[Krauser Kat]

So this guy started trolling my friend when he posted angry stuff about constitutional amendment.

[eznark]

Can the Dems beat Mourdock? The guy basically says Medicare and social security are unconstitutional. Can't you make that into a commercial and run it a zillion times to get old people to vote against him?

I would have said so on Monday. Today? No. He has a piiiiiiile of money as well. They spent like half a million in the last week when they were already up 10 (and more internally). Mourdock is also going to pick up the vast majority of the Libertarian votes (if the LPIN convention a couple weeks ago was any indication). Donnelly had significant name recognition advantages in the March poll and it went 35/35/7 (Horning, the Libertarian). Now? Mourdock just knocked off the most lionized political figure in Indiana.

Comparisons to O'Donnell are a bit ludicrous. She was a fucking lunatic in addition to an ideologue. Mourdock has a resume as a state politician and has been in the Daniels administration.

Had Lugar been able to keep it close I would give Donnelly a shot. Now? It'll be 8-10 points.

All that said, I haven't heard anything about turnout. Maybe Mourdock won because turnout was low from disgusted GOP moderates? I asked the folks at my polling place and they said it seemed about normal (so probably a few dozen!)

Huge turnout for the Republicans in a meaningless election in Wisconsin. I'd like to revise my prediction of him winning by 5 to him winning by 8. They need something to break in the John Doe investigation at this point.

[sc0la]

Which one's your blog?

...

Read his user name, then read the second paragraph of the linked story again.

:P

[eznark]

This is a good read on the positives both sides can take from the Wisconsin primaries:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/1...rt=newestfirst

In the GOP bastion of Waukesha County, about 27% of voting-age adults (79,049 people) voted for Walker. In the Democratic bastion of Dane County, about 28% of voting-age adults (105,437) voted for a Democratic candidate for governor. In effect, Republican Waukesha matched Democratic Dane’s turnout rate despite the fact that the GOP primary was meaningless. The Walker turnout phenomenon in the juggernaut GOP “WOW” counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington) is to many Democrats the single most daunting obstacle to defeating the incumbent governor. “That group is extremely mobilized,” Robert Kraig of the liberal advocacy group, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, said in interview hours before the polls closed Tuesday. “They’re every bit as passionate as Walker opponents. It’s overwhelming (in those suburban counties) … It means that we need top mobilization just to match it … We need to perform at a top level across every constituency, because they’re going to.” That’s why the size of the vote in Milwaukee June 5 is a major question for Democrats. Of the party’s two geographic bases, Madison is reliably high-turnout and unmistakably and deeply engaged in the recall fight. The city of Milwaukee is not reliably high-turnout and it remains to be seen how deeply engaged its voters are in the recall fight. Milwaukee Mayor Barrett enjoyed his biggest countywide margins in Milwaukee County Tuesday. But the county’s turnout rate was much lower than Dane’s: 17% of voting-age adults, or 123,638 people, voted in the Democratic primary. The turnout gap between Dane and Milwaukee is nothing new. But it will be vital for Democrats to narrow that gap and drive up Milwaukee turnout June 5 in order to offset the huge turnout Walker is expected to generate in the suburban counties outside Milwaukee.

While that's good news for Walker supporters, the thing that most (including myself) have probably been underplaying is that this is a vote against Walker, not for Barrett. It's very possible that the 400,000 people who signed the recall petitions but didn't show up for the primary are simply waiting for their chance to vote against Walker and were thus unconcerned about the primary.

The counter-argument is that Walker is the motivating force for Democrats as much as he is for Republicans, and that voting against him next month will be far more mobilizing for them than Tuesday’s primary was. Either way, it’s a turnout game. Both sides have now shown in very concrete ways they are highly motivated. But it’s probably fair to say that between now and June 5, the bigger turnout questions are on the Democratic side.

Listening to local radio and talking to a handful of folks in the state though, Walker supporters are very, very happy today.

[Skiptastic]

All that said, I haven't heard anything about turnout. Maybe Mourdock won because turnout was low from disgusted GOP moderates? I asked the folks at my polling place and they said it seemed about normal (so probably a few dozen!)

