MAGAism worked in 2016 because people didn't understand the depths of its depravity.
As we've come to know about how awful it is and is getting the American people have been rejecting it.
Like I said a couple of times yesterday:
2018 saw MAGA lose the House and lose ground in the Senate.
2020 saw MAGA lose the Presidency, the Senate and th…
MAGAism worked in 2016 because people didn't understand the depths of its depravity.
As we've come to know about how awful it is and is getting the American people have been rejecting it.
Like I said a couple of times yesterday:
2018 saw MAGA lose the House and lose ground in the Senate.
2020 saw MAGA lose the Presidency, the Senate and the House.
After 2016 MAGA could count 33 governorships. Currenty they are down to 28 and slated to be at 25 or less after next week.
I did end up looking at state level legislatures and since Trump was elected MAGA has lost around 400 state legislative seats and Democrats have gained about 400 state legislative seats.
MAGA is a group of, at most 25%-30%, of US voters. They are very loud. They are covered as if they were a normal group of people. But the actual voters have been rejecting MAGA more and more each election.
Did Trump win more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016? Even when you discount the multi-voting in places like The Villages in Florida, he did. But the Democrats picked up more new voters than the MAGA Lord.
Women are dialled in this election. Trump is not physically on the ballot. There will be no red wave. Pro-Democracy forces will expand their lead in the Senate and keep the House.
The only thing that can stop it? You being so worn out by the constant drumbeat of MAGA coverage and false "Dems in disarray" that you decide it's not worth voting. That's where MAGA wants you.
Go vote...today if you can.
Voters: check in.
I voted last Friday and voted straight blue. I voted against DeSantis and for Demings.
Voted by mail two weeks ago in Maryland. Got confirmation of my ballot's arrival a few days later. We're a totally blue county in a mighty blue state, so not sure how much difference I made, but I did it.
In my case, voting a straight Democratic ticket was an easy choice: I live in Florida.
Everyone on this message board knows the Floridian national candidates involved, but the GOP district-level candidates are equally besotted with election denial and other MAGAfied lies.
TBH, I wouldn't be so worried about losing Congress if the Republicans had decent, honest human beings as their candidates. The problem is that they do not. Their candidates are in the mold of Greene, Boebert, Biggs, and Goehmer.
Amanda wrote above how nation-wide 63% of us have election deniers on the ballot. But it's really not the people on the ballot that have me worried. In a rational world, they would be easily defeated. It's the people who will vote for them that keep me awake at night.
So, I disagree with your optimism. We probably will lose the House and Senate, not because the Democrats have weaker candidates, they don't. They have better candidates. But the Democrats will lose because of the gerrymandered districts that favor the Republican candidates and the dark money that funds them with non-stop fictionalized attack ads. So that now, the MAGA voters and even the somnambulant, semi-conscious independents have been fully inculcated in the disinformation their leaders want them to be.
And, of course, that disinformation has now been completely exposed as outright lethal.
Why do we see the MAGA media and GQP pols ridicule an 82-year-old man whose skull was fractured with a hammer? Because they want their followers to see Democrats as the enemy.
When you respond to others with empathy and compassion, you are asserting our common humanity, but that is the last thing the MAGA media want to assert. Like the US propaganda during WWII that ridiculed the Japanese and Germans in order to stoke our citizens with hatred and condemnation and a determination to fight them, the present day MAGA propagandists are stoking their voters with hatred and condemnation against Democrats. The goal is to eliminate every last vestige of sympathy and kindness for one another. Only that way can the Trump supporting "Republicans" feel free to use their guns and hammers against their fellow Americans.
Really excellent analysis of MAGA's weaknesses in 2018 and 2020. (I too agree MAGA is at most 25-30% of the electorate.) As far as your analysis of what will happen next Tuesday, well don't quit your day job. You're engaging in extremely wishful thinking.
By the way, as far as the "women are dialed in this election" comment, I guarantee you on Election Day that Republicans will do better with women voters in 2022 than they did in 2018. Ds have convinced themselves that Dobbs will be the magic bullet with women. But the Ds don't understand the political dynamics of the abortion issue...they never have. Dobbs will help turn the traditional R advantage on the abortion issue into one for the Ds, but not by nearly the margins the Ds expect. Ds refuse to accept the reality that there are plenty of women on the other side of the abortion issue. Indeed, if you want to find the most supportive constituency for abortion rights, don't look to women, look to men, particularly young men. Men aged 18-25 are the most supportive of abortion rights of any demographic group. Wanna guess why?
