4 ms·

I'm convinced that abortion is the worst thing the Democratic party could have ever taken up. You simply cannot sway a vote of a person who believes you support

I'm convinced that abortion is the worst thing the Democratic party could have ever taken up. You simply cannot sway a vote of a person who believes you support murdering babies. (I am pro abortion, but a substantial amount of people think it is morally murder.) Those people have to vote R their whole life no matter what. Nothing is worse than murdering babies. Democrats would probably never lose again if they publicly dropped support for abortion.

pjc50 10mo ago
Throwing an awful lot of maternal lives away for that one. Similar story for lots of other unpopular issues, like the Civil Rights act.
- eudamoniac 10mo ago
  Well you can be right, or you can win. This thread is a consequence of being right.
  - aisengard 10mo ago
    Well, some people can win. Other people will simply die of massive blood loss. As long as it's not you, right?
    - anonymars 10mo ago
      If Roe v. Wade is gone now, what point are you trying to make?
      - nkohari 10mo ago
        Roe v. Wade isn't gone because of the will of the people. Nobody voted to overturn it. It's gone because of a unique scenario involving the balance of power in the SCOTUS. Congressional Republicans simply refused to confirm a legally appointed justice, allowing a conservative justice to be appointed in their place after the next POTUS was elected. Then, another liberal justice passed away creating another vacancy which was again filled by a conservative. If either or both of those things hadn't happened, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned. And sure, you can say it was the will of the people that a conservative was in office at the time, and appointed the justices, but that's not the same as voting for or against federal abortion rights.
        anonymars 10mo ago
        Appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade was a focal point in the 2016 election. Dangling that possibility was the entire point of the confirmation shenanigans. "Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that ... will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court" https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-justices-decisive-long-campaign-overturn-roe-v-wade-2022-06-24/#:~:text=The%20month%20before,at%20the%20time. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-justices-dec...
  - UncleMeat 10mo ago
    So, we've seen large disproportionate electoral success from pro-life democrats? Referenda protecting abortion rights in red states were totally crushed? Wait no. That's not what has happened. Further, democratic voters are democrats because they support the policies that the democratic policy supports. Democrats suddenly being down with a federal ban on abortion isn't going to exactly get pro choice dems (the huge majority of their voting population) to run to the polls. Dems tried the "actually we are right wing too" approach on immigration. Do people who hate illegal immigrants vote dem now? No.
immibis 10mo ago
So many people didn't vote for the Democrats in 2024 because they didn't support Palestine and they lost as a result. If the Democrats become identical to the Republicans then why would any non-Republican even bother voting?
- throwaway902984 10mo ago
  You are so correct in your first statement yet imply something in your second I think is so incorrect in a wider context that it strikes me like whiplash. Paying lip service but not addressing that friction was a significant part of what killed the Harris campaign, IMO.
  - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
    well yes. That's the big issue. Trump didn't get more votes, Harris got drastically less than Biden. People didn't come out. She had a bad hand needing to start out 6 months into an election cycle, and she played it poorly to boot. That's why this "we need to appeal to moderates/right wing" narrative is so frustrating. That's exactly what Harris did by trying to downplay Palestine/defend Israel and refusing to talk about the tensions in the job market. She established herself as "more of the same". That doesn't win votes in increasingly bad times.
    - temp8830 10mo ago
      Where "the same" meant "who knows who's actually running the country". Let's at least be honest about that part.
      - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        They were generally good at making sure whoever is "really running the country" stayed in the Lawful Evil alignment. If the trump regime was smarter we may have been truly cooked. Instead we have cartoon supervillains trying to pick fights with our allies in the open, and police openly shooting citizens. Pretty hard to defend that.
SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
Abortion is an emblematic example of how this kind of triangulation doesn't do what you're expecting. The Democratic party didn't take abortion up on the federal stage, repeatedly declining to create any new statutory protections and endorsing things like the Hyde amendment that acknowledge it's a contested issue. I think that was probably the right decision even in retrospect, but it didn't earn them even a modicum of goodwill from anti-abortion advocates. You simply can't convince the public that your party doesn't stand for things your members care deeply about.
- eudamoniac 10mo ago
  I mean, everyone knows that D widely supports abortion. It's been shouted from the rooftops for decades. It wouldn't be very believable in one cycle even if they tried, which they didn't; neglecting to bring up the topic is not close to publicly dropping support. Part of why it's so bad for them is because it will be very difficult to get disentangled from it. From a pro-life perspective, "well they didn't make it easier to murder babies or bring it up much" is not compelling.
  - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
    To me your phrase "publicly dropped support for abortion" sounds like "neglecting to bring up the topic". If you mean that Democratic leaders should somehow convince their members to support abortion restrictions that they oppose, I'm not sure why you would presume that's possible.
    - eudamoniac 10mo ago
      I'm imagining a candidate saying something like, "I want to help America with x y z [blue team related] issues. I want to bridge the aisle with Republicans and voters. To that end, I vow to not support any measures for the expansion of abortion. I believe that right now it's more important to help Americans in other ways. This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can come together to solve x y and z." Maybe Democrats would never vote for this, but that's kind of the problem.
exe34 10mo ago
being against abortion is equivalent to condemning women to death when their pregnancy is going wrong. you see how moral absolutes (don't) work?
- bluGill 10mo ago
  That was the point. democrats often point out those rare cases where the womens life is in danger and then use that as the absolute we must allow all abotions. Nobody will argue for the compromise and so you lose a lot who won't acpept the absolute.
  - exe34 10mo ago
    any bill to ban abortions (because "muh sacred life") should include funding for childcare, medical coverage, and school lunches. Pro-lifers are unfortunately only pro births when it comes to voting.
    - bluGill 10mo ago
      That does not follow. That you think it does shows how little you understand the complexity of what people think.
      - exe34 10mo ago
        Oh yeah, the people of "my God says it's murder, therefore you can't do it" are well known for subtlety and complexity of thought.
        bluGill 10mo ago
        It isn't just God says so. There are moral arguements against murder other than God.
        exe34 10mo ago
        it's not murder. it's a ball of cells. they only call it murder because their god allegedly grants a soul upon masturbation or something.
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
This has the same energy as "Democrats would fair better if they let slavery be legal again". Aren't democrats critisized by their actual voter base by trying to continually appeal to a party that will never vote for them? It really just shows that the major parties are either center right or far right.

