Caught A Little Of the Demo Convention Yesterday...

[Lord Jim]

Michelle Obama gave an excellent speech...

But that's no big surprise, Michelle always give an excellent speech at least on style points...

I didn't watch hours and hours of the coverage, and most of what I saw was the boilerplate and well worn talking points that I expected....

However one thing did sort of surprise me, and I really have to wonder about the political wisdom of this...

It seemed to me, at least from what I saw, that Obama's and the Democratic Platform's support for gay marriage really got a lot of very prominent play...

A whole series of speakers spoke glowingly about it...

I'm not suggesting that the Democrats should hide from their position on this...afterall having taken this step they might as well get some mileage out of it...

But it seems to me that in all likelihood those for whom gay marriage is a critical voting issue are already well aware of Obama and his party's official position, and will be pretty well motivated to vote for him....

But that making it such a featured part of their presentation to the country as they use these three days to show the average person "who they are" and what is important to them runs two unnecessary political risks, with little or no upside:

First, it could very well help drive up the conservative social issues voter turnout, that has never been all that thrilled about Romney...having the Democrats not just supporting gay marriage but getting "in their face" about it could well be the factor that gets some percentage of this vote to turnout that otherwise might stay home. (and in an election as close as this one is going to be, anything you do to drive up opposition turnout that could be avoided, should be avoided. Even a small uptick could flip a swing state that's vote is decided by a percentage point or less ...and right now the polling indicates there are a number important states that could easily be decided by that kind of margin.)

Second, it seems to me they also run the risk of suppressing their own vote in some key constituencies, (like Latinos) that oppose gay marriage by a larger margin than the fairly evenly divided overall public does.

And I believe they're taking even more damage on this because of the way the clips from yesterday's convention speeches , aside from snippets on Michelle Obama, tend to focus even more on the things said about gay marriage, giving the impression that it's an even a bigger theme for the Democrats than they intended to make it.

(This isn't just true of FOX news; it's being highlighted even on MSNBC, which is shamelessly in the tank for Obama, and operates basically as the broadcast arm of the DNC. I think some of their allies in the media are just so overjoyed about this, that they're running it prominently because they like it so much personally, without taking into account the larger political context....)

I just don't see the logic in highlighting something to the extent that the Demos seem to be doing that can easily motivate a portion of your opponents base, and suppress a portion of your own, with very little upside. Especially in an election that is likely to be tight as a tic, and tiny turnout swings can easily affect the outcome.

[Lord Jim]

This was rather amusing:

Dems Quickly Switch to Include "God," "Jerusalem"

Moments after convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa gaveled in day two of the Democratic Convention, the hall burst into chaos as Democrats voted to amend their party's platform to include the word "God" and name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Villaraigosa called the vote three times. The first two voice votes, which require a two-thirds majority to pass, were tied between "ays" and "nos." On the third vote it was still hard to tell whether he "ays" were audibly louder than the "nays" in the half-full arena.

When Villaraigosa announced "the ays have it," loud boos erupted across the arena.

An Obama campaign official said President Obama personally requested that "God" be put back into the platform. "Why did they change that?" Obama said, according to the official, when he heard the word had been removed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dem ... Ef3fKAoqNM

If you follow that link, you can see a video of the votes. (It's only about 2 minutes long.) Villaraigosa really seems to have been caught like a deer in the headlights....

Under Democratic Party rules, a 2/3 vote was required to overrule the language of the platform committee....

If you watch the video, there's no way in hell that they got that; in fact it's highly questionable that they even got a majority. Even the third vote sounds like a tie. Why didn't anyone appeal the ruling of the chair and demand a polling of the delegations?

That would have been beautiful....

The Democrats having a floor fight on national television over whether or not to mention God in their party platform....

But it's easy to understand why Obama would want Him mentioned...

As a good Muslim, of course he wanted God mentioned.....

[loCAtek]

Psssst, As a good Muslim, he'd want Allah mentioned, not just any god...

[oldr_n_wsr]

How does one determine (with any kind of accuracy) a 2/3 majority by a voice vote?

[Scooter]

That's the point, if it isn't glaringly obvious, some other voting method needs to be used to verify it. But as Jim said, no one wanted that drama to play out on television, so they pretended it had passed, hence the reaction of the crowd.

[rubato]

Bill did a great job. Good speech.

Best president at reducing the deficit in 50 years. Best economic performance in 50 years,

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Does anyone else find it telling that we had to wait for the Democratic conventions to hear someone say positive things about George W. Bush?

[dgs49]

While the conventions are intended to act as "pep rallies" for the party faithful, and one would hope that they accomplish that, the more relevant question to be asked is, will the proceedings affect the votes of anyone who is not already committed one way or another? Less likely but I suppose possibly, one might ask whether anyone committed to one candidate would actually be swayed to the other candidate or party by what s/he sees at the convention?

I was hopeful last week that some of that we being accomplished, but don't think it happened in any significant numbers. This week? Can't say.

The prominence of the gay marriage discussion will possibly energize semi-committed Lefties, but will remind neutrals and Righties how extreme the Democrat party has become. This is a total non-issue for most Americans. Net: a wash.