Yes, it's utterly depressing how many women will vote for and celebrate their second-class citizenship, who will vote for and celebrate putting their lives and the lives of their daughters under the thumb of ignorant state politicians.
I'm not fully a "D", but of course we know women are the majority of the anti-abortion constituency. We're quite aware that women care about this issue more deeply than men. But I'll share with you a quote from my lifelong Republican, Catholic 78 year old mother: "I want to see abortion eliminated, but not by making it illegal and denying people medical care." And my 90 year old Catholic, Republican mother in law has had enough of Trump's personality to last her the rest of her life. I would put a strong caveat on "a lot of women hate abortion" translating to "these women will vote MAGA."
The problem with that position is that abortion unquestioningly involves another human life growing inside the woman's body. If you take the position that it's just about a woman and what she does with her own body, then by definition you support abortion for all 9 months of a pregnancy. But only a very small percentage of people support abortion that late. In fact, a majority don't support second trimester abortion either. Most industrialized countries have adopted (through the legislative process) reasonable gestational limits of 12-15 weeks on abortions. 95% of abortions happen earlier than that. I think that's where the compromise will end up being struck. I think there is a lot more consensus on this issue than would appear to be from the rhetoric.
By the way, it sounds like you and I have the same 90 year old mother. Mine though, who is pro-life, has stopped voting Republican completely because of Trump. Trump's affiliation with the pro-life movement has even caused her to start to have doubts about her pro-life position. I warned my pro-life friends that they should not jeopardize the movement by associating it so closely with Trump, but they didn't listen.
Paul, it sounds to me like you think women have late-trimester abortions for the same reason women have first trimester abortions. They don’t. A later term abortion happens because something physically or medically catastrophic is diagnosed that concerns the continued health and viability of mother, child or both. Later term abortions medically have to be done in a properly-equipped hospital room operating, not a clinic. It also requires the permission of a hospital board of ethics made up of several professionally knowledgeable people. Doctors who do late-term abortions outside of an accredited hospital lose their license to practice.
And, most tragically, late-term abortions involve a baby that is very-much wanted. It is not something done on a whim in the eighth or nineth month because a woman changed her mind. It is done as a medical necessity in an effort to save a life or prevent needless, pointless suffering.
That's pretty much where my mother and I landed - there's a lot of room for compromise, especially now that first-trimester abortions are done with drugs and not surgery. And there is a lot more consensus that the media would have us think. Most people don't want a free-for-all with no medical oversight, and most people don't want cancer patients denied chemo just in case there's a possibility they could get pregnant. I don't think government should be the one doing the medical oversight, but I also don't want people shilling essential oils as an alternative. It's just worrying that so many laws are being passed now that the majority of the people disagree with. I can't see that being sustainable.
Wonderful comments about your mother. We ignore at our own future peril the flexibility and the continuing ability of the aging brain to learn and to adapt to new ideas. It sounds like your mother is still "processing" with full cognitive control. I can only hope I'm similarly fortunate to live and prosper so well!
Canada has ZERO laws setting gestational limits for abortion. Is Canada an abortion hellscape? No, and in fact their rate of abortion is less than ours. I'm guessing because they have a stronger social safety net and easier access to contraception (you know, the two things that actually reduce abortions without risking women's lives). Abortion SHOULD BE an issue between a woman and her doctor.
Curious how you all stand with rape prevalence, too. I often feel that we don't consistently treat rape as a serious crime in this country, for a lot of complex reasons more difficult to address than "OMG sexism." They're hard cases to prosecute. I worry that if we have rape exceptions, it's going to be super hard to prove that a rape happened.
Absolutely. Even if there are "exceptions for rape," some of these laws require the rape to be reported to law enforcement. So a woman or child is raped and impregnated against her will, and then we're going to have the state enforce even trauma on her? On the flip side, if there are no exceptions, then anyone can say they've been raped and get an abortion, and so what's the point? I mean, I'm fine with that scenario, since I think prochoice is the only pro-woman/pro-freedom option, but it sure wouldn't satisfy the forced birth zealots. We should just have the government stay the hell out of women's healthcare, period.
