Nate Silver:
There’s already plenty of bad punditry regarding the chances of Hillary Clinton — who officially announced her candidacy on Sunday — to become the 45th president. You can find Democrats boasting about their “blue wall” in the Electoral College and how hard this will make it for any Republican to win. Or Republicans warning that the Democratic Party rarely wins three elections in a row.
Most of this analysis is flimsy. So is the commentary about the ups-and-downs in early swing state polls. And when you see some pundit declaring a minor misstep to be a “game changer,” find someone else to follow on Twitter.
The truth is that a general election win by Clinton — she’s very likely to become the Democratic nominee — is roughly a 50/50 proposition. And we’re not likely to learn a lot over the rest of 2015 to change that. Here’s why:
Incumbency and Obama’s Approval Rating. Start with the fact that there’s no incumbent president running. There actually haven’t been a lot of cases that precisely meet the circumstances voters will face next year: Barack Obama, assuming he serves out the rest of his term, will become just the fifth president limited by the 22nd Amendment from seeking an additional term in office.1 This is slightly different from the case where an incumbent voluntarily declines to run again.2 Still, the evidence we have from presidential elections and from other contexts like gubernatorial elections is that these cases default to being toss-ups.
Clinton’s chances will be affected by Obama’s popularity as he exits office. The relationship between the popularity of the previous president and the performance of the new nominee from his party isn’t perfect — Al Gore (narrowly) lost in 2000 despite Bill Clinton’s popularity, for example — but it certainly matters some, especially given that Clinton served in Obama’s cabinet.
However, Obama currently has an approval rating of about 45 percent, and a favorability rating of 48 percent — about average, in other words. If those numbers decline into the low 40s or climb into the 50s, they could matter more, producing either a “hangover effect” or “halo effect” for Clinton. But don’t bet on this: Obama’s approval ratings have been extraordinarily stubborn for most of his presidency, rarely deviating much from the mid-40s.
The Economy. I’d warn against simplistic economic “fundamentalism,” the notion that the economy is pretty much the only thing that matters. We’ll save the technical discussion for later, but because of a problem known asoverfitting, statistical models that claim to make remarkably precise predictions about election outcomes from economic variables alone (without looking at polls) have a mediocre track record.
Still, the economy will matter a lot to voters, and a better economy will help Clinton, the candidate from the incumbent party. As Byron York points out, you should be wary of claims that 2016 will be a “foreign policy election.”3
Like Obama’s approval ratings, however, the performance of the American economy has been about average recently. GDP grew by 2.4 percent in 2014, adjusted for inflation, close to the historical average. Furthermore, we know relatively little about what economic growth will look like a year from now, when the general election campaign heats up. Historically, economists have shown almost no ability to predict the rate of economic growth more than six months in advance.
The Electoral College And The “Emerging Democratic Majority.” What about that “blue wall” — the supposed advantage that Democrats hold in the Electoral College?
Mostly, the “blue wall” was the effect of Obama’s success in 2008 and 2012, not the cause of it. If the economy had collapsed in the summer of 2012, Obama would probably have lost the election, and most of those blue states would have turned red.
It’s true that in both elections, the “tipping-point state” (in both years it was Colorado) was slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole. That implies Obama would have won if the popular vote had been very close. But it would have had to be very close indeed — within a percentage point or two.
That advantage is small enough that it might have been the result of circumstances peculiar to Obama and his campaign. If Clinton has an ever-so-slightly different coalition — say more working-class whites vote for her but fewer African-Americans — this small advantage could evaporate or reverse itself. (The Electoral College favored Republicans as recently as 2000, after all.) The same might be true if she isn’t as effective as Obama at mobilizing voters in swing states.
Another theory — the so-called “Emerging Democratic Majority” — holds that demographic trends favor the Democratic Party. We’ll have a lot more to say about this theory between now and next November, but it’s probably dubious too.4 As Sean Trende has pointed out, it relies on a selective reading of the evidence — emphasizing 2012, 2008 and 2006 but ignoring 2014, 2010, and 2004. Perhaps more important, predictions made on the premise of “emerging” majorities have a miserable track record: Republicans were bragging about their “permanent” majority in 2004, for instance, only to get their butts kicked in 2006 and 2008.