I didn't ask, but from reading the Indy Star twitter and Matthew Tully's comments, it sounded like there was a large number of moderate Republicans who stayed home. Which is dumb because it hands the race to Mourdock, who isn't moderate at all.

Fuck it, I'm voting Donnelly. Never thought I'd do that, but I'm gonna.

PS. I should have known you were a transit wonk, james, and I shoulda asked you for secondary data for a project I did in my marketing research class. We did a project on whether Central Indiana residents would support the now delayed referendum on increased public transportation, which would include light rail from the north side to downtown and increased bus routes/frequency lol.

[eznark]

I didn't ask, but from reading the Indy Star twitter and Matthew Tully's comments, it sounded like there was a large number of moderate Republicans who stayed home. Which is dumb because it hands the race to Mourdock, who isn't moderate at all. Fuck it, I'm voting Donnelly. Never thought I'd do that, but I'm gonna.

I found it strange that the Star didn't mention turnout at all when discussing the results. They seemed to be looking for ways to make it seem like it will be close. Hell, maybe it will be but I doubt it. Of course, the only real feel I have is South of Indy but down here people are in love with Mourdock.

[Skiptastic]

I found it strange that the Star didn't mention turnout at all when discussing the results. They seemed to be looking for ways to make it seem like it will be close. Hell, maybe it will be but I doubt it. Of course, the only real feel I have is South of Indy but down here people are in love with Mourdock.

Yeah, I'm in Indy/north burbs and there were plenty of signs for both sides. Knowing my city (Carmel) I'm guessing there was more support for Lugar than Mourdock, but who knows. I'm voting Donnelly, but I'm guessing you're right that Mourdock is going to take the Senate fairly easily. He shellacked Lugar.

[Tim-E]

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/joe_...ith_being_old/

A few months old, but I had no idea there were rumblings of Biden potentially running in 2016. Despite him being old, I'd honestly probably vote for him.

[eznark]

Yeah, I'm in Indy/north burbs and there were plenty of signs for both sides. Knowing my city (Carmel) I'm guessing there was more support for Lugar than Mourdock, but who knows. I'm voting Donnelly, but I'm guessing you're right that Mourdock is going to take the Senate fairly easily. He shellacked Lugar.

I don't get why he is going to align himself with Gregg, who is going to get destroyed. I think that will end up hurting him. Maybe he just wants to share the stage with the greatest campaign sign in history?



Also go to greggforgovernor and check out the favicon! Coolest thing ever!

[thefro]

I would have said so on Monday. Today? No. He has a piiiiiiile of money as well. They spent like half a million in the last week when they were already up 10 (and more internally). Mourdock is also going to pick up the vast majority of the Libertarian votes (if the LPIN convention a couple weeks ago was any indication). Donnelly had significant name recognition advantages in the March poll and it went 35/35/7 (Horning, the Libertarian). Now? Mourdock just knocked off the most lionized political figure in Indiana. Comparisons to O'Donnell are a bit ludicrous. She was a fucking lunatic in addition to an ideologue. Mourdock has a resume as a state politician and has been in the Daniels administration. Had Lugar been able to keep it close I would give Donnelly a shot. Now? It'll be 8-10 points. All that said, I haven't heard anything about turnout. Maybe Mourdock won because turnout was low from disgusted GOP moderates? I asked the folks at my polling place and they said it seemed about normal (so probably a few dozen!)

Turnout wasn't that great. Democrats didn't cross over because Donnelly can beat Mourdock. I'm not sure why you think Donnelly has more name recognition than Mourdock who's won a statewide ballot race 2x (nobody knows who Donnelly is outside the 2nd district).

I don't get why he is going to align himself with Gregg, who is going to get destroyed. I think that will end up hurting him. Maybe he just wants to share the stage with the greatest campaign sign in history? Also go to greggforgovernor and check out the favicon! Coolest thing ever!

Why does everyone think Mike Pence is some kind of unstoppable juggernaut? He's always ran for Congress in a ridiclously gerrymandered district. He's nowhere close to a Mitch Daniels.