The Kansas referendum was considered shortly after Dobbs when there were headlines about how Republicans were trying to bar 10 year old rape victims from having an abortion. The Kansas referendum was being framed as a change in the law that would allow Republicans to ban abortion completely in that. , even not allowing exceptions for rape and incest. Voters aren't going to go for that extreme position, even in very Republican states. But Democrats learned the wrong message from Kansas. They came to believe the voters like their position on abortion. But the Democrats' abortion position in application is every bit as extreme as the Republicans. Stacey Abrams, for example, was arguing abortion should be allowed for any reason up until birth. Again, I go back to the fact that most industrialized countries have adopted reasonable gestational limits of 12-15 weeks, with exceptions for rape and incest. That is several weeks less than Roe, but still covers 95% of abortions.
How the vast majority of people answer polls about abortion is almost entirely linked with how the question is phrased. This is because most people have no opinion more well-formed than "I don't like it, but I like someone I love not having access to it if they need it even less." This is why trying to sell people on a specific plan will not work. You sell it as "they want to take away the right completely" while avoiding anything more specific than "codifying Roe." Which is what the Dems are doing
Late term abortions only happen because of medical necessity to save a life or prevent needless, pointless suffering. They only happen in a fully-equipped hospital operating room and with the permission of an ethics board. They are not done on a whim and they involve babies that are very-much wanted. It is always a catastrophic tragedy. They make up less than one per cent of abortions in the US.
Well, there is always the wonderful option of adoption if the cost of raising the child is too much.
But if you use the argument that a woman shouldn't be forced to incur the cost of raising a child for 18 years, aren't you opening yourself up to the argument that men should not be forced to incur the cost of raising a child for 18 years if a woman chooses not to have an abortion? Let me make clear, I don't support this position at all, but I've heard a lot of men make the argument. Granted they were typically not in earshot of a woman though. :)
Paul - If a woman takes a pregnancy to term to have the child adopted, who pays the doctors’ fees for the pre-natal checkups and for the hospital cost of the birth? Who pays for the time off to recover? What about the medical risks of birth? Giving birth is much more of a risk than having an abortion. Adoption is not the easy alternative to giving birth. Not such a wonderful option when you factor in the reality of adoption.
I fully support the idea that MAGA is bad and that almost without exception, there aren't good republicans I can vote for.
That said, I live in Ohio's 12th. My governor (DeWine) was pretty sensible about Covid, isn't an election denier, and more importantly, is almost 100% certain to win. Same with my representative (Balderson).
I love your optimism and hope you are right, but you could be right beyond your hopes and DeWine and Balderson aren't going anywhere. As such, does a split ticket with Ryan, DeWine and Balderson send a stronger anti-MAGA message than a straight D ticket? I'm putting stock in the gap between DeWine and Balderson's support vs. Vance's in the hope that that sends a stronger message. Or, instead of a split ticket, either third party or no vote in those races?
On the other hand, that does make the State and district seem less winnable by the Dems, so it isn't without cost.
I haven't decided yet and I'd like to hear yours (and others) reasoning on it. Feel free to tell me that either DeWine or Balderson could lose (so I should vote D to win), but I highly doubt I'm going to believe that.
I don't know a lot of specifics about DeWine. If your take on him is correct, which I have no reason to doubt, then maybe the split ticket DeWine/Ryan vote would send the bigger message.
If DeWine wins bigly and it's shown that a significant part of his voters also voted Ryan over Vance then maybe GOP politicos will start to get it into their heads that MAGAism is a political loser.
That's my thinking. Not that I put a lot of stock in the idea of sane republicans coming to their senses (they still know the primary score), but it seems like it might be worth the try.
DeWine had a primary challenge from the right that he fended off, but smart GOP money might get the signal next time to not even try a MAGA. And for the district, I also wonder if there is value in creating a false sense of security. They look at these voting patterns quite heavily when gerrymandering, and the worse their data, the better. Probably way too far out from 2030 to matter on that front, but it is another theoretical angle.
All said with the full understanding that a single vote isn't going to sway any calculus by itself.
At this point, I think the important question is "when the fight for democracy starts, which foxhole is a person going to jump into?" If De Wine and Balderson are on the right side of that, then it's fine to vote for them. If you're not sure, though, or worse, you think they won't, you shouldn't vote for them regardless. The only message that matters is how many votes a candidate gets. Everything else is just interpretation.