pjc50 10mo ago

Throwing an awful lot of maternal lives away for that one. Similar story for lots of other unpopular issues, like the Civil Rights act.

eudamoniac 10mo ago
Well you can be right, or you can win. This thread is a consequence of being right.
- aisengard 10mo ago
  Well, some people can win. Other people will simply die of massive blood loss. As long as it's not you, right?
  - anonymars 10mo ago
    If Roe v. Wade is gone now, what point are you trying to make?
    - nkohari 10mo ago
      Roe v. Wade isn't gone because of the will of the people. Nobody voted to overturn it. It's gone because of a unique scenario involving the balance of power in the SCOTUS. Congressional Republicans simply refused to confirm a legally appointed justice, allowing a conservative justice to be appointed in their place after the next POTUS was elected. Then, another liberal justice passed away creating another vacancy which was again filled by a conservative. If either or both of those things hadn't happened, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned. And sure, you can say it was the will of the people that a conservative was in office at the time, and appointed the justices, but that's not the same as voting for or against federal abortion rights.
      - anonymars 10mo ago
        Appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade was a focal point in the 2016 election. Dangling that possibility was the entire point of the confirmation shenanigans. "Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that ... will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court" https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-justices-decisive-long-campaign-overturn-roe-v-wade-2022-06-24/#:~:text=The%20month%20before,at%20the%20time. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-justices-dec...
- UncleMeat 10mo ago
  So, we've seen large disproportionate electoral success from pro-life democrats? Referenda protecting abortion rights in red states were totally crushed? Wait no. That's not what has happened. Further, democratic voters are democrats because they support the policies that the democratic policy supports. Democrats suddenly being down with a federal ban on abortion isn't going to exactly get pro choice dems (the huge majority of their voting population) to run to the polls. Dems tried the "actually we are right wing too" approach on immigration. Do people who hate illegal immigrants vote dem now? No.

