it's so obviously for political expedience in his case.

As I said in another thread...

This may be Santorum's Republican Party. It sure as hell ain't Santorum's America. And Romney is in between a rock and a hard place between moderately conservative Independents and the rabid religious right (aka much of the GOP electorate).

Carville is sooooo 1992.

The brief bump existed primarily because gay marriage had never really been a major issue in American politics ever before in that same way, and 60% of Americans were already on the opposing side to begin with. It was a new issue, and a different time.

The issue has existed in American politics (and popular culture more broadly) since then, and has grown more and more against the conservative position, where now it's safer and safer to say that a national majority is in favor of it, or the country is at least evenly divided. On every issue of minority rights it's always easy to run against it, but there's diminishing returns, and we're no longer at the point where you can scare two thirds of the country against it. The turning point has been reached.

+1 million. IMO, Romney's only hope now is that the economy crashes again (which is a horrible thing for anyone to hope for, come to think of it...)

I'm honestly a little stunned he did it so soon.

I think the dems here need to be realistic about the possible risks to Obama from this position, however, he wouldn't have made such a move unless the risks had been considered.

I was a little worried about the potential downsides, too - doesn't really matter if he supports gay marriage if it loses him re-election and Mitt Romney passes a constitutional amendment to ban it federally - but polls show large majorities thought Obama backed it anyway, so I'm hopeful it won't have much negative impact politically.

It could also be that they're giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with-Obama had to have known that this would really  fire up the Christian Warrior Troops of the GOP against him.

But since Romney is seen as being a "moderate" by some Independents, the Religious Right rallying to Romney's side will make Independents (who generally detest the religious side of the Republican Party) more wary of Romney.

The ideology of small government and individual freedom strikes again.

Good. This is perhaps the most clear-cut, "black and white" issue to me.

It's simple: Gays should have all the rights that straights have. They don't currently.

Solution: Give them those rights legally.

wow that joke went over your head. ill give you a hint: the media uses it as a euphemism lately.

Oops, sorry.

But at least I got a good post in, no?

The bigots in this thread who think this hurts Obama are funny.

no of course not. the youths will hold their noses and young people already were firmly in his column.

I've lost count of the number of moderately conservative/centrist ex-Republicans I've encountered, either as Independents or Democrats.

The most common reason for the "ex" designation?

Answer: The Religious Right or "religious extremists", etc.

These are the swing voters Romney desperately needs to win. The Religious Right peaked in its influence, and is actually, in many ways, in decline. This may be Santorum's Republican Party, but this sure as hell ain't Santorum's America.

For every fundamentalist Christian voter that votes against Obama, a Democrat and a swing voter vote against Romney. And with the economy holding ground, Romney's history of gaffes ("Even Jimmy Carter would have made that order", etc.), Romney's complete lack of connection with the common people, plus his unreliable messaging and perceived indifference to issues like women's rights or the plight of the lower and middle class Americans, not to mention Romney's myriad problems with his own party, I think Obama made a political masterstroke as well as a strong moral statement with his endorsement of same sex marriage.

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

The "Generic Republican Voter" (TM) is always disappointed in the politicians he votes for( except the fictional idealization of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, of course). This is by definition; a Party increasingly dominated ideologues and demagogues is going to hate "The Establishment" no matter what, even if (maybe especially if) the Movement is the Establishment

my question is why has the state shifted to the democrats so much at the presidential level? In my 1974 Almanac of American Politics, a full 56% of the voters were registered democrats. Now its down to 44%. The number of DTS voters has also increased from 7% in the 1970s to the current 26%.

One thing someone on redracinghorses said was that California democrats are much more partisan now then they were back then and that Reagan always enjoyed support in heavily democratic areas (by registration) such as Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, El Monte etc.

As Xahar said, partisan affiliation isn't particularly meaningful at the presidential level (just look at Oklahoma ) And yes, Reagan did well among the blue-collar white Democrats in places like the ones you mentioned-though it must be remembered, of course, that it was the white-collar middle and upper class areas of the state (Orange County being the classic example) that were historically always the most strongly Republican, and where the grassroots 'movement conservatives" of the Goldwater campaign (and later the Reagan campaign) were most concentrated.

Furthermore, the Reagan effect was real everywhere, but in California it masked the underlying trends towards the Democrats. Bush Sr kept CA in the GOP column in 88, but he was no match for the charismatic, culturally progressive, economically center-right reformist "New Democrat" Bill Clinton in 92-and those Third Way qualities played well in California.

Finally, demographic changes in the California electorate played a big role, of course. California's Democratic Party is very diverse, with so-called "gentry liberals", young professionals, blue-collar Latino workers, public sector employees, Silicon Valley executives, naturalized Asian immigrants, Hollywood executives, San Francisco bankers...all of these people find common cause with the Democratic Party. 

It helps the Democrats, btw, that both the California Republicans and the national Republicans have become increasingly right-wing, partisan, and ideologically rigid. As California becomes ever more diverse, cosmopolitan, and urban/metropolitan-focused, what plays well in more homogenous suburbs and exurbs of "Middle America" falls flat on its face here, politically speaking.

Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton captured the Democratic primary for governor Tuesday, setting up a general election race with former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory that will feature two baby boomers regarded as moderates by their own parties.

Dalton, a small-town lawyer from Rutherford County, defeated one of the party’s veteran war horses, former U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge. With 62 counties reporting, Dalton was leading Etheridge 46 percent to 38 percent, with state Rep. Bill Faison of Orange County with less than 6 percent.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/09/3227736/dalton-to-face-mccrory-for-governor.html#storylink=cpy

..sucks.


Couple it with an anxiety disorder...and yeah..

*insert obligatory comment about the use of the term "fascist" being taken out of its historical context yet again*...

Edwards performed best in the rural South, particularly the border states where there aren't as many black voters who would have tended to support Obama. He got a sizable chunk of the Oklahoma primary vote even though he'd been out of the race for a while.

A lot of those voters ultimately supported McCain in the fall and many haven't returned to the Democratic fold since then (certainly not in the mid-term elections, anyway).

Why would these "conservative Democrats" support John Edwards when he was arguably more liberal on economic issues than either Clinton or Obama? Or is this just evidence that they were all a bunch of racists who just wanted to be able to vote for a white guy with a Southern accent?

A lot of white Democrats in the South are poor. That's why Edwards, who ran an economically populist campaign ("two Americas"), did so well with them.

Here's 2008.



As you can see, Obama basically won the lowest-income groups up to $50k in income. McCain won voters with incomes of between $50k and $200k, but Obama actually won voters with incomes of $200k or above.

How about

-A poor black woman who voted for Hillary in the 2008 Primary and McCain in the general.


Yeah, I met someone who fit that description.

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.

So you admit that Republicans are the Party of racist whites?

No, he is a half-truther.

Taking their religion seriously (in general, of course) from a philosophical standpoint (relatively speaking).

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

YES, we will vote NO on that bill.

CHAT PLZ!!

The leader of the border patrol group issued a statement that noted Jason Ready attended one watch. While there, Ready attempted to pass out literature the group found unacceptable. And, as a result, he was escorted off the watch and told never to return.

So much for the bllsh#t claim, "Border militia leader...."

Only someone like BigSkyBob would actually defend the border militia.

...and in this dream, Santorum had won the nomination and was in a dead heat with Obama.

Also, Romney didn't exist.

CONGRATS PHIL!!!