Clinton and the Republican Candidates. The factors I’ve described so far are sometimes referred to as the “fundamentals” — those things that matter regardless of the candidates and their campaigns. The closer these basic factors are, the more difference the candidates could make.5
Nonetheless, the candidates matter less in U.S. presidential elections than in just about any other type of electoral contest. The reason is that the arduous, 50-state nomination process (and the “invisible primary” before it) screens out most candidates who would be huge liabilities to their party. An underqualified or unvetted or politically extreme or profoundly unpopular candidate might win one primary or caucus, but voters and the political parties will move to stop him in his tracks after that, as Republicans did to Newt Gingrich in 2012.
Consider the three measurable factors that our U.S. Senate model uses to evaluate candidates. One of them is their qualifications on a 4-point scale as measured by their highest elected office, where the highest rating goes to those candidates previously elected as governors or senators. Almost all presidential candidates — including Hillary Clinton and the viable Republican candidates this cycle — rate as extremely well qualified by that standard.
It will be up to the media… again. If the media likes Hillary, they will carry her water and sing her praises while battering the Republican contender. If they don’t like her (if she continues to act as if she doesn’t trust them to say nice enough things about her), they will report on her campaign while still battering the Republicans.
Obama was successful in 2008 because he had no record; he had done NOTHING, and that included bad stuff. Of course, the fact that he had been a state Senator and then a US Senator and never accomplished anything but speeches and campaigning was not a point to be hammered by the media, so he skated by. There was no dirt to dig up (record-wise), but the fact that he never did anything to indicate he might be capable of being President was never mentioned, either. Of course, there was no investigative vetting of Obama.
In 2012, the media carried on with its support by under-reporting the dismal economy, Benghazi, the general collapse of US influence around the world, the IRS scandal and Fast and Furious, preferring instead to discuss dogs in roof-top carriers and “47%”. By any measure, Obama, based on his performance and record, should have been trounced. The media never called Harry Reid out for lying on the Senate floor about Romney’s taxes. The media (Crowley) even jumped to Obama’s aid when he was getting his ass kicked in a debate.
The media will make the call and the difference. Even if they hate Hillary for her attacks on the media when they do not sufficiently kow-tow to her Clintonesque majesty, they may just support her for her liberalness and the novelty. I sincerely doubt they even remember how to journalistically report a campaign and the candidates.
Hillary has no achievement to indicate she is capable of being President, having presided over the most precipitous decline in US power and influence in history, bearing much of the responsibility for Benghazi, having been shown to be financially beholden to foreign, not-so-friendly governments and has just recently been caught lying about the emails kept illegally on a private server. Hillary should not even be allowed to get close to the nomination, much less the White House, but the media will figure all that out for us.
@Bill:
There are a number of things that will hurt Hillary: she isn’t likable, for starters. She comes off phony and elitist. Secondly, she is really showing her age, in spite of her attempt to look younger than she is. Third, she’s not new. Her only advantage is she is well known, compared to Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley. But she is also saddled with a number of scandals that she is not going to want to talk about.
Basically, Hillary is a shoe-in because she’s all the Dems have got.
One thing that will affect the Republicans will be the dates of the primaries. Iowa, South and North Carolina and New Hampshire will provide a barometer of who is going to drop out, but not who will take the primary since their number in the Electoral College is small. Of the big states, Texas will hold its primary first, before New York, California and Florida. Watch the Texas primaries closely.
The Hispanic vote will be the one that all of the candidates are going to pander to. But even in that bloc, the tide is changing. In Texas, Republicans Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick took 44% of the Hispanic vote in general, 50% of the male Hispanic vote. George P. Bush will be campaigning heavily for his dad, but that is not going to work well in Texas where people suffer from Bush fatigue. (note: George W. has been relatively quiet about his brother running for POTUS. That will change, but have little effect on voting)
Considering we will have had almost 8 years of a lying, inept POTUS, believability is going to be a major factor.
@retire05: Yes, there are lots of Hispanics here in Texas, but they were not impressed with Windy Wendy Davis (who, really, would be?). But, honestly, she was a huge nothing, her claim to fame being her stringent defense of late term abortion and unregulated abortion clinics, so the lack of appeal to Hispanics is understandable.
