Jump to content

US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

the threat of things being unpopular becomes less important than the threat of it being unpopular with those who decide primaries. 

Overturning Roe is not particularly popular even among Republicans.  This Fox News poll reported 53% of Republicans favor letting Roe stand compared to 40% of Republicans that want it overturned.  Perhaps most interestingly, support for Roe is noticeably increasing as its death appears imminent (and not just in that poll).  That's not to discount the impact nor to say that you're wrong that this will embolden red states to employ even more draconian measures.  But, as Jaxom said, there could be a silver lining in that public opinion suggests a such a decision will be ripe for an electoral backlash (albeit, of course, not in those red states).  Especially considering the decision won't be handed down until June, only about four months before the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Overturning Roe is not particularly popular even among Republicans.  This Fox News poll reported 53% of Republicans favor letting Roe stand compared to 40% of Republicans that want it overturned.  

You missed the point i was making. If all Republicans voted in primaries that would be more important, but that's not the case- and what is important there is the evangelicals and the old, and now the fanatical. They are who are going to drive the candidates in an increasingly gerrymandered election state. And as we get more MTG and Boebert and Gosar, you'll get more people like them in. At pretty much every level. 

Maybe that helps this midterm? Maybe? But that barely appears to matter for republican plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

You missed the point i was making. If all Republicans voted in primaries that would be more important, but that's not the case- and what is important there is the evangelicals and the old, and now the fanatical. They are who are going to drive the candidates in an increasingly gerrymandered election state. And as we get more MTG and Boebert and Gosar, you'll get more people like them in. At pretty much every level. 

I mean yeah, we're going to get more and more MCs like MTG et al. sure, but that's just because the GOP continues to become more and more extreme.  That's a pretty banal point and doesn't have much to do with abortion specifically.

As for Republican voters not being important to people who vote in Republican primaries, no, that is a pretty good barometer - in fact it's the best you're going to get for who is going to vote in Republican primaries.  As for evangelicals, 49% of white evangelicals thought Roe should stand in the above poll.  68% of seniors, 52% of Trump voters, and 61% of rural whites also said Roe should stand.  Interestingly though, there's basically no gender gap on the question between GOP men and women.

23 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Maybe that helps this midterm? Maybe? But that barely appears to matter for republican plans.

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest it would transcend the much larger environmental factors, but hey every little bit helps.  My larger point, which echoes what I said earlier, is there could be quite the backlash within swing states if the GOP does try to push this shit there if/when Roe is overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Overturning Roe is not particularly popular even among Republicans.  This Fox News poll reported 53% of Republicans favor letting Roe stand compared to 40% of Republicans that want it overturned.  Perhaps most interestingly, support for Roe is noticeably increasing as its death appears imminent (and not just in that poll).  That's not to discount the impact nor to say that you're wrong that this will embolden red states to employ even more draconian measures.  But, as Jaxom said, there could be a silver lining in that public opinion suggests a such a decision will be ripe for an electoral backlash (albeit, of course, not in those red states).  Especially considering the decision won't be handed down until June, only about four months before the midterms.

Gun control and UHC are super popular in the US, yet neither ever seems to get much traction. Popularity doesn't mean much if you can't get people to actually act. Though I hope you guys do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Gun control and UHC are super popular in the US, yet neither ever seems to get much traction.

Well, first, UHC is not as popular as Roe, unless you mean the public option.  Gun control is - even more so - as is immigration reform in some sense.  The difference is, those are intractable issues at this point that do not bear nearly the symbolic significance as overturning Roe will.  More importantly, I'm not really talking about "gaining traction" legislatively, I'm referring to an electoral backlash - specifically in swing states if the GOP pushes these type of laws there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically, I'd guess Roe won't be overturned, but will likely be circumscribed in some fashion that the effect will be that states will be able to restrict access to abortion further than they already are, but not entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal prosecution against women who go outside of the state to get it. Criminal prosecution with heavy sentencing for anyone who knowingly has or causes an abortion. Possible sentencing for women who miscarry. Possible sentencing for women who knowingly do things detrimental to their fetus development.

we have a lot of these statutes already. the abortion-specific ones would become enforceable, yeah, and that's mf gross.  the prosecutions that we have already for miscarriage are related to controlled substances, though, and are heavily racialized, as i understand it.  the pro-natalist people haven't thought this through very well if they intend to criminalize mere miscarriage.  the attempt to prosecute people who go to another state for it strikes me as an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. consider in that connection this argument, written just after casey was decided. i haven't looked to see if there's any cases that arose on this point thereafter--it seems as though there should've been in the last thirty years of differential state regulation.

