Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorMaC
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2008
     (4005.1)
    @LokiZero

    Never know with those thick skulls. Better safe then sorry, I say.
  1.  (4005.2)
    Why I feel secure in my ridiculous optimism: I just played around with CNN's Electoral Map Calculator, giving literally every state currently polling as a toss-up to McCain (which isn't going to happen), and then even switched Pennsylvania to McCain (which isn't going to happen), and let every other state go to whoever is currently polling ahead (which is fair - if it's close enough to be in the margin of error [usually a meaty +/- 4] it's considered a toss-up, so even just "leaning" states often still show substantial leads).

    And that scenario, which is deliberately tilted toward McCain to an unrealistic degree, still happens to put Obama at exactly 270. (Edit: didn't notice at first, but CNN had North Carolina as a toss-up on the calculator map but actually has Obama polling a good six points ahead there, so that's another 15 electoral votes very unlikely to go to McCain.)

    I'm fucking giddy with excitement.
    •  
      CommentAuthorvrbtm
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2008
     (4005.3)
    @Kosmo,

    I'm waiting for a good write up tomorrow from 538, but I'm thinking Nate's adjustments to the model can account for SOME of the tightening.
  2.  (4005.4)
    I said before, I didn't vote for Obama, and here's one of the reasons why. His response about gay marriage just makes my teeth hurt.

    When an MTV viewer wanted to know what Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama thought of Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California general-election ballot that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, MTV News brought the question straight to the man himself.

    "I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."


    Which all fine well and good, but here sits the son of a black man and a white woman, a union that was illegal in large parts of this country until Obama himself was six years old. The arguments against gay marriage are no different than those against couples of different races and religions coming together. In fact, the language is eeriely similar. Yes, "civil unions", so if you create a seperate but equal class it's ok? Again, familiar.

    Of course, it's light years better than the current brain-stem, who hasn't acknowledge the GLBTQ existence except as a threat to the morals of the nation. If the rough estimate of 10% of the population is gay, that's 30 million people ignored. McCain would be more of the same, I know that. And I hear the argument "oh he's just saying that to appease the kooks."

    But fuck if hearing a sensible man, who fucking KNOWS better for many reasons, spout that shit doesn't just gall me.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2008
     (4005.5)
    Can't say that I disagree with you. While I felt that Biden's answer to the gay marriage question during the VP debate was a lot better than Palin's scrambling, "But some of my friends are gay!" response, it was still the same old separate but equal line we've been hearing.

    At least he gets and agrees with the fact that Prop 8 is wrong.
  3.  (4005.6)
  4.  (4005.7)
    If he said "yes" and "gay" on the same sentence, he would be painted as the anti-Christ, considering how much he must "hold back" I think he's very for-gay-marriage in reality.
  5.  (4005.8)
    @Sageludwig:

    Nah, he's already the anti-christ to those people, he's not winning them over by taking this tact.

    I'm old and bitter on the subject. Clinton gave us "Don't ask don'tell", which is little more than a Jim Crow law for the military and Gore and Kerry paid lip service to the GLBT community while gladly cashing their checks.

    I came into the gay rights movement inspired by groups like ACT UP and QUEER NATION, who were active when I was in grade school but influenced a whole generation of GLBT rights proponents.

    There's no non-religious explanation for opposing gay marriage that I've heard. Even the most ardent supporter who will deny any religious motive to the wall eventually boils it down to some kind of religious taboo. It's asking the GLBT community to accept second-class citizenship because some people have a religious bigotry. It's a question of human rights and equality for millions of people.

    Obama's an eloquent man, if you don't think he could articulate how gay marriage isn't about annhilating people's churches or destroying "the family unit" he's not half the orator he seems.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2008
     (4005.9)
    If he said "yes" and "gay" on the same sentence, he would be painted as the anti-Christ, considering how much he must "hold back" I think he's very for-gay-marriage in reality.


    This is my own perception and shouldn't be confused with whatever Obama's position truly is, but I don't think he is for gay marriage. The man seems to be fairly conservative in his own morals as well as a strongly committed Christian (who is not really a biblical scholar). That said, Obama also seems to be a person who will defend the Constitution even if he personally disagrees with those whom he's defending. Just because he'd fight a Flag-burning amendment to the Constitution doesn't mean he's in favor of flag burning. Similarly, while Obama believes that gay/lesbian citizens should have the right to have legally recognized committed relationships doesn't mean he wants those relationships to be called "marriages." "Civil Unions" might have all the legal rights and force of a marriage, but I think Obama's reluctant to give up that last inch of recognition.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2008
     (4005.10)


    Obama's views on religion.
  6.  (4005.11)
    Obama's an eloquent man, if you don't think he could articulate how gay marriage isn't about annhilating people's churches or destroying "the family unit" he's not half the orator he seems.
    He couldn't and still maintain the nice numbers he's pulling. I know plenty of black Baptist Obama supporters that would immediately decide to take back their vote if they knew Obama was going to push enacting gay rights legislation, and even more white Catholic Democrats that would do the same. I also know Obama benefits from siphoning off a number of Republican voters, who could largely be holding their noses enough this election to abide disagreeing with portions of Obama's platform, but who knows, maybe gay rights is the straw that breaks the camel's back with them, and they turn. Even worse, coming out with a strong show of support for the GLBT community just adds fodder for the Republican camp, who'll find it that much easier to mobilize their base and rile up the bigots to get out and vote. The enthusiasm advantage Democrats are enjoying would definitely weaken.