No doubt, Hillary has a load of negatives against her with her only positive being that she is Hillary (which also happens to be a negative). As I said, it is amazing Obama ever won in 2012 with his record, but the media controls the narrative and very few are going to check out the stories they hear or actually see any factual, negative coverage of a liberal. The fact that the Obama/Romney contest was as close as it was, despite the media full court press against Romney and for Obama tells the tale of just how bad a record Obama had. The corrupt media can and will be a major player.
All things being equal, I am tickled Hillary has decided to run and hope she is the candidate. She is a virtual buffet of campaign fodder and I hope and pray the Republicans pull no punches. I realize there is a risk of generating sympathy, but not pulling out all the stops (as Romney should have) would be fatal. Hillary has no accomplishments and plenty of scandals. USE IT. Go straight for that turkey throat.
An unspoken truth is that, for 6 years, the Dems have done ZERO bench-building.
They have No Dems ready to step up for this job opening.
Talk about your Junior Varsity!
All those ”also might runs” against Hillary in the Dem camp don’t even belong on a JV bench much less as an opponent of Hillary.
Look at the contrast to Republicans.
Any one of many of them can hold his own against the Dems top dog, Hillary.
And Brooklyn is awash with anti-Hillary graffiti showing a wrinkled old Hillary and warning: Don’t call her: AMBITIOUS; SECRETIVE; ENTITLED.
Who are “The Establishment?” Dems.
And who are the true rebels? Republicans.
@Bill:
I fully agree with that, but remember, Obama is still going to be in office and he will continue to be the disaster that he has been for the last six year, and Hillary is tied to him at the hip due to being Secretary of State. And she is going to have to testify before Trey Gowdy, and if he is smart, he will make it a public, televised testimony. Because of Hillary’s arrogance, she will subject to making another “What difference does it make?” comment.
Here’s how I see it:
Jeb Bush will take Florida over Rubio, but Bush’s support for amnesty (and yeah, that’s what he supports) and Common Core is going to hurt him badly.
Rubio looks too young. He can’t help God gave him a baby face, but that’s what he is stuck with. Without Florida, it will be a hard up-hill climb for him.
Rand Paul comes off rude (at least that is how he is going to be portrayed). Americans don’t want their president to be rude. He won’t take Florida, he won’t take Texas and that means he has to carry both New York and California. Rand appeals to the young adults because they think he supports legalized marijuana in some form or fashion and he is a “non-interventionalist” (read: isolationist) that he is going to have to hone. But will those young adults really get out and vote for Rand? Can they off-set the over 50 voters? I don’t think so.
Walker is a dark horse but he has some issues with flip-flopping. That is not going to help him.
Christie, Huckabee, all non starters.
Now to Cruz: he is a dynamic speaker and a national debate champion. After his announcement, even the left leaning talking heads were impressed that he spoke for 45 minutes without the aid of a teleprompter or even notes. He is dead on smart and you can be when the debates come, he will shine. He will be the one that the moderators will try to trip up, and he is the one that the left seems to be throwing pejoratives at the most. The left truly fears Cruz, even more than Paul
The Republican candidate will be chosen by mid-March, 2016, even before most states have their primaries.
@retire05:
“The left truly fears Cruz, even more than Paul”
I must not be “the Left.”
I don’t fear Cruz or Paul one bit, and can’t see either one of them winning the oval office.
Can’t see it because they both SCARE the middle. Cruz because he’s so evangelical, and Paul because he so ethereal. They’re both flakes that would be comical to watch as they go down in flames.
I DO fear Bush and Rubio, probably for the same reasons that the GOP doesn’t particularly like them. They’re both moderate/conservative on social issues, and they’re both moderate/conservative on immigration. They would both eat into Hillary’s support, something that Cruz and Paul have no chance of doing. (That’s why I fear them.)
But the GOP is sick of nominating RINO’s, so I have nothing to worry about.
@George Wells:
“Evangelical“? How so? Because the left says to? Like the left said Palin was “stupid”, based on a Saturday Night Live skit (you people really need to start getting news and information from news and information sources)?
The simple fact is, they ALL scare you (the left) because they all point out the obvious; that the liberal agenda has failed America. The fear is that more will start listening to what they say (without the left wing media filters) and see the conditions around them and begin to figure out, on their own, that liberalism fails.
@Bill: Why does the right continue to blame the lamestream media for their political failures?
Buck up and stop crying–You got Fox to spread your brand.
Far left and far right are equally out of touch with the people that will decide the 2016 election.
