Eric has been looking at the Gay Marriage Distraction which has prompted me to repost a comment I just posted in several places (modified). I’m posting it here for the edification of you all. Esp my Republican friends:
With BO’s making gay marriage an issue, what if BO/the Dems go anti-Drug Prohibition at the last minute with the Republicans totally unprepared? What if the gay marriage thing is just a test? Or a distraction.
Ron Paul supporters are only loosely attached to the R Party and Drug Prohibition is one of their Big issues. Might they be enough to squeak ∅ in? Classical Values readers are prepared but by and large most Republicans are not.
Key point: between 65% and 75% say prohibition is not working. The WODs is an avalanche waiting to happen. And Romney is not in a very good position to deal with it – let alone the rest of the Rs.
And you know Obama is in a very good position to attack Prohibition based on the violence it engenders in the Black community.
What I predicted here:
The Democrat’s 2012 Victory Plan
May yet come to pass.
Comments
28 responses to “Does Obama Have A Plan For Victory?”
WoD?
If Gay Rights ranks 20-something in the minds of voters, drug rights/WoD might rank 30-something.
AJ,
It is not about averages. It is about peeling Ron Paul supporters and other libertarian leaning folk. And from what I can see so far it is working.
Can’t anyone play this game?
And AJ,
Watch the stampede if ∅ comes out against the WOD among right leaning libertarian Rs. Hell I know deep down what a disaster a second term would be if that Communist gets another and yet I have been seriously toying with the idea.
It is not about averages it is about individuals. So let us say at #20 it represents 5% of the population. Is a net shift of 10% (from +5% to -5%) enough to change an election outcome? I leave running the numbers up to you.
Don’t really see Obama doing that. Why would someone willing to prosecute the war on transfats as being willing to back off on drugs? Giving people personal control of their own life choices is not the Obama way. Narcissists don’t see the value in other people’s decisions. Elites think ordinary people’s decisions are worthless and seek to create for themselves a separate privileged class. Socialists think the state should make your major decisions to best use individuals efficiently, and rarely tolerates “perversions” for long, besides the ones it strictly controls. Take your pick which he is, or even all of the above, but it’s just not going to happen. Certainly, the increase in prosecutions under Obama is sign enough.
DaveM, I don’t see it happening either. But given my disgust with the Republicans right now, if he did move to reign in, or end the WOD, I would vote for the bastard.
Simon and DaveM, you both have a point. I don’t believe Obama would willingly relinquish the massive government control that is part and parcel of the WOD, yet I can see him being cynical enough to scrap any of his “principals” in order to achieve re-election, including supporting drug legalization during the election (and changing his mind afterwards if he wins).
Don’t really see Obama doing that. Why would someone willing to prosecute the war on transfats as being willing to back off on drugs?
Who said he was going to do it? Just mouthing the words may be enough to win an election.
John,
Hadn’t seen your comment before I made mine. I see we are pretty much on the same page.
Simon,
This assumes that Ron Paul supporters are just single-issue voters who will set aside their hatred of the Fed, Taxes, Department of Education, etc, not to mention, their general hatred for “that Communist” for a concession on the drug issue. Not to mention assuming that a lot of suburban whites and blacks would leave the Democratic party over this.
I would not call Ron Paul supporters “loosely” attached. There are left-wing Paulites and right-wing Paulites, who will eventually play for Team Democrat or Team Republican. Remember, “libertarians” were the ones who were so radically against the war that they thought America’s entrance into WWII was an injustice. Considering that the Bi-Partisan War on Terror and the Republican lead War on Mesopotamia were both very much LBJ-esque wars, you would figure that so called libertarians would have left the Republican party in droves to protest the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who died at the hands of a “big government” . . . arguably this consequence should overshadow anything that would make you want to vote for a Republican again, but the end result was that low taxes, Kelo, and ending the Fed means lets chose to play for Team Republican for another decade over voting for “that Communist”
AJ,
I’m going by a couple of things – comments I have seen on blogs, private e-mails, and my own reaction.
