Monday, July 30, 2012

Shoring Up The Base

I'm beginning to believe the reports of terror within the Democratic Party, especially after reading this:
The Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports. Sen. Harry Reid said in May that he believed the party would alter its platform in favor of gay marriage, after President Obama spoke out that month in favor of same-sex couples' right to marry.
I don't see that this gets them any more votes than they already had and it could lose them some votes, especially among older "John Kennedy" Democrats.  So why put this in their platform now?  Maybe because they know their prospects truly are so bad that they need to shore up their base.

13 comments:

MikeAT said...

Votes directly, no. But it does get him money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/marriage-money-floods-obama-campaign-hollywood-hugs-president.html

One thing I read one of every 7 big cash diners for BO is a leftist gay and this is a big issue for them. So they are simply paying for Barry's words first and now a sentence or two in the platform.

Darren said...

What you'd said seems to support my thesis that they have to shore up the base--which wouldn't otherwise have given that money.

mmazenko said...

Big issue with the 18-35 demographic - the question is whether they turn out for him like they did in '08. If young people vote, he wins again.

Darren said...

No conservative is going to vote for this guy anyway, so again, it looks like they're just shoring up the votes of people who otherwise would be voting for them anyway.

mmazenko said...

Oh, I know plenty of conservatives who voted for him and probably will again. Often it has to do with the other option being worse. In '08 it was a belief that the GOP had turned its back on the middle class to serve corporations - and the Palin fiasco sealed the deal. And that view of the GOP still holds with many who view Romney's business dealings - and privileged upbringing - very suspiciously.

It's a matter - for some - of saying, "Despite my unease with the debt (etc.), Obama and his wife can relate to my struggles far easier than Romney and his." It's not an invalid assertion. People just liked Bush more than Gore, and currently people just like Obama more than Romney. Likability matters a lot to the average American voter.

Steve USMA '85 said...

Based on what Mike said, maybe it isn't a matter of shoring up the base as much as continuing/increasing money donations from the particular group.

Darren said...

Mazenko, while I have no doubt that *you* believe that these mythical "Conservatives for Obama" exist in 2012, you'll forgive me for placing them in the Art Bell category along with Bigfoot, Nessie, the Bermuda Triangle, and unicorns. No thinking person who has a problem with Romney (he wasn't my guy at the beginning) would think Obama a better alternative to Romney's supposed faults.

Darren said...

Mazenko, while I have no doubt that *you* believe that these mythical "Conservatives for Obama" exist in 2012, you'll forgive me for placing them in the Art Bell category along with Bigfoot, Nessie, the Bermuda Triangle, and unicorns. No thinking person who has a problem with Romney (he wasn't my guy at the beginning) would think Obama a better alternative to Romney's supposed faults.

Anonymous said...

Mazenko: "Oh, I know plenty of conservatives who voted for him and probably will again."

Darren: "Mazenko, while I have no doubt that *you* believe that these mythical 'Conservatives for Obama' exist in 2012..."

Darren,

I'm pretty sure that a bunch of conservatives voted for Obama in 2008. For one thing, Thomas Sowell believes this:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/conservatives-for-obama.html

So the only part left to disagree with here is whether some of these folks will vote *against* Romney in 2012. What is so hard to believe that some of them will?

-Mark Roulo

P.S. I'd prefer that this not degenerate into a "No True Scotsman" argument :-) Romney is a fairly hard read. He was in favor of fairly liberal positions when he was governor of Massachusetts, now he is not. What does he really believe? Who knows. *I* find it odd that conservatives would be more comfortable with four years of Obama (my choice would be to vote 3rd party ...), but I don't find it unbelievable.

allen said...

Try to appreciate the problem faced by the likes of Mazenko.

Obama's signature piece of legislation is thin gruel indeed since it isn't anywhere near the socialized medicine system his ardent supporters were hoping for. Beyond that, there's not anywhere near the degree of social justice, i.e. redistributionism, they were hoping for and, in fact, Obama's caved on the Bush tax cuts not once but twice.

There are still troops in Afghanistan. Guantanamo Bay's still open for business. The drawdown in U.S. troops in Iraq has more to do with Bush then Obama and Obama's done zip trying advance gun control.

Invoking those mythical "Conservatives for Obama" is more an indication of the foreboding hanging over the heads of lefties then of any real voting bloc and also an indication of what Obama's trying to do with gay marriage - rousing his uncritical supporters by going all in as a lefty.

My guess is that the hope is that Obama will gain enough by engendering enthusiasm on the extreme left to offset the disappointment and suspicion in the middle and enmity on the right to squeak through to a second term.

mmazenko said...

You can't deny that he took a significant share of independents who identify as "conservative" in '08. Well, "you" could deny it, but you'd be wrong.

Despite what you'd like to believe, it's not just me - it's millions. We'll watch the unaffiliated and independent vote again - but that facts are on my side at this point.

MikeAT said...

mazenko

The question, how many “independent conservatives” did B Hussein Obama take from the RINO McCain? And what is your source please, I gave Darren mine.

I won’t deny many a conservative stayed home (I won’t hazard a guess how many) because they were disgusted at the choice of a RINO’s RINO who was considered as a VP candidate for John F Kerry (who by the way served in Vietnam). And yes, the young went for Obama. I’ve would use the term “young and stupid” and also they are great evidence of the wisdom of Churchill on age and politics. But they are not as enthused for the man-child this time. Inflation and a lack of jobs kinda sobers you up.

One thing BO doesn’t have that seriously helped him last time. A lack of a record. Before he had no record to defend and now he does. And in spite of the efforts of the objective media he is getting held to his record. It’s a record of unmitigated disaster (I won’t say failure because he wanted to do it so in his mind he was successful.) that any candidate would run from in complete fear. No wonder he has to come up with one false issue after another (war on women, gay marriage, etc).

allen said...

"Independents" and "Conservative for Obama" are two rather different groups and while it's true that independents voted for Obama in the '08 I'd say the 2010 mid-terms suggest the reason wasn't so much a delirious infatuation with distinctly left wing policies but anger at Republicans for not doing what they said they would do - reigning in those distinctly left wing policies.

The delirious infatuation was on the left where the prospect of electing a president on the basis of the color of his skin perfectly fit the preferences of that electorate with style over substance.