[eznark]

^ Money mostly, at least that's why I think he'll run away with it. Also the latest poll has Pence up 13 and he hasn't even started spending yet.

Turnout wasn't that great. Democrats didn't cross over because Donnelly can beat Mourdock. I'm not sure why you think Donnelly has more name recognition than Mourdock who's won a statewide ballot race 2x (nobody knows who Donnelly is outside the 2nd district).

Nobody knows who the state treasurer is. That's a party line vote. Donnelly has been pretty involved in a number of jobs initiatives and has participated and hosted some union events. I'm not saying he is some sort of rock star but he is known outside of the district for that work.

[Skiptastic]

^ Money mostly, at least that's why I think he'll run away with it. Also the latest poll has Pence up 13 and he hasn't even started spending yet.

Name recognition and a turn against Obama also helps. Pence may have been elected in an easy district, but he's been out in front of the cameras on a national scale since. Gregg was only in Indiana and hasn't been in public office for ten years. That doesn't help.

[eznark]

Name recognition and a turn against Obama also helps. Pence may have been elected in an easy district, but he's been out in front of the cameras on a national scale since. Gregg was only in Indiana and hasn't been in public office for ten years. That doesn't help.

The problem with Indiana is that the big money has already lost in the state. There are no union fights left, which means there is no big money to come in and fund some of these guys. Meanwhile hard right groups are pouring money in because it is still a presidential battleground state and people like CFG have realized the power of Governor seats.

[Skiptastic]

The problem with Indiana is that the big money has already lost in the state. There are no union fights left, which means there is no big money to come in and fund some of these guys. Meanwhile hard right groups are pouring money in because it is still a presidential battleground state and people like CFG have realized the power of Governor seats.

I mentioned it earlier, but I'm upset with My Man Mitch for not having a succession plan for the governor's seat. He should have replaced Becky Skillman in 2008 with someone who was a business minded GOP Hoosier in his mold to run in 2012. Really dropped the ball and I worry about Pence in the governor's seat. He seems like a guy who could shift focus off of bringing businesses in and go for social conservative BS that our state doesn't need.

[eznark]

I mentioned it earlier, but I'm upset with My Man Mitch for not having a succession plan for the governor's seat. He should have replaced Becky Skillman in 2008 with someone who was a business minded GOP Hoosier in his mold to run in 2012. Really dropped the ball and I worry about Pence in the governor's seat. He seems like a guy who could shift focus off of bringing businesses in and go for social conservative BS that our state doesn't need.

I think there is a real possibility he acts essentially as a caretaker Governor, especially if Obama wins, as he'll be a real possibility for 2016.

[speculawyer]

^ Money mostly, at least that's why I think he'll run away with it. Also the latest poll has Pence up 13 and he hasn't even started spending yet. Nobody knows who the state treasurer is. That's a party line vote. Donnelly has been pretty involved in a number of jobs initiatives and has participated and hosted some union events. I'm not saying he is some sort of rock star but he is known outside of the district for that work.

I don't know Indiana politics . . . but they did vote for Obama last time. I think the Dems may have decent chance of beating Mourdock by showing that he is a bit of a Tea party nut. There is some good material for commercials.

Democrats have held back opposition research on Mourdock in the hope that he would win the primary. Now that he has, we can expect a barrage of stored-up attacks. "This dude is Ken Buck," one Democratic operative said, in reference to the failed Republican Senate in Colorado in 2010. If Democrats deliver on their claims about Mourdock, we could find out he is Christine O'Donnell, after all. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a memo this morning from Executive Director Guy Cecil outlining some (or maybe all) of what's in store. Cecil wrote: · Mourdock spent $2 million of taxpayer money on a lawsuit that could have endangered 124,000 Indiana jobs, including 4,000 high-paying jobs in Kokomo, Indi., by killing Chrysler's bankruptcy restructuring. Mourdock called the lawsuit his " Rosa Parks moment ." Mourdock's Tea Party opposition to the entire auto industry rescue could have cost the state 140,000 jobs in total. · In his defense, Mourdock says, "I didn't take a pledge that I would support every job in Indiana under whatever means it takes to do it." · Mourdock says that "I think there needs to be more partisanship" in Washington. · Mourdock has questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare. Before Tuesday's primary, Donnelly's campaign was more sanguine about its chances against Mourdock. Internal polling from March, a campaign official said, showed Donnelly leading Mourdock by single digits while he trailed Lugar by 20 percentage points. Internal polling is never to be relied upon, but the Donnelly campaign was vocal about its chances against Mourdock, more so than against Lugar.

