Alabama: Better Save the Tray of Embryos Over the Baby

[Indus]

People are saying Repubs have been having more and more significant difficulties in elections because of the overturning of Roe. Seems a possible strong chip to play this Nov.

I agree with you but Sleepy Joe and Trump was sent by God!

Can't even argue with them.. and privately we just roll eyes.

 

[Zorba]

The idea that the Democrats could have codified Roe into law and chose not to is showing a very basic lack of understanding of how our system of government works.

There has never been 60 votes to do that in the Senate, ever.

I'm not sure there has ever been 50 votes in the Senate to do it, at least not before Dobbs.

 

[Zorba]

That’s true but abortion rights are the most popular they have ever been. Seems people react when you take away those rights.

But until Dobbs, being pro-choice was a liability for democrats, especially ones from districts/states that leaned moderate or conservative. It didn't ignite passion until it was lost.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm not sure there has ever been 50 votes in the Senate to do it, at least not before Dobbs.

That's deep. Not even 50 votes. Impressive.

Control of House and Senate since 1900 | The Spokesman-Review

Will the Republicans retain control of the Senate after Election Day in November? Or will Democrats wrestle it away from them and run both chambers on Capitol Hill? It’s way too early to say. Here’s how control of the House and Senate have shifted over the past 120 years:

www.spokesman.com

 

[GettyRoad]

Republicans need to focus on economy, crime, immigration, Cuban embargo, etc.

That's how to win, not this abortion crap.

 

[Zorba]

That's deep. Not even 50 votes. Impressive.

Control of House and Senate since 1900 | The Spokesman-Review

Will the Republicans retain control of the Senate after Election Day in November? Or will Democrats wrestle it away from them and run both chambers on Capitol Hill? It’s way too early to say. Here’s how control of the House and Senate have shifted over the past 120 years:

www.spokesman.com

Feel free to point to the 50 that would've openly voted for abortion rights even in 2009. Considering they specifically banned government money from paying for abortions in ACA. I remember dems dodging questions on abortion in 2008. National support for abortion was under 50% in 2008: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Dobbs was a massive public relations boon for abortion, but you can't pretend like the current up-swelling of support was always there.

 

[MrSquished]

But until Dobbs, being pro-choice was a liability for democrats, especially ones from districts/states that leaned moderate or conservative. It didn't ignite passion until it was lost.

If it was a liability it's because Democrats didn't know how to take control of the narrative and let the right-wing evangelicals take over messaging. Because they were political milquetoast.

Also seems that this overview of Gallup polls over the decades says otherwise about your 'interpretation' of the publics support.

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision

Forty years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% vs. 29%.

news.gallup.com

 

[MrSquished]

Feel free to point to the 50 that would've openly voted for abortion rights even in 2009. Considering they specifically banned government money from paying for abortions in ACA. I remember dems dodging questions on abortion in 2008. National support for abortion was under 50% in 2008: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Dobbs was a massive public relations boon for abortion, but you can't pretend like the current up-swelling of support was always there.

That's a democratic issue. That's a problem of the Democratic party politics. Exactly what I'm pointing out.

Also the polls I posted in response to your other post don't seem to support your position about historic support for Roe. Until 2005 the Dems had 60% support for roe.

You were saying?

 

[Zorba]

If it was a liability it's because Democrats didn't know how to take control of the narrative and let the right-wing evangelicals take over messaging.

Also seems that this overview of Gallup polls over the decades says otherwise about your 'interpretation' of the publics support.

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision

Forty years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% vs. 29%.

news.gallup.com

So maybe between 93 and 94. Until Dobbs anti-choice voters were much more motivated than pro-choice voters. I highly doubt that even in 93-94 there were 50 democratic senators that would've voted for it.

 

[MrSquished]

So maybe between 93 and 94. Until Dobbs anti-choice voters were much more motivated than pro-choice voters. I highly doubt that even in 93-94 there were 50 democratic senators that would've voted for it.

No according to you public support wasn't there. When clearly the Democrats had 60% public support four Roe v Wade and less than half of that opposed.

You were talking about public support as well right?

Like I said the whole point is that not enough Democrats had the fuckin fortitude And political smarts to leverage the public support and to do what the public supported. That's exactly the whole point of all of this. They let the Republicans control the narrative and were milquetoast about it. Not all the Dems, but enough. This is a known issue of the Democrats in the past. It's fucking stupid to not admit it now and learn from your mistakes.

I'm starting to learn why the Democrats have traditionally had poor messaging and results when they really had their right positions. It's not just the elite in power that fucked up, It's apparently a lot of the pseudo-intellectual rank and file voters. As we see here.

On top of that, more than one person said that even if the Democrats had codified Roe, It doesn't matter it wouldn't make a difference because the Republicans are so corrupt now. Whatever, same difference.

Do you agree with that?

 

[Zorba]

No according to you public support wasn't there. When clearly the Democrats had 60% public support four Roe v Wade and less than half of that opposed.

You were talking about public support as well right?

