October 20, 2017
Elections Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bangor City Council | Orion Krause

Comments for: Cynthia Dill rallies gay marriage supporters

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    At least she has something to run on besides support for a multi million acre national park in Maine.

  • Al Brady
  • She just lost my vote. I am a democrat but I a long ways from a screaming liberal.

    • Anonymous

      Who’s screaming?  And since I’m in favor of SSM, who you callin’ a liberal? (I’m not)

      • Oh yes you are!!!

        • Anonymous

          Then you don’t understand who the supporters of SSM are!!!!

          • Anonymous

            They’re mostly liberals. They are calling it “equal rights” when what they are pursuing is society’s endorsement of homosexual relationships. My advice to anyone who does not support these relationships is to vote against so-called “gay marriage”. Besides, I’ve always maintained the state has no real interest in supporting relationships for their own sake. If SS couples feel they need a social network to support their relationships then they should create one without calling everyone who doesn’t agree with their marriage agenda “homophobic”, “hateful”, “bigoted”, etc.

          • Anonymous

            The exact same thing was and has been said about interracial marriage per-1967. That took a SCOTUS decision to solve the injustice. This issue will likely need the same.

          • Anonymous

            The SCOTUS decision then did not deal with a change in the definition of marriage, that is, between one man and one woman, which does not support SSM.

          • Anonymous

            Sure it did, it changed the United States definition of marriage to include interracial couples.

          • Anonymous

            The definition of marriage in many state prior to Loving v. Virgins (1967) was marriage equaled one white man and one white woman or one black man and one black woman.

            Definition after the SCOTUS struck down laws preventing interracial marriage equals one man and one woman of any race.

            The SCOTUS also ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage was a fundamental “civil right”.

            So could you please explain how Loving v. Virginia did not change the definition of marriage where interracialarriage was prohibited by state and local law.

          • Anonymous

            Well you see, it is very damaging to his position, so he can just dismiss it without giving any reason why. /sarcasm

          • Anonymous

            SCOTUS did indeed rule marriage was a “fundamental law”, but within the framework of traditional marriage. Of course those who are challenging the definition set by Congress hope to use the same argument to strike down the law passed by Congress they used to strike down anti-miscegenation laws. Here’s why I believe it will fail ultimately:

            The 14 Amendment provides that “no state shall…deny to any person withing its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. SCOTUS interpreted this to mean “essentially a direction that all person similarly situated should be treated alike”. The problem is that SS couples are not similarly situated. For one, unlike couples of the opposite sex they cannot procreate and thus create a family.

            Furthermore, the court said in part, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,
            FUNDAMENTAL (the cap. is my own for emphasis) to our very existence and survival”. It continued, “To deny on so unsupportable grounds (the argument used by the State of Virginia) a basis as the racial classification embodied in these statues….is surely to deprive ALL (use of cap. is my own for emphasis) the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

            Can you explain to me how SS relationships are fundamental to our very existence and survival. I doubt you can because mankind has always and will continue to survive without SS relationships. Also, I doubt very much one can construe a persuasive argument the federal statue on marriage denys ALL the State’s citizens of liberty without due process.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, same sex couples are similarly situated to heterosexual couples who cannot have children. Those heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, so same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

          • Anonymous

            I said, “for one”. There are other reasons. For instance SS couples cannot reach the same level of oneness and intimacy for reasons of nature as heterosexual couples committed to each other in marriage can achieve. Neither can relationships involving more than two people.

          • Anonymous

            The physically disabled (those that cannot achieve or maintain an erection) are not barred from marriage based on the inability to achieve the “the same level of oneness and intimacy for reasons of nature as” another heterosexual couple that does not suffer from impotency.

          • Anonymous

            The difference between the genders (sexes) is more than physical. It’s emotional, mental, and social as well.