http://news.yahoo.com/dick-lugars-in...-politics.html

[eznark]

I don't know Indiana politics . . . but they did vote for Obama last time. I think the Dems may have decent chance of beating Mourdock by showing that he is a bit of a Tea party nut. There is some good material for commercials. http://news.yahoo.com/dick-lugars-in...-politics.html

A lot depends on the first few rounds of polling now that the primaries are over. If they are relatively close then maybe Donnelly can get some money but I think they will focus on other seats personally. Remember there are a ton of close senate seats this fall, so there will be some triage going on.

Were I a Dem strategist it would make more sense to me to spend money on keeping a seat like Kohl's than trying to take the Indiana seat in a year when Dems probably won't have a lot of enthusiasm here.

[Flying_Phoenix]

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't. But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control. The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard. Last time it was Republicans who were against a flip-flopping, out-of-touch elitist from Massachusetts, and now it's Democrats. - Brendan Nyhan, political scientist, Dartmouth College Nyhan cited the work of political commentator Jonathan Chait, who has drawn a contrast between the upcoming 2012 election between President Obama and the likely Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and the 2004 election between President Bush and John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts. "Last time it was Republicans who were against a flip-flopping, out-of-touch elitist from Massachusetts, and now it's Democrats," Nyhan said. Nyhan also contrasted the outrage in 2004 among Democrats who felt that Bush was politicizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for political gain, and the outrage today among Republicans who feel the Obama re-election campaign is exploiting the killing of Osama bin Laden. "The whole political landscape has flipped," Nyhan said. Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president. Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views? Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views. "One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."

QUOTED the whole thing because I felt like it

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

QUOTED the whole thing because I felt like it

It's crazy, isn't it. Partisan politics is worse than religion in terms of ignoring facts for a rigid ideology.

[balladofwindfishes]

I don't think the comparisons of using 9/11 versus using Bin Laden is fair. One was a national tragedy, while the other was a military victory.

9/11 was a horrible event that nobody wants to remember. Lots of people died, and no politician was responsible for it happening or not happening.

Killing Bin Laden, on the opposite end, was a huge victory and a great example of leadership of the President. It was a much more positive event and, unlike 9/11, can actually be used by the President as a sign of his good leadership.
With 9/11, the GOP was just tugging at heartstrings and using obscene nationalism to try and stir up votes.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I don't think the comparisons of using 9/11 versus using Bin Laden is fair. One was a national tragedy, while the other was a military victory. 9/11 was a horrible event that nobody wants to remember. Lots of people died, and no politician was responsible for it happening or not happening. Killing Bin Laden, on the opposite end, was a huge victory and a great example of leadership of the President. It was a much more positive event and, unlike 9/11, can actually be used by the President as a sign of his good leadership. With 9/11, the GOP was just tugging at heartstrings and using obscene nationalism to try and stir up votes.

The problem lies in the way the killing of Bin Laden was used by Obama. Obama did not have to lower himself to use it as a purely partisan (and stupid) attack against Romney. He could have done it in a much more appealing, honest way.
Dumb politics.

[TacticalFox88]

It's crazy, isn't it. Partisan politics is worse than religion in terms of ignoring facts for a rigid ideology.

Let's not get crazy now.

[speculawyer]

It's crazy, isn't it. Partisan politics is worse than religion in terms of ignoring facts for a rigid ideology.

It is not worse, it is the same. It is the very same people doing the very same thing.

The same people who think the world is the 6000 years old are the same people who think Obama is a commie for proposing a 38% tax rate even though it was 70% under Nixon and 90% under Eisenhower.

