US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream

[Kalbear]

Also, the idea that this will be successful in driving out the vote now when democrats already control everything seems flawed. This is exactly the sort of thing dems can prevent if they want to, right now. Why would people vote more knowing that?

[Jaxom 1974]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't really get the distinction.  Obviously, when turning their attention to other privacy rights that will also entail the "idea" of overturning certain cases.

My growing cynicism probably isn't making things very clear. Sorry.

Trying to get around to the idea: what's left for the grifters who use these causes to make money, when the authoritarians kill the causes before any cash rolls in?

Pity the anti abortion lobbyist? Pity the anti anything conservative lobbyist? 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

6 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Also, the idea that this will be successful in driving out the vote now when democrats already control everything seems flawed. This is exactly the sort of thing dems can prevent if they want to, right now. Why would people vote more knowing that?

It will certainly mobilize the Dems to send out mass emails with postured outrage while asking for money and insisting that they will certainly do something about it now as opposed to the opportunities they had in the past. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

what's left for the grifters who use these causes to make money, when the authoritarians kill the causes before any cash rolls in?

Luckily, I think there will always be opportunities for grifters in Trump's GOP.

[fionwe1987]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

They did this a couple months ago:

The bill passed the House last September.

Not what I mean. This is a failed bill. It can certainly be the template for what they propose. But I think they'll need to make clear that to get this passed, they'll need their current House majority, and increase their Senate majority. That's the only way to make Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and maybe even Ohio competitive. 

Will this guarantee success? No. But not making the distinction between what the Dems will pass, and what the GOP will (a national ban), would all but ensure that they have no chance at all.

[Jaxom 1974]

So the SC wants to investigate the leak...?

 

[fionwe1987]

12 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Also, the idea that this will be successful in driving out the vote now when democrats already control everything seems flawed. This is exactly the sort of thing dems can prevent if they want to, right now. Why would people vote more knowing that?

Except they can't, with the Filibuster. Yes, they have the votes to overturn the Filibuster, but 2 of those votes are conservative Dems. 

This is procedural and boring and in almost any other context, not a great way to get people to vote. But the cost here is clear, so they should run on an explicit message of ending the Senate filibuster.

Biden didn't, last time. Nor did most of the Senators. They should now hammer home how much the GOP gets to block because of the filibuster, and ask for a larger Senate majority so the first thing they do is to end the filibuster.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, fionwe1987 said:

Not what I mean. This is a failed bill. It can certainly be the template for what they propose. But I think they'll need to make clear that to get this passed, they'll need their current House majority, and increase their Senate majority. That's the only way to make Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and maybe even Ohio competitive. 

I mean, that failed bill makes perfectly clear that they need a House majority and a filibuster proof Senate majority.  Not sure how another bill is going to make it more clear.  Maybe they could just sign on to Collins and Murkowski's more narrow bill to get their votes (and probably Manchin's) too, but I don't think that'd change much.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Going back to what DMC pointed out in the previous thread.

Abortion is not really as big a voting issue for Democrats as it is for the Republicans. 

 

The thing Democratic voters care about (socially) are civil rights. Equality and all that shit (arguably abortion rights is part of it, but it's not front and center) and climate crisis (to varying degrees). This is part of the motivation for the right to wage this seemingly absurd culture war against wokeness (or wokeism/whatever). They are trying to portray those issue as grotesque caricature and PC culture going out of control.  And they are depressingly effective. 

The Democrats are on the losing side of this culture war. Plain and simple. They have allowed Republicans to control the battlefield. And it's easier to mobilize your base against something. I don't know how to break out of this, but simply fighting Rethugs on their terms is a losing proposition. Somehow trying to fight back control over the narative/framing would be my guess. Make it a fight against facism. 

[fionwe1987]

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, that failed bill makes perfectly clear that they need a House majority and a filibuster proof Senate majority.  Not sure how another bill is going to make it more clear.  Maybe they could just sign on to Collins and Murkowski's more narrow bill to get their votes (and probably Manchin's) too, but I don't think that'd change much.