          • Anonymous

            And the same can be said about any human relationship anywhere on the world. That is what makes human unique.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I’m familiar with the movement afoot to try wiping out all gender differences. It has been meeting a lot of resistance in recent years, as it rightfully should. Making policies on such faulty assumptions can only lead to social chaos. Figure that one out for yourself.

          • Anonymous

            And another grand pronouncement without proof. You and cp444 just love tossing out opinion as if it is fact. If you have proof so it…otherwise it is just opinion and nothing more.

          • Anonymous

            No way! It was not a grand pronouncement on my part. The national organization NOW, among other feminist groups fighting for what they claim to be women’s rights, have been attempting to convince the public for decades that gender differences were merely a social construct to keep women down and men in power. An overwhelming growing body of evidence in recent years has clearly debunk that theory. Need an proof of the existence of such evidence? Consider the use of MRI’s with advances in technology has shown that not only are women’s brains smaller when compared to the brains of men of similar bone size and structure, but they function differently.

          • Anonymous

            Yes because we all know woman cannot perform the functin of a firefight….oh wait they do. You must mean that women cannot arrest…oh wait they can make arrest. Then you must mean that women cannot fly helicopters and planes in a combat…oh wait they do that too.

            What exactly do you mean wha?

          • Anonymous

            Nice story, do you have anything other than your own opinion to back up your claim that same sex couples “cannot reach the same level of oneness and intimacy”, which, by the way, makes you sound like you are quoting a bad self help book.

          • Anonymous

            And here’s how I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM.

            You have two couples in the same state that allow SSM. One couple is a heterosexual and the other a homosexual couple. Both couples move from Massachusetts (SSM permitted) to Virginia (SSM not permitted) due to work assignments.

            The heterosexual couple retain all the rights and privileges of their marriage. They can file a joint state tax return. They have inheritance rights at the state level. They lose none of the rights  or privileges because of their move from Massachusetts to Virginia.

            The homosexual couple lose all of the rights and privileges of their marriage. They cannot file a joint state tax return. They have inheritance issues at the state level. They lose every right and privilege they had because they moved from Massachusetts to Virginia.

            That creates a conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deprives the homosexual couple of life, liberty, or property without Due Process which is also required by the 14th Amendment. Now toss in the Commerce Clause which allows Congress to regulate commerce between the several states which allows a (marriage) contract written in one state to be enforced in another state.

            The fact that any couple can or cannot procreate is immaterial as a) it is not a requirement to a marriage license and b) infertile heterosexual couples are not barred from marrying.

          • Anonymous

            States that don’t recognize SSM are not required to honor and recognized the marriages of SS  couples from other states. Anyone state cannot impose its will on any other one. When SS couple marry in Massachusetts they know the recognition and privileges gained by virtue of their marriage ceases as soon as they venture into a state that doesn’t recognize their marriages. The Constitution was never intended to make everyone equal. If it were so, then every state in the Union would have to endorse all intimate relationships, including trios, and other multiple combinations of genders. I don’t think this comes remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.

            That said, your reasoning to have the federal definition of marriage overturned is certainly not along the lines of that used in the of Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s a real blow to their twisted thinking.
            Marriage Advocates Win in Hawaii
            by Bethany Monk
            A federal court on Wednesday upheld a Hawaii law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

            Last December, Natasha N. Jackson and Janin Kleid filed the suit, asking the court to strike down the state marriage amendment and the definition of marriage. The 1998 amendment, approved by voters, ensures the power to define marriage lies solely with the Legislature.

            “It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot,” Senior District Judge Alan Kay wrote. “Allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.”

            Wednesday’s ruling affirms the importance of protecting and strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman, according to Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.

            “The people of Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment to uphold marriage, and the court rightly concluded that the democratic process shouldn’t be short-circuited by judicial decree,” Schowengerdt said.

            ADF Litigation Counsel Holly Carmichael described the 120-page decision as “very well-reasoned and thought-out.”

            “The point of the decision — that marriage is between one man and one woman — is a completely rational and good thing for society,” she said. “It re-emphasizes what we have known for so many years.”