To nominate Cruz will give it to HRC.
@Bill #7:
““Evangelical“? How so?”
Would you prefer the word “preachy”?
I’ll switch the two if you want.
The point was that while “preachy” appeals to the far right, it doesn’t get a lot of traction in the middle, where National elections are won.
(I won’t debate this point – if you want to believe otherwise, be my guest.)
Your implication that the Left “fears” every one of the GOP potential nominees is your painting with too broad a brush yet again. The Left would LOVE to run against an easy target, and some of the GOP contenders are easier targets that others. Hillary is probably the easiest target of all, both parties considered. But she appears to be unopposed, practically speaking, while the GOP’s candidates will likely do each other great damage trying to win the Republican nomination. I don’t know which Democrats you are listening to, but the ones I am hearing are in agreement that some of the GOP contenders would be easier to defeat than others, and the thinking ON THIS SIDE OF THE FENCE is that Bush and Rubio would present Hillary with more problems than the rest. If you think Cruz, Jindal, Christy, Carson, Trump or Paul can win, PLEASE support them.
@rich wheeler:
Well, let’s just look at it, Rich. When was the last time you saw a debate moderator jump to the defense of a Republican candidate? When was the last time you saw the media ignore a Republican scandal? When was the last time you saw the media throw nothing but Nerf-ball questions at a Republican candidate? When was the last time you saw the media completely fail to report on a Republican bold-face lie? When was the last time you saw the media all but completely ignore; even formulate its own excuses for; the death of an ambassador? When was the last time you saw the media completely ignore a major, game-changing lie from a Republican President? Hell, the media MAKES UP lies that they claim a Republican told. When was the last time the media generated documents to try and smear a Democrat Presidential candidate?
Heck, Rich, I could go on like this for hours. No doubt you are plainly aware of it, but you simply choose not to criticize it because it works to the favor of propping up the failure of Democrats.
@George Wells: “Preachy”? Then you don’t like Obama for the same reason, because, God knows, HE does some serious preaching, sermonizing and waxing superior to us all.
Rather than worry about the Republican nominee, whomever that may be, you should be worrying about Hillary and that express car full of baggage she carries with her. Even the Democrat evil alliance with the media may not be able to gloss this one over… if they even want to.
@Bill #10:
“you should be worrying about Hillary and that express car full of baggage she carries with her.”
What’s to worry? If her baggage (and you’re right – she has loads of it and it doesn’t smell quite right, to put it mildly) is going to sink her, so be it. If the GOP nominates someone who CAN win (something they did not do in 2012… or 2008 for that matter) then they will win easily against such a flawed, old woman as HRC. But if the GOP nominates someone who CAN’T win no matter who they run against, then HRC will be OUR next president. And the GOP field currently has a bunch of such candidates just itching for a chance to embarrass themselves.
Worry?
No, I’m going to pop some popcorn, salt and butter it up just right, and sit back and see which side tries harder NOT to win the presidency.
Regarding “Preachy,” Obama wasn’t “preachy” when he ran the first time. His lofty rhetoric gave people hope (false hope in many cases, as it turned out, though he delivered to ME on all of his gay rights promises). Then in 2012, the GOP didn’t really want the job bad enough to nominate a winner, so Obama got the second chance by default, preaching or not.
Maybe it would be useful to note that Gore didn’t win because he couldn’t even wait to be elected before he switched into preaching mode. And he was a TERRIBLE preacher. Even running against a clown, GORE couldn’t win. America hasn’t liked a preacher since Elmer Gantry.
And no, I don’t like preachers either.
BTW, Rich is right about the media bias cutting both ways. Your “when was the last time” rant fairly characterized the Left-leaning media’s bias, but didn’t take into account FOX News’ habit of ignoring events that are embarrassing to Republican politicians or candidates. You are deluding yourself if you think that FOX is “fair and balanced.” It isn’t, any more than the Left’s offerings.
But what are you crying about that for? Don’t Republicans have enough money to start up ten or twenty more FOX News stations to get out THEIR message as well as the Left does? Free Speech, babe. They can distort however they want, Left or Right. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, ’till it doesn’t matter what the truth is. That’s the American way. Money talks. The “Citizens United” decision proved that.
So talk, don’t cry.
