While diversity has been a key to Democratic success in recent presidential elections, it can also make coalition management difficult. The Democratic coalition is made up of the least religious Americans (17 percent of Democrats are religiously unaffiliated) and the most religious Americans (African-Americans). This is reflected in the religious and theological orientation of the parties. The relative homogeneity of the Republican Party means there are fewer tensions but points to long-term challenges, since younger voters are less religiously affiliated and more progressive on many social issues, particularly marriage equality.The reports points out that there are advantages and disadvantages to the religious diversity found in both coalitions. As an atheist, I am happy that the Democrats are orienting themselves towards the least religious Americans.
The values that underpin these governing strategies reflect contrasting political visions, and the differences can be seen in stark terms in the states. In a red state such as Texas, government exists mostly to get out of the way of the private sector while holding to traditional social values. In blue states such as California and Maryland, government takes more from taxpayers, particularly the wealthy, to spend on domestic priorities while advancing a cultural agenda that reflects the country’s growing diversity.
[...]
Control in the states today is more closely aligned with voting patterns in presidential elections than in the days when conservative Democrats dominated state and local elections in the South and moderate Republicans held greater sway in the North.
Karl Kurtz, a political scientist at the National Conference of State Legislatures, noted in an article published this year that Republicans control both houses of the legislatures in 22 of the 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and that Democrats hold majorities in 18 of the 26 states won by Obama.
The eight Obama states that have full or partial Republican control are or recently have been presidential battlegrounds. These are Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.It's an interesting article. It will be very easy to take stock of the partisanship tally at the end of the 2014 midterm elections.
"I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay."Reactions to his statement have been mixed. LGBT activists are happy that a Republican senator is now supporting marriage equality, but some progressives are noting that he is only doing so because he has suddenly discovered that homophobic public policy can negatively impact his family, even though the argument for marriage equality supporters has always been that families all over the country are affected by the lack of empathy towards LGBT people's civil rights. Conservatives are claiming that one can love one's gay family members while still supporting public policies and legislation that discriminate against them and diminish LGBT citizens' civil rights.
It's becoming clearer and clearer that opposition to LGBT equality is a more and more isolated (and rare) position. And that's a good thing!The process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged. That’s why I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.
The article notes that winning the presidency in 2016 will be difficult for Republicans because there are 18 states (plus DC) that have 242 electoral votes that have voted for the Democratic candidate for 6 consecutive presidential elections, while 22 states with 180 electoral votes have voted for the Republicans. So, just like in 2012, the 2016 presidential election will most likely be decided by the usual suspects: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Florida (25), North Carolina (15) and Colorado (9).The president won the popular vote in 26 states and the District of Columbia, totaling 332 electoral votes, or 62 more than the 270 needed to win the presidency. Romney won 24 states with 206 electoral votes. Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008.[...]Turnout in this year’s presidential race was about 129.1 million, down from the record 131.3 million four years ago.Obama’s national vote total fell by about 3.6 million votes from his record 69.5 million in 2008, when he was elected the nation’s first black president. In that race, he won 52.9 percent -- with a victory margin of more than 9.5 million votes over Republican John McCain -- amid a financial crisis that took hold at the end of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.
The president's campaign, Obama for America, filed its final campaign finance report on Thursday covering the last two and a half weeks of the 2012 election. The report revealed that from Oct. 18 until the Election Day on Nov. 6 the president raised $88 million and spent $176 million. That far exceeded the $66 million raised by his rival Mitt Romney and the $107 million spent by the Republican presidential nominee during the same period.In fact, the Obama campaign's fundraising power allowed it to crush the Romney camp in spending -- at least in terms of individual campaign spending. Obama's campaign spent $723 million from April 4 up to Election Day, way ahead of the total $460 million spent by Romney's campaign. Half of the Obama campaign's spending between Oct. 18 and the election -- $83 million -- went just to television advertising.[...]When including the types of spending that the Obama campaign warned about in its emails, such as super PACs and other outside groups, the Republicans did outspend Democrats. The full suite of Romney committees including the Republican National Committee and Romney Victory along with various outside groups spent a combined $1.51 billion. Democratic outside groups and the full Obama group of committees including the Democratic National Committee and Obama Victory Fund spent $1.43 billion. Still, the gap is far smaller than the one the Obama camp warned supporters about.
"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."This is an absolutely unacceptable answer by a serious politician on the national stage who has aspersions of even higher office. The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. This number is not in dispute among any reputable scientists. To deny this fact is an assault on reason and science.
For the Nate-haters, here’s the 538 prediction and actual results side by side twitter.com/cosentino/stat…
— Michael Cosentino (@cosentino) November 7, 2012
The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.
To be exceptionally clear: I do not mean to imply that the polls are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. But there is the chance that they could be biased in either direction. If they are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor, then Mr. Romney could still win; the race is close enough. If they are biased in Mr. Romney’s favor, then Mr. Obama will win by a wider-than-expected margin, but since Mr. Obama is the favorite anyway, this will not change who sleeps in the White House on Jan. 20.
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.
Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.
Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.And this last paragraph is precisely the point. Election coverage happens in media channels which are part of corporate conglomerates that are out to make a profit. They have a financial incentive in promoting the notion that the election result is a 50-50 proposition and that either team has an equal likelihood of winning, but just because there are only two possible outcomes on Tuesday does NOT mean they are equally likely! (If you understand this concept then you are on your way to understanding probability. That being said, it is still then a very difficult question to estimate the probabilities of the two possible outcomes, and this is what Silver succeeds at.)