            Marriage has been under attack in Hawaii for nearly two decades.

            In 1994, in response to a lawsuit seeking to impose same-sex marriage on the state, lawmakers amended the marriage statute to clarify that it is reserved only for a man and a woman. In 1997, they followed up by submitting a constitutional amendment to voters that declared that the power to define marriage was to be reserved for the Legislature alone. That amendment passed in 1998, 69 percent to 29 percent.

            But in 2011, legislators passed a bill creating same-sex civil unions, giving gay couples all the legal rights granted to married couples. Activists then sued to overturn the marriage law in December.

            “Many rational people believe in marriage between a man and a woman,” Carmichael said, “which is common sense.”

            Civil union laws have been used by same-sex marriage advocates in several states to challenge state marriage amendments and laws.

          • Anonymous

            That’s good news and a victory for families and society in general. Some people seek “rights” for themselves to the exclusion of everyone else. The SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia clearly hinted the equal rights clause of the 14 Amendment was never intended to apply in parochial cases like what we are witnessing in the current push for SSM in Maine.

            It’s interesting to note this news item was not even mentioned in this paper (if it was, I missed it.) Don’t you suppose  a contrary decision by the Hawaiian high court would have instantly made the headlines in most newspapers including the BDN?

            Thanks for the thorough update.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t hold your breath cp444 the U.S. District Court of Hawaii case will be appealed to the
            United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which has already ruled against Prop 8 in California.

            You also fail to mention that the Governor of Hawaii refused to defend the law and the Alliance Defending Freedom was granted intervener status or the case would have died before ever reaching the court.

            See you on the steps of the SCOTUS cp444.

          • Anonymous

            “States that don’t recognize SSM are not required to honor and recognized the
            marriages of SS  couples from other states.”

            And there in lies the problem. Prior to 1967 an interracial married couple from Maine that moved to Virginia was subject to arrest and imprisonment. Loving v. Virginia changed all that.
            ~~~~~
            “Anyone state cannot impose its will on any other one.”

            But a contract from one state can be enforced in another state. If that were not the case all one would have to do to void a contract is move from one state to another.And a license (such as drivers license, marriage license, etc…) IS recognized from one state to another.
            ~~~~~
            “When SS couple marry in Massachusetts they know the recognition and privileges gained by virtue of their marriage ceases as soon as they venture into a state that doesn’t recognize their marriages.”

            Which was the exact case in Loving v. Virginia. The Loving’s since they could not be married in Virginia went to the District of Columbia and were married there. When they went back to Virginia they were arrested, tried, convicted and were given the option of leaving Virginia and never returning or be imprisoned. I guess the trial judge forget about the third option, the federal court system.
            ~~~~~
            “The Constitution was never intended to make everyone equal.”

            Really? Have you ever read the Constitution wha? Here let me help you “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
            ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            That doesn’t say “We the white People” or “We the straight People” it SAYS “We the people” that means everyone…red, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, etc…..It Means EVERYONE.
            ~~~~~
            “If it were so, then every state in the Union would have to endorse all
            intimate relationships, including trios, and other multiple combinations of genders.”

            No it doesn’t mean that at all and there is case law to support that position.
            ~~~~~
            “I don’t think this comes remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.”

            Really? Are you sure? What did the Founding Fathers intend then?
            ~~~~
            “That said, your reasoning to have the federal definition of marriage
            overturned is certainly not along the lines of that used in the of Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision.”

            That is your opinion wha and we will who is right come next year I do believe.

          • Anonymous

            To be truthful with you, I would not bet my life on the outcome of any future court or Supreme Court decision. The highest court of the land has a history of being inconsistent. And when you imply it will rule according to your way of thinking, maybe it will. That’s all I can say.

          • Anonymous

            Interracial marriage has zero to do with a sexual perversion.

          • Anonymous

            That’s not what southern Baptists were saying prior to 1967. Or newspapers in the south were saying.