Like I said the whole point is that not enough Democrats had the fuckin fortitude And political smarts to leverage the public support and to do what the public supported. That's exactly the whole point of all of this.

On top of that, more than one person said that even if the Democrats had codified Roe, It doesn't matter it wouldn't make a difference because the Republicans are so corrupt now. Whatever, same difference.

Do you agree with that?

No I don't agree with that, they should've codified Roe. And they sure as shit should've codified Casey after Dobbs.

I agree with your that there was public support in the 90s, but a big chunk of the senator democrats were not pro-choice at that point. I am not sure that there are 50 pro-choice dems today. In 2016 Hillary picked an anti-choice democratic senator as a running mate. It was also a big deal in the media when she just the word "rare" from "Abortions should be safe, available, and rare."

But in 2009, the last time Dems held a real trifeca, there wasn't public support for abortion rights and it would've hurt dems to campaign on it in 2008.

 

[MrSquished]

No I don't agree with that, they should've codified Roe. And they sure as shit should've codified Casey after Dobbs.

I agree with your that there was public support in the 90s, but a big chunk of the senator democrats were not pro-choice at that point. I am not sure that there are 50 pro-choice dems today. In 2016 Hillary picked an anti-choice democratic senator as a running mate. It was also a big deal in the media when she just the word "rare" from "Abortions should be safe, available, and rare."

But in 2009, the last time Dems held a real trifeca, there wasn't public support for abortion rights and it would've hurt dems to campaign on it in 2008.

I think most Democrats supported it, they just saw it as a political issue not worth touching. I think that speaks to the timidness of the Dems on that and other things in the past.

You didn't have to run on it in 2008 either, just do it after we won.

I think most of us have agreed the Democrats common failure in many issues is the lack of messaging. I'm just saying I think this is a perfect example of it.

60% of the public supported roe, and half that wanted it overturned. The Dems missed the boat, for a while. That's politics. When 60% of people support something, get a clue. Instead they let the Republicans make it into the biggest cultural issue of the time by letting them drive the narrative.

 

[fskimospy]

No I don't agree with that, they should've codified Roe. And they sure as shit should've codified Casey after Dobbs.

I agree with your that there was public support in the 90s, but a big chunk of the senator democrats were not pro-choice at that point. I am not sure that there are 50 pro-choice dems today. In 2016 Hillary picked an anti-choice democratic senator as a running mate. It was also a big deal in the media when she just the word "rare" from "Abortions should be safe, available, and rare."

But in 2009, the last time Dems held a real trifeca, there wasn't public support for abortion rights and it would've hurt dems to campaign on it in 2008.

It’s not even about overall public support - in 2009 you needed support in Montana, Louisiana, and West Virginia. This very obviously was not there.

This is just like the Biden thing. If you think the Democrats could have passed a federal law codifying nationwide abortion rights show me 60 senators who would have voted for it. Since this is such a missed opportunity it shouldn’t be hard.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Anyone up for making a trolley car problem for this scenario?

 

[brycejones]

Anyone up for making a trolley car problem for this scenario?

Spoiler, there is no fork in the track

 

[Pens1566]

It’s not even about overall public support - in 2009 you needed support in Montana, Louisiana, and West Virginia. This very obviously was not there.

This is just like the Biden thing. If you think the Democrats could have passed a federal law codifying nationwide abortion rights show me 60 senators who would have voted for it. Since this is such a missed opportunity it shouldn’t be hard.

This ^. D's are not a monolithic voting block. You'd have plenty of conservative Senators from red states that would happily vote against it, and then tell you why with a smile on their face for months afterward.

Like has been said before, there's never been a sufficient majority to do so.

 

[HomerJS]

Republicans need to focus on economy, crime, immigration, Cuban embargo, etc.

That's how to win, not this abortion crap.

Where the hell do you get your shit from, St Petersburg?

Who cares about a Cuban embargo. You need to quit that job. You are bad at it.

 

[fskimospy]

Where the hell do you get your shit from, St Petersburg?

Who cares about a Cuban embargo. You need to quit that job. You are bad at it.

Cuban embargo - lol. Yet another 90s reference.

 

[brycejones]

Republicans need to focus on economy, crime, immigration, Cuban embargo, etc.

That's how to win, not this abortion crap.

You really are more valuable as a bullet sponge in Ukraine for Putin. You suck at your current job.

 

[MrSquished]

We passed the ACA we could have had a serious shot at codifying Roe, even if it just failed, put it on the record. It was a miscalculation by the Dems, and anybody who says it wouldn't have made a difference even if it were made law, is just being foolish as well. The Dems have passed some noticeable legislation over the last decades - they were just a bit stupid about Roe. They really thought precedent would be respected forever. Multiple long-time Dem pols regretted not attempting to codify Roe after they just overthrew it - so there are some wiser Dems, just not enough.

Simple failed politics.