Being persecuted matters more to some people than the state of the economy. Seeing others persecuted is more serious to some than fiat money.
Add to that the socon right HATES libertarians and openly expresses it and you get that movement. People who have already been diminished as members of a group are easier to attract to another group.
Your logic is impeccable. But emotion drives voting. Otherwise how do you explain 2008?
Can’t anyone play this game?
Of course Paulites are loosely attached to the Rs. Our socon friends have seen to that. Vituperation is not how you get allies. Or telling people that without the “correct religious principles” you can’t be a real Republican. OK. I’m not a real Republican. I’m a free agent.
A minimum of respect is in order for your allies. Such as “can we agree on the economics and put social differences aside until the economics is fixed?” I could live with that.
But what do I get in the comments at WND (I’m an old I’net friend of the editor – we agree on ending drug prohibition)? “We don’t need your kind.” Well OK. I won’t bother you or vote with you. Happy? And I’ll agitate for others to do the same. Happier?
So let us not talk logic. Civility is a better topic.
BTW I was talking ending drug prohibition at WND – you would think it would be a friendly venue given the views of the editor. Maybe just a little respect for that viewpoint. Nope.
I hate my allies almost as much as I hate my enemies. – Eric said something like that. I agree.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Drug-crime-sends-first-time-offender-grandmom-to-3547226.php
I stand with the Jews. Or in this case – Prohibition offenders.
Though the heavens fall – let justice be done.
“Being persecuted matters more to some people than the state of the economy. Seeing others persecuted is more serious to some than fiat money.” You know what, if that were really the case, these people would not continue to vote for the same party OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
“Add to that the socon right HATES libertarians and openly expresses it and you get that movement. People who have already been diminished as members of a group are easier to attract to another group.”
Except, polling on the supposed “libertarian” Tea Party movement showed that the one large commonality its members had was social conservatism. SoCons still have more in common with Libertarians than they do with any sort of Liberal.
“A minimum of respect is in order for your allies. Such as “can we agree on the economics and put social differences aside until the economics is fixed?” I could live with that.”
This was kind of my point . . . I’m betting the Paulites are . . willing to put aside their difference on the drug war until economics fixed. I mean, is it even arguable, from a libertarian perspective, and perhaps you can give me yours, that the War on Drugs is more devastating to human life and liberty than the War on Drugs? Or at least equally unjust? But why is it, that after a DECADE of that war, after the election of a man who has SCALED back that war . . . libertarians still invariably end up playing for Team Republican? How many Libertarians have come out in support of Obama after he announced the disengagement from Iraq? Why should we expect them to jump on-board if he announces a disengagement in the war on drugs? We’re just going by history here.
Ending the drug war is something only a Republican will be able to do, sort of like all that Nixon stuff. Its political suicide for a Democrat to not be “tough.”
AJ, Obama is an Alinsky Marxist. He will do what it takes to win. The first step, as M.Simon has pointed out, is support for gay marriage.
30% of gay voters are conservatives who usually vote Republican. So what does the Republican Party do? They pass Amendment One in NC that removes even private contracts that protect gay couples. And on the same day they close down the Colorado state house because a pro-gay bill was about to pass. So what does Obama do? The next day he comes out for gay marriage.
As a libertarian leaning gay man who was married in California, I can tell you that my conservative gay friends have NOT been on board with Romney. He donated $10,000 to help pass Prop 8 here. Add in the latest revelation about his bully tactics against a gay kid while in prep school, and you have the picture of a religious homophobe who likes to persecute minority groups vs. Obama, a member of a minority, who is on our side. Don’t forget that he ended discrimination against gays in the military also.
For all practical purposes, he has secured the gay vote. And as M.Simon points out, elections are won at the margins.
Obama can’t win running on economic issues. But he sure as hell can peel off group after group and leave the Republican Party with their church-going, socially conservative and bigoted base.