[speculawyer]

The problem lies in the way the killing of Bin Laden was used by Obama. Obama did not have to lower himself to use it as a purely partisan (and stupid) attack against Romney. He could have done it in a much more appealing, honest way. Dumb politics.

LOL. As if the GOP wouldn't be touting it 24/7 on Fox News and you damn well know it.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

LOL. As if the GOP wouldn't be touting it 24/7 on Fox News and you damn well know it.

Yes. They would. Thats partisan politics.

[eznark]

LOL. As if the GOP wouldn't be touting it 24/7 on Fox News and you damn well know it.

Isn't that the point of the article?

[el retorno]

He could have done it in a much more appealing, honest way. Dumb politics.

How could he have made the point that Romney said that Obama was stupid for proposing the idea that got bin laden. Without has you say, dumb politics?

[Allard]

The problem lies in the way the killing of Bin Laden was used by Obama. Obama did not have to lower himself to use it as a purely partisan (and stupid) attack against Romney. He could have done it in a much more appealing, honest way. Dumb politics.

This is actually why I have an issue with that paper. Most democrats don't cheer for the president or deride the republicans for being upset at championing the killing, they are upset that the republicans would have the gall to even make such an accusation after what happened under Bush. In a perfect world we would acknowledge what it took on all sides of the coin to make a positive achievement and no side would need to boast to another. But after going through so many years being called unpatriotic for having a different opinion on what needed to be done after 9/11, and being forced under this veil for 8+ years and then when someone on our side makes an achievement that counters this absurd argument the opposition has the balls to try and bring up "Shouldn't politicize a uniting victory!" when just before that happened they go out of there way to give no credit to Obama for making a tough call and said it was ONLY on the navy seals that accomplished the mission.

Almost all the 'flip-flopping' positions the Dems have made in the past 4 years can be attributed to this, its not that we like what is happening, most of us do make a point to say we would rather it happened differently, but what we get testy about is the opposing side making such a flagrant flip-flop after all that they did prior, as if they want to rewrite and tell us that kind of crap didn't happen during the Bush years.

[Dude Abides]

Sorry if already posted, but here's a good piece from NY Mag about St. Paul Ryan.

http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/

The persistent belief in the existence of an authentic, deficit hawk Ryan not only sweeps aside the ugly particulars of his agenda, it also ignores, well, pretty much everything he has done in his entire career, and pretty much everything he has said until about two years ago. In 2005, Ryan spoke at a gathering of Ayn Rand enthusiasts, where he declared, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” Ryan has listed Rand’s manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, as one of his three most often reread books, and in 2003, he told The Weekly Standard he tries to make his interns read it. Rand is a useful touchstone to understand Ryan’s public philosophy. She centered libertarian philosophy around a defense of capitalism in general and, in particular, a conception of politics as a class war pitting virtuous producers against parasites who illegitimately use the power of the state to seize their wealth. Ludwig von Mises, whom Ryan has also cited as an influence, once summed up Rand’s philosophy in a letter to her: “You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: You are inferior and all the improvements in your condition which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.” Ryan now frequently casts his opposition to Obama in technocratic terms, but he hasn’t always done so. “It is not enough to say that President Obama’s taxes are too big or the health-care plan doesn’t work for this or that policy reason,” Ryan said in 2009. “It is the morality of what is occurring right now, and how it offends the morality of individuals working toward their own free will to produce, to achieve, to succeed, that is under attack, and it is that what I think Ayn Rand would be commenting on.” Ryan’s philosophical opposition to a government that forces the “makers” to subsidize the “takers”—terms he still employs—is foundational; the policy details are secondary. ... Ryan has, retroactively, depicted himself as a dissenter from the fiscal profligacy of the Bush administration, and reporters have mostly accepted his account at face value. (“Ryan watched his party’s leadership inflate the deficit by cutting tax rates like Kemp conservatives while spending like Kardashians,” wrote Time last year.) In reality, Ryan was a staunch ally in Bush’s profligacy, dissenting only to urge Bush to jack up the deficit even more. “We noticed that the green-eyeshade, austerity wing of the party was afraid of class warfare,” Ryan said during Bush’s first term. “They fear increases in the debt, and they were overlooking issues of growth, opportunity, and free markets.” For those uninitiated in the tribal lingo of Beltway conservatives, this may sound like gibberish. But those inside the conservative subculture invest these buzzwords with deep meaning. “Green eyeshade” is a term of abuse appropriated by the supply-siders to describe Republicans who still cared more about deficit control than cutting taxes. “Growth” and “opportunity” mean tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, and “class warfare” means any criticism thereof. Ryan’s centrist admirers hear his frequent confessions that both parties have failed as an ideological concession. What he means is that Republicans were insufficiently fanatical in their devotion to cutting taxes for the rich. In 2001, Ryan led a coterie of conservatives who complained that George W. Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut was too small, and too focused on the middle class. In 2003, he lobbied Republicans to pass Bush’s deficit-­financed prescription-drug benefit, which bestowed huge profits on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In 2005, when Bush campaigned to introduce private accounts into Social Security, Ryan fervently crusaded for the concept. He was the sponsor in the House of a bill to create new private accounts funded entirely by borrowing, with no benefit cuts. Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.”