            Say what you wil cp444 but interracial marriage was considered “perverted” pre-1967 in those states that banned it.

            Blacks were lynched for “touching” a white woman. Freedom riders were beaten for calling for disegregatiom and some where murdered by the people charged with protecting us, the police.

            But please keep that head buried in the sand to historical facts. The “mixing” of the races was very much considered “perverted” by those that opposed it.

          • Anonymous

            And you are more like them than you would care to admit. They misused Scripture just like you are.

          • Anonymous

            Wrong again cp444…I don’t quote scripture.

            I only bring up Leviticus when folks take one verse and use it like a battering ram against others. Then my normal response is what about the other laws in Leviticus?

            That’s not quoting it.

          • Anonymous

            Like you like to do with the “shellfish” thingy lol. Yup, your right there.

          • Anonymous

            So would you kindly explain why the only rule from Leviticus we need to follow is one about homosexuality (if it IS even about it as the word homosexual did exist) and none of the other rules and laws need to be followed?

            And then there is this problem. Scholars can not even agree on the original language that Leviticus was written in. Was it Aramaic or Hebrew?

          • Anonymous

            Did you come up with these cute little assertions all by your lonesome? You’re going downhill fast jd. Parroting all the cliches now.

          • Anonymous

            Why are you ignoring the fact that your Jesus said, multiple times, to follow all of the laws presented in the Old testament.  Sure, you have lines from Paul saying otherwise, but why are you putting Paul above Jesus?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not, I explained to you in detail on the other post.

          • Anonymous

            But you are giving me what Paul said, not Jesus.  Why do you follow Paul’s authority over Jesus? Can you show me where Jesus said that you no longer need to follow the old law, because I have shown where he says that you must follow the Old Testament.

          • Anonymous

            Welcome to the strange theology of cp444 crs5012723.

          • Anonymous

            It’s so much fun to use their own book against them.

          • Anonymous

            Another question asked and another question ignored. Very nice way to keep your batting average up cp444.

            I guess you just cannot answer the question.

          • Anonymous

            The problem is Equality Maine  are selling this as economic stimulus and job creation.  It’s such a great stimulus program that all Maine economist including Liberal ones like Charlie Colgan and Laurie Lachance say its a farce.  It may give a small boost for a year.  But its going to be another Liberal Social Welfare Program that Maine Taxpayers are on the hook for.  Just like Gay Rights law of Baldy’s.  The fact is they haven’t had any debates on this and did any ads and its about right where it was last time before the real campaigning on this was done.  The Equality Maine folks already have proved 1 talking point for the Anti-Gay Marriage folks about the School Issue because the teacher’s union is backing them 100%. With Chris Galgay the Union head saying it should be taught in schools as well.  I didn’t vote for it last time and won’t this time either.  We have more important issues and needs its time to focus on economy going here and improving infrastructure.  Making a group warm and fuzzy is not what Mainers want when they spoke the last election.

          • Anonymous

            That’s very interesting. You are at least te second poster in the past week or so that claim that Equality Maine is “selling this as economic stimulus and job creation.”

            If they are, they are doing a terrible job getting that message out. I have not read one press release, seen one commercial, received one piece of mail with this message. Where are you hearing, seeing, reading this? Could you please provide a link so I can see this “plan” for myself?

            The only commercial I have seen from either side is one that shows a Downeast Maine family talking about how SSM is the right thing to do.

            Back in 2009 I don’t recall any debates for or against the repeal either. Of course if there had been debates Yes on 1 would have had to explain why they were not following Maine campaign finance laws, why they were putting out false and misleading information ads (i.e. the law would force “it’ to be taught in schools), etc…In politics, if one side is putting out false and misleading statements, etc…they never want to be put in a position of having to defend those positions.

