Huge blunder
By: dgun
May 10th, 2012
7:52 pm
When the McCain campaign announced Palin as a running mate in 2008, I was dumbfounded. I just could not understand how supposedly professional and experienced political operatives could make such a ridiculous move.
I spent some time since then trying to understand the reason for the Palin choice. The only thing I can conclude is that they assumed Palin would appease the Republican base. But what about the other base?
Presidential politics is more often than not a balancing act. For every revolution or movement there is bound to be a counter-revolution or counter-movement, kind of Newtonian physics for politics. I assumed I would not likely see a more stupid political move than the Palin nomination for some time. President Obama reminded me what comes from assuming this week by coming out in support of gay marriage.
The 2012 election was shaping up to be a rather hum-drum election. Republicans are yet again running a compromise candidate that the fundamentalists don't care for. Romney does not inspire even among those who generally support him. On top of that, Obama is the better debater and speaker, has several positives over the last four years that he can hang his hat on, and can ask the all important question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago"?
In my estimation, Obama would have to work pretty hard to lose this election. So why, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, hand the opposition one of their favorite hot-button issues, an issue that truly does inspire their base? Was beating Romney so easy that Obama strategists felt they needed to make it a little challenging?
Although public opinion has shifted on the issue of gay marriage, it is still pretty divisive. And among heterosexuals who support gay marriage, how many of them are inspired by the issue? I suspect that there is a lot of weak support among those who claim to support gay marriage. It's similar to the weak support Romney has among those who claim to support Romney. If Romney does no more than to continue his half-ass fence sitting on the issue of gay marriage, Obama's blunder will inspire Romney supporters to at least bother to support Romney.
Post Reply
20 comments on "Huge blunder"
May 11, 2012 at 5:00 am
MSNBC has spoken of little else lately than gay marriage. I have no idea why - it's not the most important thing IMO.
May 11, 2012 at 5:03 am
And it wasn't going to be a major issue this time around. But it is now...
May 11, 2012 at 9:00 am
And it wasn't going to be a major issue this time around. But it is now...
Mark
May 11, 2012 at 9:07 am
****hahahahaha******
But he's made the oh so many gays happy...........how many votes does that get him????
May 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm
When the McCain campaign announced Palin as a running mate in 2008, I was dumbfounded. I just could not understand how supposedly professional and experienced political operatives could make such a ridiculous move.
I spent some time since then trying to understand the reason for the Palin choice. The only thing I can conclude is that they assumed Palin would appease the Republican base. But what about the other base?
Presidential politics is more often than not a balancing act. For every revolution or movement there is bound to be a counter-revolution or counter-movement, kind of Newtonian physics for politics. I assumed I would not likely see a more stupid political move than the Palin nomination for some time. President Obama reminded me what comes from assuming this week by coming out in support of gay marriage.
The 2012 election was shaping up to be a rather hum-drum election. Republicans are yet again running a compromise candidate that the fundamentalists don't care for. Romney does not inspire even among those who generally support him. On top of that, Obama is the better debater and speaker, has several positives over the last four years that he can hang his hat on, and can ask the all important question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago"?
In my estimation, Obama would have to work pretty hard to lose this election. So why, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, hand the opposition one of their favorite hot-button issues, an issue that truly does inspire their base? Was beating Romney so easy that Obama strategists felt they needed to make it a little challenging?
Although public opinion has shifted on the issue of gay marriage, it is still pretty divisive. And among heterosexuals who support gay marriage, how many of them are inspired by the issue? I suspect that there is a lot of weak support among those who claim to support gay marriage. It's similar to the weak support Romney has among those who claim to support Romney. If Romney does no more than to continue his half-ass fence sitting on the issue of gay marriage, Obama's blunder will inspire Romney supporters to at least bother to support Romney.
The balance will continue to shift as the old bigioted folks die off and the fresh generations who see the issue as silly and irrelevant take over the reigns of power. DADT was widly panned as too liberal when Clinton established it, less than two decades later, gays in the military is accepted. I suspect in a decade or less folks will be wondering just what the ruckus was all about.
May 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm
I think it took courage to make a stand. I have to respect that.
May 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Well, if Romney ever takes a stand on anything well see....
I ain't gonna hold my breath.
May 12, 2012 at 12:09 pm
But potter, as far as the 2012 campaign, this has to be net-negative strategy for Obama.
And you know they do nothing like this without careful planning. Strategists sat around and discussed it, argued back and forth, and this is what they came up with? I'm scratching me head on this one.
May 12, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I think it took courage to make a stand. I have to respect that. That's courage the other candidate obviously doesn't have.
He personally supports same-sex marriage? and is going to do what about it?
Leave it to the states? Sign an executive order? Push for nationwide acceptance?
My sense is he has already done exactly and all he intends to do: uncork the money spigots of the activist community that seeks to advance this issue.
But one other thing: I think Biden has guaranteed his continuing as V-P. I don't think Obama could replace him now without offending the very community he just courted.
May 12, 2012 at 2:41 pm
But potter, as far as the 2012 campaign, this has to be net-negative strategy for Obama.
And you know they do nothing like this without careful planning. Strategists sat around and discussed it, argued back and forth, and this is what they came up with? I'm scratching me head on this one.
I think, in most cases, it will energize those who were already energized enough to vote on the right, and energize a larger percent of a smaller segment of the electorate to vote on the left. In the end, it'll probably be a wash.
But, at the same time, the GOP is ahead in money. Not the party or candidate per se, but when you throw in superpacs and everything else, Obama is trailing. Obama's victory has to depend more heavily on what he can personally raise and what the DNC can raise. And this has resulted in donations spiking, and that extra money to attack Romney through ads could be a difference maker.