 

[hal2kilo]

We passed the ACA we could have had a serious shot at codifying Roe, even if it just failed, put it on the record. It was a miscalculation by the Dems, and anybody who says it wouldn't have made a difference even if it were made law, is just being foolish as well. The Dems have passed some noticeable legislation over the last decades - they were just a bit stupid about Roe. They really thought precedent would be respected forever. Multiple long-time Dem pols regretted not attempting to codify Roe after they just overthrew it - so there are some wiser Dems, just not enough.

Simple failed politics.

Then be a GD republican if Dems are so horrible. I wish we all had a crystal ball of the what ifs. We aren't Pub drones and never will be. We always have to put up with people like you in our party, but we don't have purity tests. Petition your congressman!

 

[MrSquished]

Then be a GD republican if Dems are so horrible. I wish we all had a crystal ball of the what ifs. We aren't Pub drones and never will be. We always have to put up with people like you in our party, but we don't have purity tests. Petition your congressman!

ok sure. I mean because some people are literally almost cultists and cant take any substantial criticism of their own party, policy decisons or candidates, those of us who can be honest so we can learn from our mistakes - we should leave the party. amazing. keep it up.

I've literally have people tell me reaching out to people not sure about voting for Biden now is useless, they are not safe to walk among us, which is a damning statement. Nobody else has criticized that, just me. I have had people say no matter what the Dems passed on Roe, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, so why bother - yet I'm the dick. Really? give up and don't attempt things because R's are more nasty now and will ignore them? Really fucking amazing political strategy. I have people say you are crazy for talking to disillusioned voters out there with honest criticism of Joe in order to start an honest conversation to get them to vote, you can give a slight mention of a criticism but really gloss over it basically. He really was and always has been the first choice, look at the primary results. Seriously? How can anyone disillusioned take any of that seriously?

And I'm the issue? You can't reach out to disillusioned voters without acknowledging your own mistakes. Otherwise you are in a cult. The only reason I have to argue so much is because there are too many cultists in here apparently - who can't handle honest self-reflection about their own party's mistakes - which is definitely hurting us if you read any fucking poll ever. And the 2020 election we won, but it was not by much. So we need to get better - if you can't be self-aware as a political person, you are lost.

what a fucking way to go about life. No wonder the Dem party is so underperforming overall, even though the system is stacked against them, they should have been doing better. A solid chunk of the establishment base is in a cult of denial. Any actual honest criticism is met with nothing but pushback and a lot of delusion, and telling people to leave the party. This from the guy ACTUALLY showing up for grassroots efforts to elect Biden and every downballot D candidate, but who deals with lots of disillusioned voters that need to be met with honesty, not criticism denying cultists who can only handle a mild criticism or so, but don't get too real.

 

[Brainonska511]

We passed the ACA we could have had a serious shot at codifying Roe, even if it just failed, put it on the record. It was a miscalculation by the Dems, and anybody who says it wouldn't have made a difference even if it were made law, is just being foolish as well. The Dems have passed some noticeable legislation over the last decades - they were just a bit stupid about Roe. They really thought precedent would be respected forever. Multiple long-time Dem pols regretted not attempting to codify Roe after they just overthrew it - so there are some wiser Dems, just not enough.

Simple failed politics.

At the time of the ACA, when there were numerous pressing issues and a slim window to push legislation, we're going to pretend that that would have been a good use of Senate floor time?

In 2008-09, it would have been a waste of valuable floor time for something that you know would fail, fracture alignment with key members of the caucus at the time, and devoted time to an issue that, though popular, was not appearing to be overly endangered of being ripped out by the roots, while also sucking oxygen from other, more pressing legislation? Sounds like a winning strategy.

 

[MrSquished]

At the time of the ACA, when there were numerous pressing issues and a slim window to push legislation, we're going to pretend that that would have been a good use of Senate floor time?

In 2008-09, it would have been a waste of valuable floor time for something that you know would fail, fracture alignment with key members of the caucus at the time, and devoted time to an issue that, though popular, was not appearing to be overly endangered of being ripped out by the roots, while also sucking oxygen from other, more pressing legislation? Sounds like a winning strategy.

I wasn't saying it had to happen at that exact time, it's an example of what Dems could accomplish when they fucking focused. But let me tell you - any kind of implied universal healthcare is probably way more of an accomplishment than codifying Roe, which had 60% public support for most of the decades following the decision, and compared to communist healthcare, not so crazy. Roe would not have been as hard I posted the evidence - both the amount of dem control of Congress over the decades and public support aligned multiple times. YOu may not always succeed, but there is no two ways about it, it was a big political misstep to not try. It's ok to admit that. It's also ok to admit that yes, it would have been better overall if Roe was established law vs just precedent, no matter what. Unless you're in a cult maybe.

 

[MrSquished]

You know what's really fucking rich and ironic? Multiple people who say I'm totally wrong for even suggesting the Dems have tried to codify Roe at one point in the last few decades, are the same ones who say, WE NEED TO PACK THE COURT! That's the answer. Simple as that. Like it's that attainable.

I mean talk about a completely unreasonable legislative goal. I mean holy shit codifying Roe in the past 30 years would have been a fucking cakewalk compared to that. The amount of cognitive dissonance is strong with those folks.