            I tend to stay up on current events and political campaigns so I was aware that the Maine Teachers Association had come out in support of SSM but I have to admit that “Chris the Union head” has been “saying it
            should be taught in schools as well.” I find that rather surprising as Chris knows how school curriculum is developed and how it is approved for individual school units in Maine. So as I asked above, could you please provide a link to that statement Chris made please and thank you.

            SSM is not about making a group feel “warm and fuzzy”. It is about “doing the right thing” as the only commercial yet released by either side put it.

          • Anonymous

            What is liberal?  What is conservative?  A Reagan conservative is not the same as Tea Party Conservative and a Clinton Democrat is not the same as a Progressive Democrat.

            I support a flat tax.  I must be conservative.
            Oh wait.  I support Marriage Equality.  I must be liberal.

            Wrong!  I support marriage equality on strictly constitutional grounds.  So do many Tea Party conservatives.  So I must be a Tea Party conservative. Nope.

            I didn’t vote for Libby Mitchell for Governor.  I must not be a liberal.

            Hint:  I’m a typical Maine voter, I have declared a party, but I vote independently. 

          • Anonymous

             Very well said…you are not alone, thank you

          • Anonymous

            thank you

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t say all supporters of SSM  are liberals. Rather I stated, “They’re mostly liberals”, meaning to say they are mostly all liberals. But aren’t you a social liberal like Sue Collins? Don’t you support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby and elimination of “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy? Don’t you support Obamacare as well? Just asking.

      • Anonymous

        Yeh, right!

    • Steve Anderson

      She wants equal rights for all … and that makes her an unhinged radical leftist somehow? Huh?

      • Anonymous

        All she really wants is for someone to like her !  All she’s after is a vote !  She’s fooling no one , she should be a ( sorry to those of you who are ) car salesperson !

        • Anonymous

          And King & Summers are not looking for votes?

      • Anonymous

        She wants the LIME light.

        • Anonymous

          Isn’t that true with all politicians?

      • Anonymous

        SSM is not a right. Traditional marriage is for those who pursue it regardless of race or gender. Somehow gay rights activists are trying to convince everyone SSM is a right when in fact SS relationships are qualitatively different then heterosexual relationships. One is natural and open to procreation while the other is not and never will be. People who don’t endorse gay relationships should not vote for the state to endorse them. Instead they should stick to their principles.  

        • Anonymous

          Procreation is not a requirement found on any state issued marriage license in the U.S. if procreation were a requirement, infertile couples, post menopausal women, etc…would not be allowed to marry.

          Why can you not admit the some heterosexual and homosexual couples wish to marry for reasons other than procreation?

          • Anonymous

            I’ve heard this objection before on numerous occasions, that procreation was never made a requirement. Yet it was never intended to be a legal requirement. The original intent of civil marriage was to endorse and assist the traditional family. Since then courts have supported that notion. One more thing, SSM can never be open to new life. True, infertile heterosexual couples can’t be open either, but none of the original law makers questioned this because heterosexual relationships were in general socially sanctioned by society. That sanction has not changed.

        • Anonymous

          Except the Constitution does not make those distinctions.  We are a Constitutional nation, equality is a right, therefore marriage equality is a right.

          If your religion bars you from sharing this belief, that great document (the US Constitution) also protects you from having to perform that ceremony.

          • Anonymous

            Marriage equality is a right within the confines of the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. All are eligible to get married, even those who have a preference for the same sex.

          • Anonymous

            Black people have the same marriage rights as anyone else, we all have a right to marry someone of the same race.  That is within the confines of the definiton of marriage between one man and one woman of the same race.

          • Anonymous

            Based upon your own words, the current laws are unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexuals.

  • Anonymous

    Dill, you need to get the green support also,  The teachers and their unions thats a good voter block. There has to be other voter blocks you can appeal to.

    • Anonymous

      She already has the Green Liberal support. She can not get much greener, I do not think.

    • Anonymous

       Don’t you mean Pander to?

  • Anonymous

    The SJC is going to rule DOMA is unconstitutional in their next session. Several appeals courts in various circuits have already done so. That’s said, I still want a Senator that supports marriage equality.