My two cents is this: Under normal circumstances I think your analysis of your choices is sound - why not vote for an Incumbent Governor that you know and have liked and is decidedly not a MAGAt? I assume you've applied the same analysis to Balderson.
However, that said, I do think the only way to send today's GOP a strong message is for as many people as possible to vote against them, at any and every level, because they will NEVER reform until that happens. In your case it probably won't result in an R loss, but they'll notice it, and in other states it could result in an R loss. All we have right now is the message we send them, and the message should be WE REJECT THIS SHIT - IF YOU WANT OUR VOTE AGAIN - REJECT THE CRAZY VIOLENT HATEFUL ANTI-DEMOCRATIC BULLSHIT NOW.
Good point, but at the same time, DeWine getting fewer votes than he normally would also sends a message, maybe even to the "mainstream" republicans who have chosen to stay silent on the sidelines, enabling this shit to keep growing. Like you said, he's going to win with or without your vote, and you're fine with that....
Well 'fine' isn't the word I'd use. If the choice was up to me, I'd pick his dem opponent. DeWine seems like a decent man who made tough calls on covid that weren't ideologically driven. He also hasn't support Trump in anything approaching a full-throated way. He's no Cheney or anything, I don't have any illusions on him. But for any decency he has or not going full bore crazy, he's still a member of a party that's not exactly on the path towards making America a better place.
So maybe a non-vote in those races? Still shows half the statistical difference between Ryan-Vance as between Balderson-...??? but doesn't show support for Republicans.
To be very clear, I'm no Republican, regretful republican, etc. I didn't convert in 2015 or 16. Plenty converted before me, I'm not bragging; just want to be clear on the concept that I have absolutely no problem voting straight D in this political climate. I'm just exploring if there might be something even more effective to highlight the anti-trumpkin nature of my political leaning.
Really wish I had ranked choice voting so I could make my preferences clear.
Actually, you might be onto something here. I think the way the R's would read it would be - couldn't bring himself to vote for the D candidate, but wouldn't vote for us either. More likely to think you're an R who rejects them than a D voting a straight ticket?
I'm holding out hope because of you, so get your Wednesday comments ready to go! I voted last week, straight Democratic ticket here in Texas.
I heard about a poll last night that said 40% of young people say they are "definitely" voting, but are waiting to do so on Election Day. Do you believe it?
Damn, I wish Charlie had taken you up on your "challenge" to either gift subscriptions or write a piece for Bulwark!
My son is 19. I talked to him about voting yesterday, and he said, "But I'm registered as an Independent, I'm not allowed to vote in the midterms." I was happy to correct him. (NY is a closed primary state so he's not allowed to vote in primaries.) So that's one more voter. Let's keep talking to young people and making sure they know America wants their votes.
Great use of a "teaching moment"! I wish someone had told me the difference between a midterm and a primary when I was a teenager. It might have roused my curiosity enough to learn about other civic duties I was still unaware of.
My voting children will copy my voting if I give them a list. At one time they cared and insisted on voting for progressives or Green party and were very against me trying to exert influence. But now they think voting doesn't matter anyway, we are too entrenched in a capitalist system meant to only work for the very rich & all the talk of American values and working hard yields rich rewards is all bullshit veneer on capitalist corruption.
Please tell him to tell his friends to vote as well. I hate to think of them believing the same incorrect information, but wouldn't be surprised if it's the case.
MAGAism worked in 2016 because people didn't understand the depths of its depravity.
As we've come to know about how awful it is and is getting the American people have been rejecting it.
Like I said a couple of times yesterday:
2018 saw MAGA lose the House and lose ground in the Senate.
2020 saw MAGA lose the Presidency, the Senate and the House.
After 2016 MAGA could count 33 governorships. Currenty they are down to 28 and slated to be at 25 or less after next week.
I did end up looking at state level legislatures and since Trump was elected MAGA has lost around 400 state legislative seats and Democrats have gained about 400 state legislative seats.
MAGA is a group of, at most 25%-30%, of US voters. They are very loud. They are covered as if they were a normal group of people. But the actual voters have been rejecting MAGA more and more each election.