As for WJC's influence on the undecided, I just don't see it. Even if you saw the "Monica Lewinsky Thing" as a purely partisan witch-hunt, the man clearly disgraced the office of the Presidency and no one outside the smallest Democrat zealot's tent would take him seriously on anything important. And his endorsement of Barry can have no real meaning to anyone who has followed his public comments over the past five years - it merely reinforces the notion that he is now, as he was always, a complete political hack, willing to say ANYTHING for political gain.

It is with some regret that I acknowledge that both time constraints and my sensitive stomach have prevented me from seeing more than a few snippets of the Democrat convention so far. I will be at a local Republican rally this evening (Mike Turzai, my state (Republican) legislator), so will "miss" the proceedings again. Pity.

[Scooter]

Dave can't get over the fact that Clinton is probably the most popular ex-president since George Washington.

[Grim Reaper]

Leaving the office with a surplus is apparently a disgrace.

[Jarlaxle]

Dave can't get over the fact that Clinton is probably the most popular ex-president since George Washington.

Too bad he is a vile, despicable human veing, the worst PERSON to be President since Nixon.

[Guinevere]

Dave can't get over the fact that Clinton is probably the most popular ex-president since George Washington.

Too bad he is a vile, despicable human veing, the worst PERSON to be President since Nixon.

Yet scads of Americans disagree with you.

Bill is arrogant and conceited, and too smart for his own good. But he's not evil and he has the very best intentions.

Unlike, say George W. Bush, who was arrogant and conceited and not smart enough to hide that he had no intentions other than furthering his own vile interests and those of his oil-soaked cronies.

[dgs49]

I would be interested to see an actual scientific poll of Americans old enough to have experienced Clinton's presidency as an adult, to learn the opinion of the masses.

The Non-Fox media has successfully suppressed the fact that Clinton produced no surpluses until the heart-stoppingly coincidental Gingrich Revolution, at which point the Democrats were jettisoned from power in Congress after 50 years of fiscal mismanagement. But then, the President controls spending and taxes in our Constitutional system, doesn't he?

Doesn't he?

Oh well, maybe not.

Even on this myopic board, only rubato clings to the silly supposition that WJC had anything to do with the surpluses.

Bill Clinton, unlike Barry, is not and never was evil. Just a pragmatist. Would that Barry were so harmless.

[Guinevere]

I have spoken to two middle of the road MA Dems who were considering Romney and after hearing the First Lady and then Bill, have become undecided, and will vote for the President. BTW, neither were happy about the Ryan choice, either.

[oldr_n_wsr]

That's the point, if it isn't glaringly obvious, some other voting method needs to be used to verify it. But as Jim said, no one wanted that drama to play out on television, so they pretended it had passed, hence the reaction of the crowd.

They should have showed the American people how the "system" plays out and at the very least did a show of hands and counted. Instead it just looked (sounded?) foolish.

[Scooter]

Totally agree. But then they would have been the party that voted against God...

They shouldn't have risen to the bait in the first place. Anyone who cares whether God is mentioned in the platform ain't voting Democrat.

[Gob]

. But he's not evil and he has the very best intentions.

"Getting laid" is the very best intention.

[rubato]

I would be interested to see an actual scientific poll of Americans old enough to have experienced Clinton's presidency as an adult, to learn the opinion of the masses.

The Non-Fox media has successfully suppressed the fact that Clinton produced no surpluses until the heart-stoppingly coincidental Gingrich Revolution, at which point the Democrats were jettisoned from power in Congress after 50 years of fiscal mismanagement. But then, the President controls spending and taxes in our Constitutional system, doesn't he?

Doesn't he?

Oh well, maybe not.

Data from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911

As a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

year …….. Discretionary
1991 …….. 9.0
1992 …….. 8.6
1993 …….. 8.2 <-- first Clinton budget year
1994 …….. 7.8
1995 …….. 7.4
1996 …….. 6.9
1997 …….. 6.7
1998 …….. 6.4
1999 …….. 6.2
2000 …….. 6.3
2001 …….. 6.3 <-- last Clinton budget year
2002 …….. 7.0 <-- Republicans go on a spending spree!
2003 …….. 7.5 <-- Republicans go on a spending spree!

Clinton eliminated the deficit by cutting discretionary spending as a % of GDP deeply throughout his term. He did this by holding discretionary spending flat for 4 years, 2 with democratic congresses. Bush exploded the deficit by increasing spending and then borrowing $270 B/yr in tax cuts for the rich as well.

The surpluses appeared after several years of eliminating the deficit. Hence the timing.

I realize that you don't like facts and will never be influenced by them, you're a Republican, but for the sake of others ...


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Does anyone else find it telling that we had to wait for the Democratic conventions to hear someone say positive things about George W. Bush?

Or even say anything about him. Or the Republican majorities he ruled with which produced those huge deficits and then a horrific economic collapse.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

They booed God and secretly longed for the Soviet Union. My Party, the party do Andrew Jackson, is controlled by anti God pro-communist activist, but I may vote for the president anyway; it all depends on the debates. The republicans have to convince me that SS, Medicaid and Medicare as well as our social well fare system that takes care of our helpless citizens will be safe.
It is the republican candidate’s election to lose.