    • Anonymous

      Dream on…………

      • Anonymous

        That was a huge rally…LOL. Did you see the news footage? Looked like 5-6 people attended.
        No worries.

        • Anonymous

          Wow, didn’t realize you had to attend the rally in order to be able to vote in November. Guess I missed my shot. LOL!

          • Anonymous

            That’s not all you’re missing.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry, I just thought it was stupid for you to ignore all the polls that have been released, but then instead gone on to give credence to something completely irrelevant. Seems like you’re the one missing something.

      • Anonymous

        Really? What were the odds in 1967 that the SCOTUS would strike down all interracial marriage laws in the U.S.?

        Besides, if Congrees really wanted to defend marriage they would have included language to make divorce more difficult and then DOMA really would be defending marriage. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

    • Anonymous

      I think the most likely outcome is that the SC will rule section 3, the part preventing the federal government from recognizing state same sex marriages, unconstitutional, but leave the rest intact, taking a more narrow ruling.  However, there could also be a chance that they strike down the entire law, including the portion about states not having to reconize out of state same sex marriages.  If that’s the case, then the Full Faith and Credit clause comes into effect and every state must recognize the marriages performed in other states, effectively legalizing same sex marriage for the entire country.

  • Anonymous

    You go girl!

  • Anonymous

    Dill should go to Northern Maine ya know like Lewiston

  • Anonymous

    Pack it in Cynthia as your third place finish is a given.

    • Anonymous

      She’ll be lucky to make third place.

  • jdtex

    Dilly, just give it up.  King is going to win the race, despite being born generations ago.  He tried to be outside of government, but he found that he needs Mainers’ adulation (and a taxpayer-funded salary!). 

    It’s over Cindy, and trying to win votes by being the 1,000,000th person this week to suport gays just won’t do the trick.   

  • Anonymous

    Small print for a small story. Even her own party gives no support.
    She can never fix her Quimby support. It amounts to an unpopular person supporting a very unpopular person. If she thinks that her “Standing with the President” comment is going to help, she is wrong. His numbers are slipping by the day also.

    • Anonymous

      LOL! His numbers are going up. What are you talking about?

      • Anonymous

        All within the margin of error except one poll that is so far away from the average it’s not even funny.

        Go to Real Clear Politice and click on “poll” and then click on Obama vs. Romney and look for yourself.

        • Anonymous

          And yet, Romney vs. Obama numbers aren’t the issue. The President’s numbers aren’t slipping. They’re going up.

          • Anonymous

            And what numbers are you looking at?

            More people disapprove than approve of his job performance.

            More people believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

            More people believe “Obama” care should be changed or repealed than want to leave it as is.

            Most national polls have the election a dead heat.

            So where do you see his numbers going “up”.

          • Anonymous

            You’re still pointing to irrelevant things. Saying more people disapprove than approve says nothing to whether his numbers are slipping or not.  His approval rating is not slipping and neither are his numbers against Romney.
             
            I understand you want to win this little argument, but it doesn’t really count if you have to change the subject to win. The issue is whether his numbers are “slipping by the day” or not – they’re not.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not changing anything. Lyon posted his “numbers are going up”. That is a direct quote.

            The numbers that I am seeing at Real Clear Politics just do not support your claim.

            Now to paraphrase a movie line, “show us the numbers” that you keep posting about.

          • Anonymous

            I looked at the RealClearPolitics site you provided, and it seems that in a majority of the polls, Obama is in the lead.  Also, in the General Election graph, the most recent section shows Obama’s lead increasing.  On July 27, the graph put Obama at 46.4% and Romney at 45.1%.  On August 9, the graph put Obama at 47.5% and Romney at 44%. Before July 27, you are right to say that Obama’s lead was dropping, but currently his lead is increasing. They predict that Obama has a 59.5% chance of winning in November, while Romney has a 37.9% chance of winning.