Did Trump win more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016? Even when you discount the multi-voting in places like The Villages in Florida, he did. But the Democrats picked up more new voters than the MAGA Lord.
Women are dialled in this election. Trump is not physically on the ballot. There will be no red wave. Pro-Democracy forces will expand their lead in the Senate and keep the House.
The only thing that can stop it? You being so worn out by the constant drumbeat of MAGA coverage and false "Dems in disarray" that you decide it's not worth voting. That's where MAGA wants you.
Go vote...today if you can.
Voters: check in.
I voted last Friday and voted straight blue. I voted against DeSantis and for Demings.
Guys/gals/in-between, we got this.
There you go again with the hope. We’ll see. Voted before I left, get home when it’s all over. And it may well be all over.
Voted by mail two weeks ago in Maryland. Got confirmation of my ballot's arrival a few days later. We're a totally blue county in a mighty blue state, so not sure how much difference I made, but I did it.
We've got this as long as we all stay involved and active.
Voted straight D here in Texas. No hassles. Maybe it was an exercise in futility, but here's to optimism.
In my case, voting a straight Democratic ticket was an easy choice: I live in Florida.
Everyone on this message board knows the Floridian national candidates involved, but the GOP district-level candidates are equally besotted with election denial and other MAGAfied lies.
TBH, I wouldn't be so worried about losing Congress if the Republicans had decent, honest human beings as their candidates. The problem is that they do not. Their candidates are in the mold of Greene, Boebert, Biggs, and Goehmer.
Amanda wrote above how nation-wide 63% of us have election deniers on the ballot. But it's really not the people on the ballot that have me worried. In a rational world, they would be easily defeated. It's the people who will vote for them that keep me awake at night.
So, I disagree with your optimism. We probably will lose the House and Senate, not because the Democrats have weaker candidates, they don't. They have better candidates. But the Democrats will lose because of the gerrymandered districts that favor the Republican candidates and the dark money that funds them with non-stop fictionalized attack ads. So that now, the MAGA voters and even the somnambulant, semi-conscious independents have been fully inculcated in the disinformation their leaders want them to be.
And, of course, that disinformation has now been completely exposed as outright lethal.
Why do we see the MAGA media and GQP pols ridicule an 82-year-old man whose skull was fractured with a hammer? Because they want their followers to see Democrats as the enemy.
When you respond to others with empathy and compassion, you are asserting our common humanity, but that is the last thing the MAGA media want to assert. Like the US propaganda during WWII that ridiculed the Japanese and Germans in order to stoke our citizens with hatred and condemnation and a determination to fight them, the present day MAGA propagandists are stoking their voters with hatred and condemnation against Democrats. The goal is to eliminate every last vestige of sympathy and kindness for one another. Only that way can the Trump supporting "Republicans" feel free to use their guns and hammers against their fellow Americans.
Really excellent analysis of MAGA's weaknesses in 2018 and 2020. (I too agree MAGA is at most 25-30% of the electorate.) As far as your analysis of what will happen next Tuesday, well don't quit your day job. You're engaging in extremely wishful thinking.
By the way, as far as the "women are dialed in this election" comment, I guarantee you on Election Day that Republicans will do better with women voters in 2022 than they did in 2018. Ds have convinced themselves that Dobbs will be the magic bullet with women. But the Ds don't understand the political dynamics of the abortion issue...they never have. Dobbs will help turn the traditional R advantage on the abortion issue into one for the Ds, but not by nearly the margins the Ds expect. Ds refuse to accept the reality that there are plenty of women on the other side of the abortion issue. Indeed, if you want to find the most supportive constituency for abortion rights, don't look to women, look to men, particularly young men. Men aged 18-25 are the most supportive of abortion rights of any demographic group. Wanna guess why?
Yes, it's utterly depressing how many women will vote for and celebrate their second-class citizenship, who will vote for and celebrate putting their lives and the lives of their daughters under the thumb of ignorant state politicians.
I'm not fully a "D", but of course we know women are the majority of the anti-abortion constituency. We're quite aware that women care about this issue more deeply than men. But I'll share with you a quote from my lifelong Republican, Catholic 78 year old mother: "I want to see abortion eliminated, but not by making it illegal and denying people medical care." And my 90 year old Catholic, Republican mother in law has had enough of Trump's personality to last her the rest of her life. I would put a strong caveat on "a lot of women hate abortion" translating to "these women will vote MAGA."