From the beginning of 2011 through Oct. 17, Mr. Obama and the Democrats raised about $1.06 billion, and Mr. Romney and the Republicans collected $954 million, including some money for the party’s Congressional efforts, setting up 2012 to be the most expensive presidential campaign in history.Earlier in the year the Republicans were claiming that Obama-Biden would raise $1 billion dollars and the Blue team, demurred, not wanting to get caught up in an expectations game. They responded by saying that if you count Super-Pacs then the Red team would spend more money on the 2012 elections than the Democrats. It looks like both sides exceeded their expectations for how much they could raise.
[...]
Mr. Romney and the Republicans raised about $21.3 million more than Mr. Obama and the Democrats during the first 17 days of October, according to the disclosures filed on Thursday, as Mr. Romney rose in the polls and performed well in debates, emboldening his supporters.Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee took in $92.4 million during that period, after surpassing Mr. Romney in August and September.Mr. Romney and the R.N.C. raised $113.7 million over the same period, the final days for which the campaigns are required to report their fund-raising before the election on Nov. 6. Mr. Romney and his party also spent about $146.2 million during the first 17 days in October, slightly less than the $149.7 million spent by Mr. Obama and the Democrats.While Mr. Obama’s team invested tens of millions of dollars early in the campaign to identify, contact and raise money from grass-roots voters, those expenditures have left the Republicans with more cash in the final weeks of the election that could finance a late surge of advertising. Mr. Romney and the G.O.P. ended the final filing period with $169 million in cash on hand, significantly more than the $123.8 million held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats.
"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, 'My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.' It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you 'disagree' with your candidate on these issues."Hat/tip to Joe.My.God. Of course even groups of Republicans who happen to be LGBT like the Log Cabin Republicans have decided to endorse Romney for President, although this is prompting significant negative reactions.
"This endorsement was not principled in any way - how could it be when it excuses some of the most radical anti-LGBT positions in presidential history? Log Cabin's endorsement of Romney actually does harm to anyone they can claim to represent. It's really quite tragic.
"I wouldn't advocate for Log Cabin Republicans to be shouting from Dupont Circle that Mitt Romney is a homophobe - that's not their job. But I would advocate for them to hold their Party and their candidates accountable by not rewarding damaging behavior and not making a mockery of what it means to be labeled a LGBT organization."Some people would say that perhaps the head of the "gay Democrat" group would be the worst person to quote in response to any action by the "gay Republican" group, but I disagree. The two are mirror images of each other, and if anyone knows the pressure of balancing partisan versus LGBT instincts it would be someone like Jerame Davis who faces the exact same pressures. The point here is that R. Clarke Cooper, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans put partisanship above LGBT equality, and that is reprehensible.
“The decision to endorse is the right one for our members, our community, and for the nation as a whole,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper. “Despite our disagreement with Governor Romney on the issue of marriage, on balance it is clear that in today’s economic climate, concern for the future of our country must be the highest priority. We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity. On issues of particular concern to the LGBT community, we believe Governor Romney will move the ball forward compared to past Republican presidents. No matter who is in the White House, it is crucial our community always has a credible voice speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans. Log Cabin Republicans will be that voice to President Mitt Romney.”Other LGBT organizations were quick to point out that Log Cabin had not endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 because of his support for a federal marriage amendment (which would ban marriage equality nationwide and enshrines sexual orientation-based discrimination in the founding document of our nation) and that Mitt Romney has repeatedly reiterated his support for a similar constitutional amendment, as recently as last week. He has even signed the National Organization of Marriage's anti-gay marriage pledge:
This last reference to GOProud is important because most LGBT activists speculate that the reason why LCR felt compelled to endorse Romney even though he espouses more anti-gay positions than the non-endorsed President G.W. Bush, is that there is now an organization which is even farther to the right of LCR and they feel threatened from its extreme right flank."The Log Cabin Republicans have proven once and for all that they are not an organization aligned with the LGBT movement. They are a Republican front group bumbling their way into fooling LGBT voters that it's OK to support a party that would legislate us back into the closet."Their endorsement of Mitt Romney isn't just shameful - it's insulting. Mitt Romney stands for nothing positive for LGBT people. He supports a federal marriage amendment (which was a reason for Log Cabin to refuse to endorse George W. Bush in 2004). He supports McCarthy-like investigations into our community for evidence of 'harassment of Christians'. He opposes the repeal of DOMA. He opposes ENDA. He's even said things as basic as the right to visit your sick or dying loved one in the hospital is a 'privilege' and not a right."On top of all of that, Mitt Romney is a liar. He has told so many untruths and changed his positions so many times throughout this campaign, how can Log Cabin - or anyone - trust a word he would say? A person with no moral compass goes whichever way the political winds blow. With Mitt Romney in charge of the ship of state, we would be a rudderless nation with nothing but luck to keep us from crashing into the rocky shore - and Log Cabin Republicans believes this is the best their party and our country can muster."It's a disgrace. A once venerated and decent organization has become a shell of itself blithely pandering to the least common denominator. This is politics at its worst - when a community sells out its own people for the gain of a few individuals. There is little doubt that Clarke Coooper's position on the RNC finance committee played a major role in this decision. Of course, so did their blinding fear of GOProud nipping at their heels.