@George Wells:
Can’t re-write history, George. If you would recall, Romney was actually slightly ahead at the time of super storm Sandy (yeah, the “thank God for Sandy” super storm Sandy) and, along with the media carrying Obama’s water, burying the economy, ignoring Benghazi, unemployment (cooked figures) and Reid’s shameless lies and Romney’s suspension of his campaign due to the storm, he lost by a popular vote margin of 4 million. Remember Romney kicked Obama’s butt in the debates.
In hind-sight, we now see how much better Romney would have been than Obama (hell, Romney’s dog would have been better).
Now, I’m not whining about the loss, but simply pointing out that because a Repubican cannot win against the Democrat-Media alliance does not necessarily indicate “bad” candidates. However, should Hillary become the nominee, the playing field may be a bit more level. In this case, a Democrat with a full history of non-achievement, failure, lying and corruption might be like facing an opponent withOUT the media cheerleading. Likewise, any of Hillary’s Democrat opponents, should they prevail, might not have the worship of the media and may be left, more or less, to rely on their own capabilities, which they have none.
Democrats, instead of worrying about their candidates, should be making sure the media is fully on their side and up to the task.
Of course Obama lied. But, he did preach. Just like a television evangelist, he preached for money and lied. Tickeled you got want you wanted for the price of the near collapse of every aspect of the nation. Huzzah.
How about an example of a story about Republicans Fox failed to cover? Anything? They even covered the blather about Romney’s dog on the roof. The hidden video of Romney’s “47%” comments (true, by the way).
But, George, here is the tell about liberals, conservatives,the media and Fox; who is it that strives to silence the other? Why, that would be liberals. Only liberals endeavor to silence the opposition, even when it only one cable outlet (that happens to be more trusted and relied upon than any others).
When one group is trying to silence the other, you have to ask the inevitable question…. WHY? What is that one group so afraid the other group is going to say? Why is that one group so afraid of honest debate and dialogue? For instance, why is Hillary so afraid to face media or random people? Why does she arrange her public encounters with hand-picked sycophants like any good communist regime would? Simple; except for when the liberals control the narrative, bad things can accidentally happen… bad things like truth exposure.
Remember all those Democrats complaining about big money coming into their campaigns before Citizens United? Yeah, me neither. Fact is, all Democrats are complaining about is that the field is now somewhat more level and, as with the media, they don’t like a fair fight… because then they lose. Remember why the Citizens United case came before the Supreme Court? Because the Democrats blocked “Hillary, the Movie” from being screened. So, Citizens United sued. And won. Again, liberals afraid of a message getting out.
See a pattern here? Oh, that’s right… you’re blind.
@Bill: “Fox most trusted and relied upon.” Lord Have Mercy
@Bill #12:
DEAR ME!
SO MANY EXCUSES!
One has to wonder, REALLY!
HOW could so MANY bad coincidences line up on the same side of a political election…TWICE IN A ROW?!
It’s never, EVER the fault of a Republican, is it?
Romney sat there as the election returns began to trickle in, AFTER “super-storm Sandy,” AFTER “Benghazi” had been “ignored” by the “lame-stream media,” AFTER the economy was “buried,” AFTER AFTER AFTER , and he STILL thought that he was a sure bet to win the election. How clueless does YOUR candidate have to be before you will admit that he was and still IS out of touch with reality?
And stop whining that Republicans have only one propaganda outlet compared with (how many) on the liberal side. You insist that FOX is great… GREAT! Better than all the rest, too. EVEN BETTER! So buy another FOX, or ten. Then you’ll have enough wagging tongues to expose all of the “silencing” you’re so afraid of.
“Blind”?
I wasn’t too blind to see where gay marriage was headed, was I?
Never mind Retire05’s projection that Justice Kennedy was set to turn back the gay rights clock a few decades.
Y’all have enough blinders strapped on that you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the face.
@rich wheeler: I will have to refer you to poll after poll after poll after poll after poll after poll…
How’s that Media Matters taxpayer-funded campaign to destroy Fox going, by the way?
@George Wells: “Yall”? Gosh, George, I thought you were claiming to be one of “us” but for whoring yourself out for one issue?
I guess those would all be mere whiney excuses… if only they weren’t all based on solid fact.
Meanwhile, you cannot adhere to fact. Where did I say Fox was “great”? Where? Should be easy to go right to it, cut and paste and really teach me a sound lesson. No, what I did was cite FACT based on polls and surveys.