The problem with that position is that abortion unquestioningly involves another human life growing inside the woman's body. If you take the position that it's just about a woman and what she does with her own body, then by definition you support abortion for all 9 months of a pregnancy. But only a very small percentage of people support abortion that late. In fact, a majority don't support second trimester abortion either. Most industrialized countries have adopted (through the legislative process) reasonable gestational limits of 12-15 weeks on abortions. 95% of abortions happen earlier than that. I think that's where the compromise will end up being struck. I think there is a lot more consensus on this issue than would appear to be from the rhetoric.
By the way, it sounds like you and I have the same 90 year old mother. Mine though, who is pro-life, has stopped voting Republican completely because of Trump. Trump's affiliation with the pro-life movement has even caused her to start to have doubts about her pro-life position. I warned my pro-life friends that they should not jeopardize the movement by associating it so closely with Trump, but they didn't listen.
Paul, it sounds to me like you think women have late-trimester abortions for the same reason women have first trimester abortions. They don’t. A later term abortion happens because something physically or medically catastrophic is diagnosed that concerns the continued health and viability of mother, child or both. Later term abortions medically have to be done in a properly-equipped hospital room operating, not a clinic. It also requires the permission of a hospital board of ethics made up of several professionally knowledgeable people. Doctors who do late-term abortions outside of an accredited hospital lose their license to practice.
And, most tragically, late-term abortions involve a baby that is very-much wanted. It is not something done on a whim in the eighth or nineth month because a woman changed her mind. It is done as a medical necessity in an effort to save a life or prevent needless, pointless suffering.
That's pretty much where my mother and I landed - there's a lot of room for compromise, especially now that first-trimester abortions are done with drugs and not surgery. And there is a lot more consensus that the media would have us think. Most people don't want a free-for-all with no medical oversight, and most people don't want cancer patients denied chemo just in case there's a possibility they could get pregnant. I don't think government should be the one doing the medical oversight, but I also don't want people shilling essential oils as an alternative. It's just worrying that so many laws are being passed now that the majority of the people disagree with. I can't see that being sustainable.
Wonderful comments about your mother. We ignore at our own future peril the flexibility and the continuing ability of the aging brain to learn and to adapt to new ideas. It sounds like your mother is still "processing" with full cognitive control. I can only hope I'm similarly fortunate to live and prosper so well!
Canada has ZERO laws setting gestational limits for abortion. Is Canada an abortion hellscape? No, and in fact their rate of abortion is less than ours. I'm guessing because they have a stronger social safety net and easier access to contraception (you know, the two things that actually reduce abortions without risking women's lives). Abortion SHOULD BE an issue between a woman and her doctor.
Curious how you all stand with rape prevalence, too. I often feel that we don't consistently treat rape as a serious crime in this country, for a lot of complex reasons more difficult to address than "OMG sexism." They're hard cases to prosecute. I worry that if we have rape exceptions, it's going to be super hard to prove that a rape happened.
Absolutely. Even if there are "exceptions for rape," some of these laws require the rape to be reported to law enforcement. So a woman or child is raped and impregnated against her will, and then we're going to have the state enforce even trauma on her? On the flip side, if there are no exceptions, then anyone can say they've been raped and get an abortion, and so what's the point? I mean, I'm fine with that scenario, since I think prochoice is the only pro-woman/pro-freedom option, but it sure wouldn't satisfy the forced birth zealots. We should just have the government stay the hell out of women's healthcare, period.
Lol, no plans on quitting my day job yet.
Am I wishcasting? Maybe.
But then again, when I play the lottery I'm not paying to actually win, I'm paying to dream about winning. ;)
If this is the case, then why was the abortion law in Kansas repudiated so soundly?
The Kansas referendum was considered shortly after Dobbs when there were headlines about how Republicans were trying to bar 10 year old rape victims from having an abortion. The Kansas referendum was being framed as a change in the law that would allow Republicans to ban abortion completely in that. , even not allowing exceptions for rape and incest. Voters aren't going to go for that extreme position, even in very Republican states. But Democrats learned the wrong message from Kansas. They came to believe the voters like their position on abortion. But the Democrats' abortion position in application is every bit as extreme as the Republicans. Stacey Abrams, for example, was arguing abortion should be allowed for any reason up until birth. Again, I go back to the fact that most industrialized countries have adopted reasonable gestational limits of 12-15 weeks, with exceptions for rape and incest. That is several weeks less than Roe, but still covers 95% of abortions.