          • Anonymous

            You also have to look at the margin of error (MoE) with is a +/- and likely voter (LV) vs. registered voters (RV) on the polls.

            For instance:

            Rasmussen Tracking Obama 43 Romney 47 MoE 3 = Statistical Dead Heat

            Gallup Tracking Obama 47 Romney 44 MoE 2 = Statistical Dead Heat

            Reuters/Ipsos Obama 48 Romney 42 MoE 3.4= Advantage Obama

            Democracy Corps (D) Obama 50 Romney 46 MoE 3.7 = Statistical Dead Heat

            Pew Research Obama 50 Romney 41 MoE 3.2 = Advantage Obama

            NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 49 Romney 43  MoE 3.1 = Statistical Dead Heat

            FOX News Obama 45 Romney 41 MoE 3 = Statistical Dead Heat

            CBS News/NY Times Obama 46 Romeny 47 MoE 3 = Statistical Dead Heat

            Why is LV a better measure? Because they are more likely to vote in November and only two of the above running average polls is based on LV and those two are CBS News/NY Times and Democracy Corps (D) both of which show a tight race.

            I don’t put much stock in Intrade and people wagering on the race nor do I look at the graph much. But as you brought it up, if you go back to March 8th you will find that President Obama is showing a declining trend line while Governor Romney is flat.

            These numbers do not look really good for the President and the next couple of weeks will be very interesting. Gas prices are again on the climb for no good reason. Unemployment remains above 8.2%. 62% of the American people believe the country is headed in the wrong track ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html ). 47% of the American people Approve/Disapprove of President Obama’s job approval ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html ). 48.8% of the American people favor repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html ).

            No in closing these polls at this point in time are meaningless. Most of the American electorate will not start to pay attention to the election until after Labor Day. That is when the real race begins and if these numbers stay steady it will be a very interesting November 6th and 7th indeed.

          • Anonymous

            I understand that there is margin of error, the point is that, with the information we have now, Obama’s numbers are currently going up.  That may not represent the actuality of the situation, but it is still fair to say that his poll numbers are increasing at the moment.

          • Anonymous

            It doesn’t matter. If someone says that the numbers are sliding, you have to look at multiple numbers across a span of time. You’re citing the numbers for one moment and trying to prove your point. I know you’re smarter than that.

          • Anonymous

            Actual the numbers posted are the rolling average found on Real Clear Politics. The graph tha accompanies that rolling average show la a steady decline from 3/8/12 through today. The trend line is downfrom that date to today.

          • Anonymous

            LOL in what category and why is Real Clear Politics suddenly the Bible? 

          • Anonymous

            Well let’s see….Real Clear Politics provides one place to go to see ALL the major polls in one place without spin or commentary. That’s a plus in my book.

            They provide links to articles from both sides of the political spectrum again without spin or commentary. That’s another plus in my book.

            Do you know of anyother site that provides information from both sides without spin or commentary?

          • Anonymous

            You absolutely are changing the subject if the issue is whether poll numbers are rising or not and your response is only his current number of the moment.

            I replied to a specific post and took issue with a specific remark. “His numbers are slipping by the day also.” Obama’s poll numbers are not slipping by the day. Slipping poll numbers refers to trend, not singular poll results.

            I’m not going to have a petty discussion with you where you change the subject in order to make yourself feel like you’re right. You’re not.

            Obama’s numbers aren’t slipping by the day. That was my original point and the original statement. There is nothing erroneous about my claim.

          • Anonymous

            The trend line on the Real Clear Politics graph show a declining number going back to March 8th.

            The American electorate will not enter the political arena until after Labor Day as a general rule.

            The economic news of rising gas prices and continued high unemployment does not help the Presidents case in the least.

            Remember the polls from the Michigan Governors recall race? They all showed a very tight race right up until the end when the voters cast their ballots. What happened? Walker walked away with the race and the polls were wrong.