By the way, gay “marriage”? There’s no such animal.
@Bill #16:
I completely missed your swipe at “y’all.”
For that matter, I missed your point here, too:
“By the way, gay “marriage”? There’s no such animal.”
My marriage certificate doesn’t say “gay” anywhere on it, but it doesn’t say “wife” either.
If you are trying to play silly little word jokes like Redteam, play with him.
You lost me on both counts.
“Where did I say Fox was “great”?”
Gee, I’m SORRY.
I thought that y’all liked FOX News.
If you’re turning on them, too (like the GOP has a habit of eating its own “RINO’s) that leaves you with media… nothing.
No, I didn’t “quote” you, but you’ve been defending FOX News, and if you can keep spouting BS like how George “demands” this or that and how George follows the beat of some Fascist Marxist Commie Zombie from Hell, I can certainly put a synonym or two in YOUR mouth.
@George Wells:
Provide the my exact quote, Mr. Fabricator. This is just another one of your lies that you think no one will question. Do you ever tire of being shown up as the dishonest hack you are?
@George Wells:
If there is anyone on FA that knows a thing or two about putting things in another person’s mouth, it certainly is you, George. Only your item of choice would not be a synonym, but rather a body part.
@George Wells:
BS, they are both socialist-liberal on immigration.
@rich wheeler:
He did, he let’s you decide to watch it instead of requiring it.
@George Wells:
Sweet Pea,(or do you prefer Boobie?) you know I don’t like pointing out that you’re wrong, but Obama did not support gay marriage when he was running for president and was making promises. That came later. So tell us, what gay rights promise did he make to you that he kept?
I fully expect you to not answer this.
They don’t need them. One is enough. most viewers that are interested in the truth know they can get it on Fox. Those watching the alphabet channels are only looking for propaganda, and in MSNBC’s case, no one cares.
@Bill:12
He probably wouldn’t have gotten the chance, Obama likely would have eaten him.
@George Wells: 17
What? then you got swindled, you went to all that trouble to have a gay marriage and you’re telling us you didn’t get one? And it mentions ‘marriage’ but no husband or wife? What kind of sham you get yourself into.. Go to all that trouble and no gay marriage or no wife. You just can’t rely on those ‘former’ Christian Churches delivering what you pay for, can you now? A marriage vow usually says, I now pronounce you husband and wife. Not ‘gay guy’ and ‘gay guy’. You need to get a refund. Shammed on both ends.
@George Wells:
Sweet pea, with yore propensity to change the definition of words, just what have you changed the meaning of synonym to and what is it you’re trying to put in his mouth. That’s not one of them ‘gay’ deals, is it?
Circular firing squad forming up—Cruz, Rubio, Paul are in. Bush, Perry and Walker by month’s end. Huckabee, Christie, Santorum by July i. Carson, Graham, Kasich, Pence and Trump also possible. We need a woman–Sarah
This is gonna be great.
@Redteam #22:
“So tell us, what gay rights promise did he (Obama) make to you that he kept?
I fully expect you to not answer this.”
Wrong again.
Promise:
Will push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
“Will place the weight of (his) administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes.”
Sources: Obama letter to the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals) community
Result:
Obama signs hate crimes bill
By Catharine Richert on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 at 4:01 p.m.
President Barack Obama has signed a bill to expand the federal hate crimes law.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named after two men who were killed more than 10 years ago because of their sexual orientation, was included in a defense bill that Obama signed on Oct. 28, 2009.
Promise:
Will repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
Sources: Obama letter to the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals) community
Result:
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to end Sept. 20”
By Angie Drobnic Holan on Friday, July 22nd, 2011 at 6:18 p.m.
The last time we checked on this promise, Congress had voted to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, a 17-year-old policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Dec. 22, 2010.
Promise:
Will support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
Sources: Obama letter to the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals) community
Result:
Update:
By Caroline Houck on Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 2:16 p.m.
“Last month, gay rights advocates celebrated a major victory as the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
With the 5-4 decision, same-sex couples who are legally married in their state or in the District of Columbia now qualify for the myriad of federal tax, Social Security, immigration and other benefits heterosexual married couples already receive.”
You are correct that Obama did not promise gay marriage. However, he DID “evolve” on the issue to eventually support it, something that no other president EVER did. His support was symbolically helpful. On any day of the week, I would prefer helpful support to a pack of idle promises easily broken.