How the vast majority of people answer polls about abortion is almost entirely linked with how the question is phrased. This is because most people have no opinion more well-formed than "I don't like it, but I like someone I love not having access to it if they need it even less." This is why trying to sell people on a specific plan will not work. You sell it as "they want to take away the right completely" while avoiding anything more specific than "codifying Roe." Which is what the Dems are doing
Late term abortions only happen because of medical necessity to save a life or prevent needless, pointless suffering. They only happen in a fully-equipped hospital operating room and with the permission of an ethics board. They are not done on a whim and they involve babies that are very-much wanted. It is always a catastrophic tragedy. They make up less than one per cent of abortions in the US.
It takes two. And eighteen years is a lonnng time--at any age, for that matter. Rearing babies into fine, upstanding adults ain't cheap.
Or was your question a rhetorical one? Apologies if so.
Well, there is always the wonderful option of adoption if the cost of raising the child is too much.
But if you use the argument that a woman shouldn't be forced to incur the cost of raising a child for 18 years, aren't you opening yourself up to the argument that men should not be forced to incur the cost of raising a child for 18 years if a woman chooses not to have an abortion? Let me make clear, I don't support this position at all, but I've heard a lot of men make the argument. Granted they were typically not in earshot of a woman though. :)
Paul - If a woman takes a pregnancy to term to have the child adopted, who pays the doctors’ fees for the pre-natal checkups and for the hospital cost of the birth? Who pays for the time off to recover? What about the medical risks of birth? Giving birth is much more of a risk than having an abortion. Adoption is not the easy alternative to giving birth. Not such a wonderful option when you factor in the reality of adoption.
Your question: 'Men aged 18-25 are the most supportive of abortion rights of any demographic group. Wanna guess why?'
My guess: It takes two. And eighteen years is a lonnng time--at any age, for that matter. Rearing babies into fine, upstanding adults ain't cheap.
So if that isn't the reason why 18-25 men support abortion, what is it?
I'd like your take on this:
I fully support the idea that MAGA is bad and that almost without exception, there aren't good republicans I can vote for.
That said, I live in Ohio's 12th. My governor (DeWine) was pretty sensible about Covid, isn't an election denier, and more importantly, is almost 100% certain to win. Same with my representative (Balderson).
I love your optimism and hope you are right, but you could be right beyond your hopes and DeWine and Balderson aren't going anywhere. As such, does a split ticket with Ryan, DeWine and Balderson send a stronger anti-MAGA message than a straight D ticket? I'm putting stock in the gap between DeWine and Balderson's support vs. Vance's in the hope that that sends a stronger message. Or, instead of a split ticket, either third party or no vote in those races?
On the other hand, that does make the State and district seem less winnable by the Dems, so it isn't without cost.
I haven't decided yet and I'd like to hear yours (and others) reasoning on it. Feel free to tell me that either DeWine or Balderson could lose (so I should vote D to win), but I highly doubt I'm going to believe that.
I don't know a lot of specifics about DeWine. If your take on him is correct, which I have no reason to doubt, then maybe the split ticket DeWine/Ryan vote would send the bigger message.
If DeWine wins bigly and it's shown that a significant part of his voters also voted Ryan over Vance then maybe GOP politicos will start to get it into their heads that MAGAism is a political loser.
That's my thinking. Not that I put a lot of stock in the idea of sane republicans coming to their senses (they still know the primary score), but it seems like it might be worth the try.
DeWine had a primary challenge from the right that he fended off, but smart GOP money might get the signal next time to not even try a MAGA. And for the district, I also wonder if there is value in creating a false sense of security. They look at these voting patterns quite heavily when gerrymandering, and the worse their data, the better. Probably way too far out from 2030 to matter on that front, but it is another theoretical angle.
All said with the full understanding that a single vote isn't going to sway any calculus by itself.
Re your last sentence- you still have to live with yourself in the the morning. Give the good person a thumbs up, and dump the others. A good message.