[cartoon_soldier]

Everybody thinks Obama will come out in support for Gay Marriage in today's ABC interview, around 3pm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

Especially because WH cancelled the 3pm briefing. If true, this will be the biggest curve-ball thrown into the race.

[ToxicAdam]

QUOTED the whole thing because I felt like it

Nice piece.

The same could be said about debt/deficit spending concerns and 'mediscare' (for lack of a better term) tactics. Both parties have used it to knock the other when they are not in power. Usually their base has responded in kind.

[thatbox]

Everybody thinks Obama will come out in support for Gay Marriage in today's ABC interview, around 3pm http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg Especially because WH cancelled the 3pm briefing. If true, this will be the biggest curve-ball thrown into the race.

Yes, please. I want this so badly, but I'm terrified of firing up evangelicals. Are there any polling numbers about their enthusiasm with/without this?

[speculawyer]

Michele Bachmann is now a Swiss citizen. The Minnesota congresswoman and former Republican presidential candidate was recently granted dual citizenship, Bachmann's office confirmed Tuesday night, according to CNN. "Congresswoman Bachmann's husband is of Swiss descent so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978," spokeswoman Becky Rogness said in a statement. "However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family." And, according to an interview with Swiss TV, Bachmann, who is currently seeking a fourth term in Congress after her failed bid for the White House, is now also eligible to run for office in the tiny European country.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...054706406.html

Of course there is nothing wrong with her doing that. But live by the bullshit rhetoric, die by the bullshit rhetoric . . . she deserves to be mocked mercilessly after questioning everyone else's patriotism and then becoming a citizen of a foreign nation.

[Miletius]

Everybody thinks Obama will come out in support for Gay Marriage in today's ABC interview, around 3pm http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg Especially because WH cancelled the 3pm briefing. If true, this will be the biggest curve-ball thrown into the race.

This would be fantastic.

[polyh3dron]

WHAT?

OBAMA IS EVOLVING!

[Invisible_Insane]

This would be fantastic.

Not electorally.

[speculawyer]

Everybody thinks Obama will come out in support for Gay Marriage in today's ABC interview, around 3pm http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg Especially because WH cancelled the 3pm briefing. If true, this will be the biggest curve-ball thrown into the race.

If I were him, I'd not talk about the issue at all. He got rid of DADT. Romney wants to bring it back. Romney is on board for banning all gay marriage. We know where the two stand, no need to further talk about the issue. Gay marriage is a certainty in due time.

Yeah, I know, many will call that cowardice. Whatever. A pragmatic politician in office can do far more than an idealist on the sideline.

[Miletius]

Not electorally.

That's kind of why I doubt it's going to happen.

[Blearth]

Not electorally.

It would get young people back in the voting booth in November.