            Will this happen here? Don’t know but I know this, the real race doesn’t get going until after Labor Day when people really start to pay attention.

          • Anonymous

            Gas, labor day, unemployment, etc. 

            It doesn’t matter. The statement was that the President’s numbers are going down. You citing gas, labor day, unemployment, etc. doesn’t prove that his numbers are going down.

            It’s not that I disagree with you on those matters, it’s just that you’re wrong if you say the President’s numbers are going down. They’re absolutely not. And if you want to bring in all those other factors, fine, but if you down that Obama’s numbers are sliding in those different terms than we were initially discussing, then Romney’s numbers are bombing.

            I mean, you can’t have it both ways.

          • Anonymous

            The trend line shown on Real Clear Politics rolling average shows a steady decline from 3/8/12 through today.

          • Anonymous

            Either Obama’s numbers are slipping, or more people are making their choice and Romney’s numbers are going up. Regardless, Obama is not going to have the slam dunk he expected. Romney also had more campaign contributions than Obama for the past 3 months in a row.
            You have to admit that a lot of people don’t like the direction that this country is going in, and Obama certainly hasn’t helped that. He’s made the homosexuals happy and the people who want someone else to pay for their healthcare. Generally people despise Pelosi, Reed, Hillary, and much of the people associated with Obama. Luckily Frank is gone. 
            Romney is not even a strong candidate, but better than the alternative, if he was, then Obama would be packing already.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t you think that is pathetic though? The right has gone on and on about how awful Obama was/is since day one and it’s been four years and they couldn’t come up with a “strong candidate”? Don’t you think that proves something?

          • Anonymous

            I would love for the new media to find the Obama supporter that when asked why she was supporting Obama said…“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage” and ask her how that worked out for her.

          • Anonymous

            Um, okay. 

          • Anonymous

            I would love to know how she is doing today. Wouldn’t you?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t care about what some rando said to be quite honest. I don’t care what Joe the Plumber is doing either. I don’t think those things are important.

  • Anonymous

    The unsavory Dill is a consistent reminder that repeating the same mantra over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome may be a prognosis of a person’s mental state.

    • Anonymous

      Just like the Republican Party saying No New Taxes, and More Deregulation, like we’ve haven’t witnessed the long brutal results of that mantra. Which proves they’re nuts according to your statement.

  • Anonymous

    SHE NEEDS TO JUST GO AWAY

  • Anonymous

    Not a good idea to pledge that you are going to continue to support changing something on the Federal level that the people you will represent have voted down on the State level.

    • Anonymous

      Except in this election it’s going to be voted up.

    • Anonymous

      read the Constitution sometime, especially the Supremacy clause…blah blah blah…Supreme Law of the Land…etc etc.

  • Anonymous

    that should end her carrier.I think i will send her a chick-fil-a sandwich now that she is anti-business.

  • Anonymous

    “Dilly” Dill–

  • Anonymous

    I’d say Dill is in a pickle.

  • Anonymous

    The so-called gay rights movement is not about being gay, civil rights, equal rights but about engaging in a certain type of sexual behavior, an irrational, destructive, and immoral type of sexual behavior by an extreme minority constantly playing the “squeaky wheel” to get the “grease”. Passing laws to force other people to accept that behavior borders on fascism. What’s next for the “gay sex deniers,” re-education camps? Right, we already have them. They’re called public (government) schools and community organizers. Just another example of  a liberal who will do anything to get a vote including giving up morals and ethics that is if you’ve got them in the first place. 

    • Anonymous

      No one cares if you like wheter or not they are in a same sex relationship, get over yourself.

    • Anonymous

      You need to look up the definition of “fascism” SP before you use it.

  • Anonymous

    Cynthia knows she will be beaten by an embarrassing margin. She is just looking to establish name recognition for some future endeavor. Thing is, she will get clobbered and out-classed so badly in the debates that she will cancel out any future hopes of anything outside of Boston-North.

  • Anonymous

    She lost my vote.

You may also like