If in good conscience I split my vote to try an achieve something I think will help the country more, I won't have any trouble living with myself.
That said, I appreciate the input, I did ask for it. ;)
Your logic is sound knowltok. Split the ticket.
At this point, I think the important question is "when the fight for democracy starts, which foxhole is a person going to jump into?" If De Wine and Balderson are on the right side of that, then it's fine to vote for them. If you're not sure, though, or worse, you think they won't, you shouldn't vote for them regardless. The only message that matters is how many votes a candidate gets. Everything else is just interpretation.
My two cents is this: Under normal circumstances I think your analysis of your choices is sound - why not vote for an Incumbent Governor that you know and have liked and is decidedly not a MAGAt? I assume you've applied the same analysis to Balderson.
However, that said, I do think the only way to send today's GOP a strong message is for as many people as possible to vote against them, at any and every level, because they will NEVER reform until that happens. In your case it probably won't result in an R loss, but they'll notice it, and in other states it could result in an R loss. All we have right now is the message we send them, and the message should be WE REJECT THIS SHIT - IF YOU WANT OUR VOTE AGAIN - REJECT THE CRAZY VIOLENT HATEFUL ANTI-DEMOCRATIC BULLSHIT NOW.
I don't disagree, I'm just wondering if the disparity between DeWine votes and Vance votes doesn't send that message more clearly.
Good point, but at the same time, DeWine getting fewer votes than he normally would also sends a message, maybe even to the "mainstream" republicans who have chosen to stay silent on the sidelines, enabling this shit to keep growing. Like you said, he's going to win with or without your vote, and you're fine with that....
Well 'fine' isn't the word I'd use. If the choice was up to me, I'd pick his dem opponent. DeWine seems like a decent man who made tough calls on covid that weren't ideologically driven. He also hasn't support Trump in anything approaching a full-throated way. He's no Cheney or anything, I don't have any illusions on him. But for any decency he has or not going full bore crazy, he's still a member of a party that's not exactly on the path towards making America a better place.
Then I wouldn't vote for him or Balderson. If they get fewer votes than they did in their last election, it sends a message, IMHO....
So maybe a non-vote in those races? Still shows half the statistical difference between Ryan-Vance as between Balderson-...??? but doesn't show support for Republicans.
To be very clear, I'm no Republican, regretful republican, etc. I didn't convert in 2015 or 16. Plenty converted before me, I'm not bragging; just want to be clear on the concept that I have absolutely no problem voting straight D in this political climate. I'm just exploring if there might be something even more effective to highlight the anti-trumpkin nature of my political leaning.
Really wish I had ranked choice voting so I could make my preferences clear.
Actually, you might be onto something here. I think the way the R's would read it would be - couldn't bring himself to vote for the D candidate, but wouldn't vote for us either. More likely to think you're an R who rejects them than a D voting a straight ticket?
That's what I am angling at.
I pray you're right; I'm terrified you're not.
Act like I'm right, and drink like I'm not.
I'm holding out hope because of you, so get your Wednesday comments ready to go! I voted last week, straight Democratic ticket here in Texas.
I heard about a poll last night that said 40% of young people say they are "definitely" voting, but are waiting to do so on Election Day. Do you believe it?
Damn, I wish Charlie had taken you up on your "challenge" to either gift subscriptions or write a piece for Bulwark!
My son is 19. I talked to him about voting yesterday, and he said, "But I'm registered as an Independent, I'm not allowed to vote in the midterms." I was happy to correct him. (NY is a closed primary state so he's not allowed to vote in primaries.) So that's one more voter. Let's keep talking to young people and making sure they know America wants their votes.
Great use of a "teaching moment"! I wish someone had told me the difference between a midterm and a primary when I was a teenager. It might have roused my curiosity enough to learn about other civic duties I was still unaware of.
My voting children will copy my voting if I give them a list. At one time they cared and insisted on voting for progressives or Green party and were very against me trying to exert influence. But now they think voting doesn't matter anyway, we are too entrenched in a capitalist system meant to only work for the very rich & all the talk of American values and working hard yields rich rewards is all bullshit veneer on capitalist corruption.
Please tell him to tell his friends to vote as well. I hate to think of them believing the same incorrect information, but wouldn't be surprised if it's the case.
I'm writing pieces here just about every day MM. They're just in the comments section. ;)