It's perfectly clear to those who know of it's existence. Most voters don't know.

The Dems should have all candidates for the House and Senate, as well as Senators who won't be standing for election, come out and say they support this bill. Then make the case that conservative Dems and the GoP are holding this up. Make it a race to 52/53/54. Specifically call out the states where there are open seats, or where a Dem is facing strong headwinds, and make their opponents go on the record as against this.

None of that happened with the failed bill. It died a procedural death, and even the Dems didn't make much noise about it. I'm saying they need to make noise, they need to make this one issue where there's a very clear dividing line between what you get if you check the D vs what happens if you check the R.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

It's perfectly clear to those who know of it's existence. Most voters don't know.

The Dems should have all candidates for the House and Senate, as well as Senators who won't be standing for election, come out and say they support this bill. Then make the case that conservative Dems and the GoP are holding this up.

Sure.  I'm just saying they're already going to do this.  They will certainly be "making noise" on abortion this cycle. 

The only thing you seem to be suggesting they should do that they aren't/likely won't is campaigning on abolishing the filibuster in order to pass such a bill.  I think they should do this -- at the leadership level.  Schumer, Durbin et al., should emphasize they need a larger majority in order to abolish the filibuster and pass not just this but voting rights, minimum wage, immigration, etc.

However, I'm not sure this is the best tactic for all Democrats.  Kelly, notably, has tried desperately to hide on the abolishing the filibuster issue, and that may well be the best tack to take if you're in a competitive district/state.

[Week]

More of this -- a multi-pronged effort to bulwark and enshrine individual rights.

 

The anti-privacy trolls on here don't acknowledge (in addition to other aspects of reality) is that their arguments against abortion absolutely require an adherence and belief in extremist Christian theology. Other religions, agnostics, atheists, etc. do NOT agree and our rights are being infringed upon due to Christian theology.

[fionwe1987]

Yeah it probably wouldn't work for Kelley. But Fetterman and Tim Ryan have already come out and called for an end to the Filibuster. I can't think of another time they can actually make this an election issue and have people listen. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

More of this -- a multi-pronged effort to bulwark and enshrine individual rights.

Or a Unitarian Universalist, for which access to reproductive freedom has been part of the faith since long before Roe. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

But Fetterman and Tim Ryan have already come out and called for an end to the Filibuster.

Mandela Barnes too:  

And I agree with them and think they should.  At the same time, though, I don't blame Kelly for doing what he's doing.

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Also, the idea that this will be successful in driving out the vote now when democrats already control everything seems flawed. This is exactly the sort of thing dems can prevent if they want to, right now. Why would people vote more knowing that?

I think it could, if Dems wanted to, and agreed to a message, and passionately or, well, at least pretended to care... ok, forget it. (There are exceptions, of course, like that state house member whose speech about protecting queer kids and teachers went viral.)

 

I think Warren called for ending the filibuster, too.

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

It will certainly mobilize the Dems to send out mass emails with postured outrage while asking for money and insisting that they will certainly do something about it now as opposed to the opportunities they had in the past. 

It's fascinating when Pelosi calls for electing more Dems to fix this, and at the same time endorses at least one candidate who's anti-choice...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Week said:

More of this -- a multi-pronged effort to bulwark and enshrine individual rights.

 

The anti-privacy trolls on here don't acknowledge (in addition to other aspects of reality) is that their arguments against abortion absolutely require an adherence and belief in extremist Christian theology. Other religions, agnostics, atheists, etc. do NOT agree and our rights are being infringed upon due to Christian theology.

That's cute, be we all know freedom of religion in the US is just for Christians, and even then only for certain types.

[Morpheus]

Pelosi’s daughter tried to stir up some shit and has been getting dragged because of her shitbird mother’s less than consistent stance on choice.

 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Or a Unitarian Universalist, for which access to reproductive freedom has been part of the faith since long before Roe. 

My mom made us go to a Unitarian Church (a pretty famous one) for a few months as a kid, only "religious" thing about my upbringing.  That's where I got my first condom - they had containers of em in all the bathrooms.