we should consider likely an increase in the factors identified by freakonomics to have been reduced by abortion access; consequent increased impoverishment in states that increase restriction with all of the attendant ancillaries; production of greater population therein, demanding commensurately greater federal representation and thus greater subsidies from non-restrictive states, despotic inroads by the former on the latter; restrictive states falling even further behind non-restrictive states as to other indicators. we've already seen this post-casey. what further? is there a recipe here for increased far right populism or for its opposite? does this situation exacerbate fascistic tendencies or encourage leftwing responses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sologdin said:

we should consider likely an increase in the factors identified by freakonomics to have been reduced by abortion access; consequent increased impoverishment in states that increase restriction with all of the attendant ancillaries; production of greater population therein, demanding commensurately greater federal representation and thus greater subsidies from non-restrictive states, despotic inroads by the former on the latter; restrictive states falling even further behind non-restrictive states as to other indicators. we've already seen this post-casey. what further? is there a recipe here for increased far right populism or for its opposite? does this situation exacerbate fascistic tendencies or encourage leftwing responses?

Except that birthrate is a minor factor in state population growth compared to internal and external migrations. Texas is growing its population not because of restrictive abortion policies, but because of (relatively) affordable housing, low taxes, decent economy, warm weather, and geographical proximity to Central America. The same goes for Florida.

If California ever comes to its senses regarding its housing policy and starts building condo and apartment buildings, its population will boom instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone else agree that primaries as they have existed since the 1970s have increased polarization in the United States in a bad way?

They push candidates to the extremes and force institutional general election party voters into empowering more extreme candidates.  Do primaries, in that light, do more harm than good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Would anyone else agree that primaries as they have existed since the 1970s have increased polarization in the United States in a bad way?

They push candidates to the extremes and force institutional general election party voters into empowering more extreme candidates.  Do primaries, in that light, do more harm than good?

Only if you consider a multiparty democracy to be a bad thing. These extreme candidates are people who, in France for example, would be members of the Communist Party or Le Pen's National Rally.

Their voters always existed, they merely weren't politically represented before. And I would argue that it is a good thing they are now represented, since the alternative to participation in a democratic society is political violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

Only if you consider a multiparty democracy to be a bad thing. These extreme candidates are people who, in France for example, would be members of the Communist Party or Le Pen's National Rally.

Their voters always existed, they merely weren't politically represented before. And I would argue that it is a good thing they are now represented, since the alternative to participation in a democratic society is political violence.

But we’re putting the extremes in control of “big tent” parties.  I’d much rather the extremes have their own parties and representation that way.  The US Primary method drags everyone to the far corners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIven the polling data DMC has presented, wouldn't that make pro-choice laws a prime target for being passed by referenda in states where that is an option? It's very clear that there are a lot of people out there quite willing to vote in favor of raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana while still voting for Republican candidates for office. So wouldn't that happen with abortion in purplish or red states where getting a question about it on the ballot by petition is possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But we’re putting the extremes in control of “big tent” parties.  I’d much rather the extremes have their own parties and representation that way.  The US Primary method drags everyone to the far corners.

I'm not sure your idealized "non-extreme" past ever actually existed. In a previous era, the Senate included people such as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, as well as literal robe-wearing KKK members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we’re putting the extremes in control of “big tent” parties

to what extent, you think? sanders has an influence, say, but single payor healthcare isn't on the table right now--a fortiori expropriation of the means of production through dictatorship of the proletariat. similarly, evola lover bannon had an influence on trump immigration policy--but that didn't result in an auschwitz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sologdin said:

we’re putting the extremes in control of “big tent” parties

to what extent, you think? sanders has an influence, say, but single payor healthcare isn't on the table right now--a fortiori expropriation of the means of production through dictatorship of the proletariat. similarly, evola lover bannon had an influence on trump immigration policy--but that didn't result in an auschwitz.

Well, we have MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, and Gosar in the House.  Tuberville and Hawley in the Senate.  Would they be where they are without exteme primary voters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sologdin said:

only about half the US has initiative/referendum, however.

I recall a former boarder making suggestion that the “Republican Form of Government” clause could be an avenue of attack upon laws or Constitutional changes enacted by “initiative/referendum”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But we’re putting the extremes in control of “big tent” parties.  I’d much rather the extremes have their own parties and representation that way.  The US Primary method drags everyone to the far corners.

If this were true of “everyone” then why is it that democratic presidential candidates are so decidedly moderate? I wouldn’t describe Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or even Barack Obama to be anywhere near the “far corners” of the left. In many European countries they would even be considered the moderate right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

If this were true of “everyone” then why is it that democratic presidential candidates are so decidedly moderate? I wouldn’t describe Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or even Barack Obama to be anywhere near the “far corners” of the left. In many European countries they would even be considered the moderate right.

I don’t recall the Republicans having anything like “superdelegates” to act as a moderating influence on primaries.

Other than that… no clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...