[Tim-E]

The people who would not vote for someone specifically because of this issue wouldn't vote for Obama either way, so he might as well. It's obviously an issue I think he supports in private, but he just comes off as weak when he dances around it with his "evolving" talk. Might as well take a stance and not pussyfoot around it because I think that draws just as much negative attention.

[thefro]

A lot depends on the first few rounds of polling now that the primaries are over. If they are relatively close then maybe Donnelly can get some money but I think they will focus on other seats personally. Remember there are a ton of close senate seats this fall, so there will be some triage going on. Were I a Dem strategist it would make more sense to me to spend money on keeping a seat like Kohl's than trying to take the Indiana seat in a year when Dems probably won't have a lot of enthusiasm here.

Yes, but you've got to play offense somewhere, and I still think Obama being on the ballot is going to help, not hurt. If Romney starts tanking I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama put some money into Indiana.

As someone who lives here in Indiana, I don't think the core of the state has really changed. You're going to see this state getting redder in the State House and you're not going to see any Congressional Districts flip back to blue that are Republican held right now, but that's due to Republicans redrawing the maps for both those.

[Invisible_Insane]

It would get young people back in the voting booth in November.

Based on what evidence?

The people who would not vote for someone specifically because of this issue wouldn't vote for Obama either way, so he might as well.

That's not really the issue. Putting marriage equality on the DNC platform is handing values voters a club to beat them with, and is likely to drive up turnout among social conservatives a la 2004.

[markatisu]

It would get young people back in the voting booth in November.

Yup and with women and the Hispanic vote it would counter any mobilization on the religious side

Not to mention the religious power center resides in a lot of states Obama won't win anyway.

Gay Marriage is not going to turn states like Ohio and Iowa. If you think it will you would do good to read Nate Silver's article about gay marriage and the 50 states (polling and reactions to it)

[Tim-E]

Based on what evidence? That's not really the issue. Putting marriage equality on the DNC platform is handing values voters a club to beat them with, and is likely to drive up turnout among social conservatives a la 2004.

It's possible, but I think Obama has a pretty safe electoral coushion to fall back on. I'd rather him be honest about how he feels instead of coming off as weak for not taking a position one way or the other.

[Dax01]

Based on what evidence?

Anecdotal for sure, but a lot of first-time voters in the 18-29 bracket came out and voted during the primaries here in NC. But that may not apply as an issue with others rather than by itself.

[eznark]

Yes, but you've got to play offense somewhere, and I still think Obama being on the ballot is going to help, not hurt. If Romney starts tanking I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama put some money into Indiana. As someone who lives here in Indiana, I don't think the core of the state has really changed. You're going to see this state getting redder in the State House and you're not going to see any Congressional Districts flip back to blue that are Republican held right now, but that's due to Republicans redrawing the maps for both those.

Hope so, it'll be way more interesting if it is close. I just don't really see it but then down here in the 6th it's as red as red can be.

[cartoon_soldier]

I am on the side that Obama shouldn't come out in support either. We saw how NC voted, and even though national polling might show support for gay marriage right now, it never translates to the voting booth.

I am not really sure this would help him in the swing states of Ohio, VA, NC, Florida at all, and probably hurt him a bit in PA (but probably not enough to make it a swing state)

[Captain Pants]

I'm 100% for gay marriage to be legal, but that seems like a disaster in an election year. Wouldn't it weaken some of Obama's support in the black community as well as riling up the elderly and the evangelicals? It seems like something you do after you've secured a second term.

edit: Not to mention that the Hispanic vote consists mostly of Catholics.

[Invisible_Insane]

Anecdotal for sure, but a lot of first-time voters in the 18-29 bracket came out and voted during the primaries here in NC. But that may not apply as an issue with others rather than by itself.

You mean the 2012 Democratic primary? Or 2008? In any case, I'm not sure I see how that touches on what I'm saying--I don't think there's very many people who are going to be driven to the polls by Obama's support for gay marriage, but I can see the opposite being true.

[Tim-E]

People complain that he lacks conviction because he won't take a stance on the issue, yet I fully expect people to complain if he does come out for it because it is politically dangerous. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In this case, I'd like to see some honesty because this issue isn't going away.