I’m leaning to M.Simon’s theory that there will likely be an October surprise. He will probably copy Gov. Christie in New Jersey and propose “treatment” options instead of jail. (It’s called co-opting I believe.) And he may go beyond that.
The Republican Party has allowed itself to be boxed in by becoming captive to the religious right.
Screw ’em.
AJ, M.Simon has an inside feel for Obama and the left. He was once a Trotsky Communist. He knows these people very well.
Treatment options completely suit the needs of the left. Hence they don’t want legalization. What could be better than forcing millions of people to bare their secrets in group meetings — all supervised by taxpayer-paid “addictionologists.” Yes, it is better than imprisonment, but imprisonment will remain for those who refuse reeducation.
“Except, polling on the supposed “libertarian” Tea Party movement showed that the one large commonality its members had was social conservatism”
They are not small government libertarians.
They like Big Government as long as it does their bidding. Statists.
And AJ, Frank knows me well from conversations on the blog and e-mails. He nails my position.
Thanks Frank!!!!!!!!!
Eric,
By decriminalizing use and yet maintaining the war on “dealers” the government helps prop up cartel profits.
You point on the matter is brilliant and has made me think more about how they can satisfy their masters, the drug cartels, while still helping the individual users. Brilliant strategy for now. For them.
Eric, you have it. All you have to do is look at Janet Napolitano and the TSA for the likely pattern of treatment – Stalinist.
What worries me Billy, is how your mother is going to take this. Nurse Ratched
Only Ron Paul can defeat Obama.
“For all practical purposes, he has secured the gay vote. And as M.Simon points out, elections are won at the margins.”
This is one of those worthless platitudes thrown out every four years. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. First, for every action (securing the gay vote) there is a reaction (losing the anti-gay vote). And more importantly, this is basic statistics here, swinging the gay vote by . . . 10% is still not as consequential as swinging the Evangelical vote by 1%.
AJ,
You seem math challenged.
Let me help. 1% of 40% is .4% , 90% of 5% is 4.5%.
Is .4% larger than 4.5%? Do the math.
Worthless platitudes? I dunno. Primaries are won by moving the base. General elections are won by moving independents. It is why candidates move to the center after winning their primaries.
And given that the Evangelical vote on the Right is concentrated in the South even moving a large fraction of them only helps so much.
You are still stuck in averages where what counts is state by state victories.
If Republicans stuck to economic issues and left out the social issues they would be winners (nationally) forever.
Simon,
First off, I thought we were discussing margins. As in, an action will perhaps cause 1% of Evangelicals to move in another direction. Is there any action that will cause 90% of gays to move in one way? You are not using the correct numbers. Gays are already solidly democratic? They are not a swing group! Second off, I was estimating the gay population at closer to 2-3% of national population. We can do math, but I think my general point stands, right?
“And given that the Evangelical vote on the Right is concentrated in the South even moving a large fraction of them only helps so much.”
“You are still stuck in averages where what counts is state by state victories. ”
Where do you think voting age gays are concentrated? Iowa?
Can you please name the states – lets just narrow it down, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa . . where this issue will drive the vote, not even to Obama but in any direction at all?
AJ,
It is not the Gays that matter. It is their supporters. And those supporters are libertarian. And they make up 10% of the vote on the right.
Honestly. Either you are mentally challenged or disingenuous. Right now I’m inclined towards both.
Here ya go AJ,
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/10/4481774/gay-marriage-adds-complexity-in.html
DES MOINES, Iowa — President Barack Obama’s support for gay marriage adds a new layer of complexity for voters – especially independents – in battleground states that will decide the race for the White House.
If Republicans stuck to economic issues and left out the social issues they would be winners (nationally) forever.
Amen, brother.
The Democratic shtick usually is along these lines– buy enough support to overcome opposition to their economic redistributionist populism by offering support on various non-economic policy areas, usually minor. That’s what stuck us with the non-discretionary nature of the Great Society programs, which is the main structural cause of the deficit. I’m not going to be distractable that way this time ’round.