Obama has delivered on many of his promises to gays, while presidents before him didn’t even bother with us. He has been the single, best champion of gay rights to ever occupy the Oval Office.
@Rich Wheeler #26:
Or a circular shooting gallery at the county fair. Wonder if the smallest targets (the ones currently unemployed) will have an advantage over their more visible partners-in-crime. I’m guessing that few of them will bow out even after taking a fatal hit, as they’ll be having too much fun spending donor’s excess cash.
Popcorn’s ready!
@George Wells:
James Byrd, Jr. was not a gay man. He was murdered by 3 white supremacists, of which two received the death penalty and one will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
So tell us, George, considering two of those slugs will be put to death, thanks to Texans, and one will spend the rest of his life behind bars and in solitary, what else could they have been punished with by the enactment of hate crime laws?
Repeal of “DADT?” Seen the recent sexual abuse stats from the military? How is that working out? Men are being sexually harassed/abused by other men in the military because we are loading it up with a bunch of girlie men.
DOMA: Obama didn’t have a damn thing to do with that. It was a SCOTUS ruling. You are giving him credit for something he didn’t do. No surprise in that.
How about his promise to reduce the federal deficit, or to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as our soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan, or to make us the most respected nation in the world, or any of the other promises that he made that he really didn’t care about?
I suspect if ISIS came out in support of gay “rights”, you would support them.
@rich wheeler: And all you’ve got is Hill, feeling kinda envious, er you?
@George Wells: Sounds like a bunch of homosexual, racist deals. Well, at least he’s looking out for his crowd.
@George Wells: only two or three of them are serious candidates, the rest are just playing politics.
@rich wheeler: And you have Hillary. Hey, you have my sympathies.
@Redteam: Hillary -boring. Repubs .got a real cast of characters—You say 2 or 3 are serious- who would they be? The rest are playing politics–a bunch of clowns–all of em.
@Bill: Bill, Rich says he’s not voting for Hill, but I’m sure a wink and a nod will have him toeing the line.
@rich wheeler: Walker, Perry, Kasich are the 3 I would vote for, prefer in that order.. I would vote for Trump if he were the candidate, but I don’t see that happening. He’s just a showman, but still far superior to anything I see on the Dim side.
@retire05 #29:
Redteam asked me to give him an example of an Obama promise that Obama fulfilled.
I listed the promises that Obama made and the results achieved.
Redteam didn’t ask me to evaluate sexual assaults in the military.
Obama promised to push for passage of the Matthew Sheppard hate crime bill, and he DID, and it PASSED. What effect the bill had wasn’t part of the question Redteam asked, was it?
And you’re sour because Obama wasn’t on the Supreme Court that repealed DOMA Sect.2? He promised to work for it’s repeal, and he did. No, his efforts didn’t make Congress act, but his encouragement might have had some effect on the SCOTUS. The REAL hero was Edith Windsor, the perfect plaintiff. But it isn’t Obama’s fault that he isn’t her.
The fact remains that Obama has been the gays’ best president ever. No other president did squat for gay rights. So any lack of perfection on Obama’s part is happily forgiven by most gays. Including me.
How about Obama’s “other” promises? Not part of Redteam’s question. Don’t want to confuse the boy with extraneous details. He’s confused enough already.
@Redteam #31:
“Sounds like a bunch of homosexual, racist deals. Well, at least he’s looking out for his crowd.”
And at least you were wrong… AGAIN.
@George Wells:
A case of him acting in his own self interest.
I think you did a relatively good job of posting that list, though most of his accomplishments were basically meaningless, but if ‘feel good’ legislation makes you ‘feel good’ then it did what it was supposed to do.
Someone will have to tell me what a ‘hate’ crime is. I fail to see how a black guy murdering a white guy just because he’s a white guy makes it worse than killing him because he didn’t like him. He’s approximately 100% dead either way. Hate crime legislation is just a ‘feel good’ thing for racists, basically.
@George Wells: Okay Boobie,
tell me how I’m wrong.
@Redteam #40 :
“tell me how I’m wrong.”
It’s a pleasure to.
In your post #22, you said:
Your “full expectation” was wrong.
I answered your question.
You did not ANTICIPATE my answer.
Your little MENTAL PREDICTION was wrong.