immibis 10mo ago

So many people didn't vote for the Democrats in 2024 because they didn't support Palestine and they lost as a result. If the Democrats become identical to the Republicans then why would any non-Republican even bother voting?

throwaway902984 10mo ago
You are so correct in your first statement yet imply something in your second I think is so incorrect in a wider context that it strikes me like whiplash. Paying lip service but not addressing that friction was a significant part of what killed the Harris campaign, IMO.
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  well yes. That's the big issue. Trump didn't get more votes, Harris got drastically less than Biden. People didn't come out. She had a bad hand needing to start out 6 months into an election cycle, and she played it poorly to boot. That's why this "we need to appeal to moderates/right wing" narrative is so frustrating. That's exactly what Harris did by trying to downplay Palestine/defend Israel and refusing to talk about the tensions in the job market. She established herself as "more of the same". That doesn't win votes in increasingly bad times.
  - temp8830 10mo ago
    Where "the same" meant "who knows who's actually running the country". Let's at least be honest about that part.
    - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
      They were generally good at making sure whoever is "really running the country" stayed in the Lawful Evil alignment. If the trump regime was smarter we may have been truly cooked. Instead we have cartoon supervillains trying to pick fights with our allies in the open, and police openly shooting citizens. Pretty hard to defend that.

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago

Abortion is an emblematic example of how this kind of triangulation doesn't do what you're expecting. The Democratic party didn't take abortion up on the federal stage, repeatedly declining to create any new statutory protections and endorsing things like the Hyde amendment that acknowledge it's a contested issue. I think that was probably the right decision even in retrospect, but it didn't earn them even a modicum of goodwill from anti-abortion advocates. You simply can't convince the public that your party doesn't stand for things your members care deeply about.

eudamoniac 10mo ago
I mean, everyone knows that D widely supports abortion. It's been shouted from the rooftops for decades. It wouldn't be very believable in one cycle even if they tried, which they didn't; neglecting to bring up the topic is not close to publicly dropping support. Part of why it's so bad for them is because it will be very difficult to get disentangled from it. From a pro-life perspective, "well they didn't make it easier to murder babies or bring it up much" is not compelling.
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  To me your phrase "publicly dropped support for abortion" sounds like "neglecting to bring up the topic". If you mean that Democratic leaders should somehow convince their members to support abortion restrictions that they oppose, I'm not sure why you would presume that's possible.
  - eudamoniac 10mo ago
    I'm imagining a candidate saying something like, "I want to help America with x y z [blue team related] issues. I want to bridge the aisle with Republicans and voters. To that end, I vow to not support any measures for the expansion of abortion. I believe that right now it's more important to help Americans in other ways. This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can come together to solve x y and z." Maybe Democrats would never vote for this, but that's kind of the problem.

exe34 10mo ago

being against abortion is equivalent to condemning women to death when their pregnancy is going wrong. you see how moral absolutes (don't) work?

bluGill 10mo ago
That was the point. democrats often point out those rare cases where the womens life is in danger and then use that as the absolute we must allow all abotions. Nobody will argue for the compromise and so you lose a lot who won't acpept the absolute.
- exe34 10mo ago
  any bill to ban abortions (because "muh sacred life") should include funding for childcare, medical coverage, and school lunches. Pro-lifers are unfortunately only pro births when it comes to voting.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    That does not follow. That you think it does shows how little you understand the complexity of what people think.
    - exe34 10mo ago
      Oh yeah, the people of "my God says it's murder, therefore you can't do it" are well known for subtlety and complexity of thought.
      - bluGill 10mo ago
        It isn't just God says so. There are moral arguements against murder other than God.
        exe34 10mo ago
        it's not murder. it's a ball of cells. they only call it murder because their god allegedly grants a soul upon masturbation or something.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

This has the same energy as "Democrats would fair better if they let slavery be legal again". Aren't democrats critisized by their actual voter base by trying to continually appeal to a party that will never vote for them? It really just shows that the major parties are either center right or far right.