    Does it suck? Yes. But you've only got one hope if you're looking for a president who'll actually do something about gay rights: hope and pray they sneak into office saying all the "right" things the close-minded want to hear (or at least won't froth at the mouth in rage at hearing), then once elected actually go to bat for equal rights. Otherwise you've got a long wait ahead for you. This country's too dumb to elect the idealized candidate you're looking for anytime soon.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.12)
    Pretty sure this was already posted about 5 or 6 months ago and we all chuckled about his scripture line and the "How would Jesus feel", but here it is, Abortion and then Gay Marriage at 1:06. And more on Gay Marriage:
    He understands; all he's saying is that it's too radical at this point, and we have to take it a step at a time. I don't know that I agree, but better safe than sorry. In any case it beats McCain's stance. Here's Obama again: A religious guy; he's not gay, but he keeps saying it's ridiculous to not afford those civil rights to others. There is a difference between legalizing gay marriage everywhere and "allowing for civil unions", and I think in his mind that difference is also called the swing vote.
    I think he's been pretty clear about this over the last few years. He doesn't believe in it at his core, but he understands the necessity for the rest of the country, without going balls out.
  7.  (4005.13)
    I feel like at least Obama isn't going to be attacking LGBT like the Bush clan has been. At least by electing Obama we can get some breathing room on these issues, because he's not going to sit there and gay-bash for 8 years like Bush.

    But yeah his positions on Gay Marriage was a big reason why it took me a long time to move into his camp. His position on gay marriage won't hurt me, and I agree with him on a lot of other issues. I think he will make the country a better place to live, and alleviate a lot of the craziness that has been allowed to fester. I think under an Obama presidency, we'll move toward a more tolerant and accepting society overall. And hopefully one with better healthcare.
    •  
      CommentAuthorroque
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.14)
    This country's too dumb to elect the idealized candidate you're looking for anytime soon.

    WELL said.
  8.  (4005.15)
    There is a difference between legalizing gay marriage everywhere and "allowing for civil unions", and I think in his mind that difference is also called the swing vote.

    John and Jane get a marriage license. It's a document, recorded with the state that they are married. They file taxes jointly, share company benefits and enjoy the over 1000 benefits enjoyed by married.

    Civil unions don't confer the same benefits in the states where they exist now. A good breakdown of the differences here.

    If Obama is saying that the federal government will recognize civil unions what's going to be the difference? Again, seperate but equal.

    I know that makes some people uneasy, the language of the civil rights movement and Jim Crow, but when you have a law that says these people are entitled to more protections under the law than those people because of some ridiculous distinction, does it matter if it is color or gender or sexual identity?

    The baby steps argument is a fine one, but small steps also make it easier for future conservative governments to take those rights away. Putting GLBT equality into hard and written law, making it a matter of fact not well-meaning principle, makes it infinitely harder for the republican revolution of 2016 to roll things back.

    I don't mean to rain shit on the parade, overall I think Obama's stride is one I like following. But Democrats have a history of talking about gay rights in very expansive terms and running for the narrow middle when it comes time to follow through.
  9.  (4005.16)
    @Doclivingston:
    This country's too dumb to elect the idealized candidate you're looking for anytime soon.

    Accepting that as settled fact just makes matters worse.

    Look, he's going to win, barring John McCain curing AIDS/Alheimers and perfecting clean energy in the next 24 hours. But hold him to account, don't accept pablum or equivocation to pander to people who already hate him for a myriad of other reasons.

    Let Obama be Obama.
  10.  (4005.17)
    Accepting that as settled fact just makes matters worse.
    Oh by all means, carry on, I'm not trying to say there's no point to the fight right now or anything. I'm entirely with you on everything you've said, I'm just saying why Obama's big flaw here isn't going to give me a second's hesitation in supporting him. We still need people constantly pushing for more and better, always everywhere. But I'm also looking at getting a president-elect who's going to do a damn fine job in a whole lot of other areas. I feel secure in assuming this is the best of all realistically possible scenarios right now. That's more than enough for me, after repeatedly seeing pretty much the worst of all realistically possible scenarios play out over the course of damn near a decade. And in all honesty, I really do expect him to address exactly the issues you want him to. (Mayyyybe not until he secures his second term...)

    It's fine, even admirable to an extent, to vote your conscience and not support a guy you agree with nine times out of ten or even 99 out of a 100, because of how important that one issue may be and how wrong on it you think they are. Totally do that. I'm just saying, you're gonna need a lot of time and a lot of patience before the candidate you're looking for actually wins the office.
  11.  (4005.18)
    Totally do that. I'm just saying, you're gonna need a lot of time and a lot of patience before the candidate you're looking for actually wins the office.

    See, I think we're on that path. Obama is LIGHTYEARS better than Kerry. I swear, I once watched that man disagree with himself inside of a single sentence. He spoke fluent jujistu I think he's also an improvement on Gore, who listened to advisers too closely and underestimated the dumbass appeal of Bush. And Clinton, while charismatic and accomplished, was far too centrist for my tastes.

    I'm a progressive and a liberal, leaning towards friendly socialism in many ways. The democratic party is getting better at articulating progressive points and not just letting the republicans run the table and define the issues. Liberal values (organized labor, social safety nets, corporations held to account and not granted rights, fully-enforced human rights) are values that so many American share and the hard right has smeared those for decades. I think Obama could be transformational not because of his race, but because of his articulation of those ideals. Again, let Obama be Obama.
    • CommentAuthorarau
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008 edited
     (4005.19)
    I can't find a link but I think the position articulated at one point by Obama is that marriage should not be a legal act only civil unions. So everyone gets a civil union straight or gay. It is then up to the couple to find a church that will marry them. Not sure if that has been walked back or not.
  12.  (4005.20)
    @arau:

    That's pretty much the magic ticket to me.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.