Hillary needs to stop with her bul**hit about DOMA

[LostOne4Ever]

43. You didn't provide facts to Clinton losing, you provided opinions and are treating them as facts.

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 07:30 AM - Edit history (2)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]No where in your article does it ever provide so much as one fact to prove Clinton would have lost. The only facts it states are the history of DADT.

There are no "facts" to prove that Clinton would have lost the election on DOMA, and that I the reason I made the comment about a crystal ball, to point that out.

It is just speculation on your part and the part of your article. [/font]

It is obvious to even the most naive student of political science that a shit-flinging contest about how Clinton was "pro-gay marriage" -- at a time when support for gay marriage was under thirty percent--might have gotten out the vote. That could have been ginned up as a dramatic, rallying issue in no time at all. The word would have gone forth from every church in the land, Clinton would have been accused of endangering children and all manner of horrors.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]No it is not or you would have actual evidence to prove your point. Anti-abortion supporters have been under 50% for years and people still vote for those candidates.

Which brings up the big assumption in your 30% statistic. You assume that just because Gay marriage was polling at 30% (I am not going to bother fact checking for the exact number) that means that all of those who opposed it considered it a make or break issue. Further, you assume they couldn't be pursuaded to change their mind. What if it had become an issue in 1996 and instead of running from it Clinton embraced it and changed minds? What if it became a strength and his support sped up LGBTQ acceptance by nearly 20 years?

Neither you or I know how that might have gone down. It is an opportunity that passed and that we can never redo and see what the results would have been. The best we can do is look at history and to my knowledge no ONE issue has ever caused a 8% change in votes. Especially 8% from Clinton to Dole alone. That is almost the entirety of Ross Perots support in that election and he had a full plate of issues he was supporting.

I would say it is obvious to even the most naive student of political science that could never happen.

Clinton was always in the lead that election. The idea that one issue would have turned around that trouncing is absurd.[/font]