Are you getting the picture?
Like I said to RBeitticrhe05, you didn’t ask me to evaluate Obama’s gay-rights- promise results, you just asked me what they were.
@George Wells: Sweet pea, or is it Boobie? Try to keep up.
That is the statement that you said:
that about.
And about your response, I had said this:
And Boobie, you may give yourself one of your prizes for this:
and I still didn’t ask you to evaluate the results because I knew you wouldn’t be capable of producing anything meaningful.
I know keeping up with the discussion is a task for lefties, but just keep trying.
@George Wells:
The POTUS should have absolutely no influence on the SCOTUS, a separate, but equal, part of the three legged stool that is our government. I can say with certitude that no president has ever disparaged a ruling by the SCOTUS in a State of the Union speech like Obama did. It was petty, and beneath the dignity of the office of the POTUS. Even when FDR tried to stack the court with five additional justices so that he could continue with his socialists programs, nine brave men stood up to him and told him that what he was doing was unconstitutional and took FDR down a notch, or two. Even then, FDR did not disparage the SCOTUS in such a public manner.
Obama may have worked for DOMA repeal, but the truth is, he didn’t get that repeal. So to claim he did, is simply erroneous on your part. Again, you’re giving Obama credit for things he did not accomplish.
But then, fabrication seem to be what you do best.
Redteam:
Did you catch that? George now thinks he is getting cute by taking R E T I R E and inserting B I T C H as every other letter. B I T C H? Isn’t that what he calls his queer partner?
Poor George; gay and stupid is not a way to go through life.
@retire05:
yes I did and started to point it out but thought I’d let you have the privilege. Just in the last couple of days, George has referred to himself as Sweet Pea and Boobie, so I guess he likes coming up with names for persons.
I believe he did say that at one point, but I’m not real sure. I know he’s referred to ‘it’ as a wiband, which is a combination person, as well as I can figure, even tho he insists neither is the ‘wife’ he thinks that a combination husband/wife is a unique character. It seems tho as homosexuals have taken on the freedom to now have any word means what the homosexual movement wants it to mean, so I’m not really sure what they intend ‘bitch’ to mean. Probably not a term of endearment.
Does he have an option?
@Redteam:
If he doesn’t he would risk having his Liberal Lemming Merit Badge revoked. He’ll vote for Hillary (if she makes the cut) or whoever he is directed to vote for.
@ Retire05:
Your Post #43:
My post #27:
“By Caroline Houck on Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 2:16 p.m.
“Last month, gay rights advocates celebrated a major victory as the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”
My Post #37:
“repealed DOMA Sect.2”
Obama worked to get DOMA repealed. That is what he promised to do, and he honored that promise. The Windsor case achieved part of the objective, and the Obergefell case will achieve the rest.
“Again, you’re giving Obama credit for things he did not accomplish.”
Obama promised to try, and he did. He was the President, not Congress, not the SCOTUS. He wasn’t IN THE POSITION to “repeal” anything. All he could do was try, and try he did. I didn’t give HIM credit for the repeal of DOMA sect.2, I gave it to Edith Windsor, and for that matter, it wasn’t “repealed,” it was voided.
So what did I fabricate?
@George Wells:
Let’s try this:
I told you to provide my exact quote. You have failed to do so. So let’s just drop the niceties and say you lied. You lie about what people write with regularity.
As to calling me a B I T C H by intertwining it in my moniker, stop playing your games. All you’re doing is showing is how juvenile you are.
@retire05 #48:
“I told you to provide my exact quote.”
Well now, look at who is “demanding”.
You don’t get to do that.
I demand nothing from you, and you get nothing from me when you make silly demands. Silly because you know damned well that there isn’t any way at all for you or anyone else to “provide an exact quote” from six months or six years ago.
You never provided exact quotes when I asked YOU for them, why would you expect anything different from me?
You don’t get to do that.
@George Wells:
Sure I do. I get to demand anything I care to. Getting that demand honored is an entirely different situation.
Actually, some time back you demanded that I produce a statement of yours made when you first appeared here at FA to defend your queer friend. I did as you asked and provided not only your statement but a link to the thread where it appeared. As is your m.o., you quickly abandoned the thread where you made the demands.
And you don’t get to tell me what I don’t get to do. But I’m sure you will deal with that in your standard juvenile fashion.