Support NeoGAF

[Carpe Libertatem]

They're not less important. They just aren't talked about because right now racial equality and gay rights are 100% ingrained as part of the democratic belief system. Abortion isn't, as the polls described in the article show, and that's what she's addressing.


Not only that, but look at the Bob Casey example she talks about. Pro-life himself, but fights for Planned Parenthood and women's rights. There are a lot of democrats out there like that. I'm tired of the misnomer that being pro-life means you would would desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, etc.

well, pro-life is just kind of a misnomer by itself. anti-choice is a much better phrase to use ( though obviously people who are anti-choice will never call themselves that).

 

[Plinko]

I've never met a socially conservative voter who wouldn't rather vote for the guy who says he'll vote to eliminate planned parenthood funding instead of the one who doesn't like planned parenthood but will still vote to fund it. That position makes no sense whatsoever. Plus if we let those people run they will start trying to eliminate reproductive rights eventually.

And I've met plenty. What may be shocking to many on this board is that there are socially conservative people that actually do make that only one aspect of their vote as opposed to the entire reason.

well, pro-life is just kind of a misnomer by itself. anti-choice is a much better phrase to use ( though obviously people who are anti-choice will never call themselves that).

Right, and the democrats have finally started trying to turn that around on republicans. They need to keep hammering that home.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Tim Kaine, Bob Casey, and many other democrats hold that view though. It mirrors the views of many Americans who personally are opposed to abortion but believe the choice is up to the mother. People are complex.

If they hold that view to begin with then why would they vote R on that issue anyway? It makes no sense to try to expand the party in that direction at all. Like, if a voter already is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it why would they change to voting D just because the candidate is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it. There's no distinction there. They either already vote D or they vote R for economic reasons.

And I've met plenty. What may be shocking to many on this board is that there are socially conservative people that actually do make that only one aspect of their vote as opposed to the entire reason.

Yeah, it's one aspect of social conservatism, and the others are gay marriage and racial equality, so.... yeah, still not seeing compromising our principles on this one issue being a gateway to the vote of backwoodsmen nationwide.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I agree with you on everything except the "litmus test."

What the hell use is it if it isn't a litmus test. Oh well you both believe abortion is evil and will vote against preserving it but welcome anyway.

There are litmus tests all over the place when it comes to other issues.

No one here talking up "the big tent" would consider inclusivity to candidates that want to reverse progress on the minimum wage. Or strip rights to organise. Or reduce general healthcare access and affordability.

Many apply litmus tests to not wanting to progress such issues fast enough. Reiterating an earlier post, you want a national $12 in the US. Piss off moderate shill.

And yet it's okay when it comes to women's reproductive autonomy. Because??

Oh that's right. Men don't get pregnant. Because if they did this wouldn't even be debated.

 

[Plinko]

If they hold that view to begin with then why would they vote R on that issue anyway? It makes no sense to try to expand the party in that direction at all. Like, if a voter already is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it why would they change to voting D just because the candidate is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it. There's no distinction there. They either already vote D or they vote R for economic reasons.

Counterpoint: They actually contracted party inclusion over the past decade and it cost them political power across the country.

What the hell use is it if it isn't a litmus test. Oh well you both believe abortion is evil and will vote against preserving it but welcome anyway.

Except, as Cesare already said, many won't vote against preserving it.

There are litmus tests all over the place when it comes to other issues.

No one here talking up "the big tent" would consider inclusivity to candidates that want to reverse progress on the minimum wage. Or strip rights to organise. Or reduce general healthcare access and affordability.

Many apply litmus tests to not wanting to progress such issues fast enough. Reiterating an earlier post, you want a national $12 in the US. Piss off moderate shill.

And yet it's okay when it comes to women's reproductive autonomy. Because??

Oh that's right. Men don't get pregnant. Because if they did this wouldn't even be debated.

???

Again, I'm not a huge fan of litmus tests. I think diversity in viewpoints within a party is actually beneficial. The party makeup is always going to be to the point where these viewpoints will never be the majority, but it is good to have those opinions.

 

[TestOfTide]

Abortion rights are ingrained in most liberal secular democracies.

Abortion rights should be a litmus test.

Abortion rights are also an economic and health issue.

That doesn't mean you need to personally "believe in abortion" or whatever nonsense people on the right has drilled into general consciousness about liberals ripping babies out and eating them gleefully.

And yes, they're clearly less important to old white men.

Except the successful 50 state strategy of 2006 and 2008 included numerous pro-life Dems.

But when push came to shove those Dems were willing to sacrifice their own careers to get the ACA through.

And so long as it's only red area Dems that might be pro-life, it's not like Federal Dems will suddenly be banning abortions.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

No lies detected. The best Shakespeare is Titus Andronicus (the movie with Athony Hopkins and Jessica Lange is superb) and King Lear.

You need to reevaluate your life because you made bad choices

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Except the successful 50 state strategy of 2006 and 2008 included numerous pro-life Dems.

But when push came to shove those Dems were willing to sacrifice their own careers to get the ACA through.

And so long as it's only red area Dems that might be pro-life, it's not like Federal Dems will suddenly be banning abortions.

People who win local elections go on to run and win federal elections.

This strategy only opens up the possibility of eventually having the anti-abortion proportion of the Dems in DC being problematic at the least, and posing a real threat to women's rights at worst. All to pick up like, 4 single issue voters who most likely won't come over to the party anyway.

 

[Plinko]

People who win local elections go on to run and win federal elections.

This strategy only opens up the possibility of eventually having the anti-abortion proportion of the Dems in DC being problematic at the least, and posing a real threat to women's rights at worst. All to pick up like, 4 single issue voters who most likely won't come over to the party anyway.

How, exactly, were they problematic in 2006-2009? Are you referring to the Blue Dogs?

 

[Crocodile]

"Pro-Life", Pro-Planned Parenthood, Pro-Women's Rights Democrats are a thing. I think that would describe the vast majority of my family.

 

[metalslimer]

I have to agree with Shinra. I don't really see why abortion which is a critical issue for so many people is fine to disregard. It shows that it really isn't held in that high of a regard by the party if it can easily dismissed.

I mean I'm fine with someone who is personally against it, but if you are actually going to vote against bills what good are you? Presumably these are the vote we would need to pass bills on reproductive rights, and if we already have a majority without them what purpose do they serve?

 

[Tamanon]

Eh, "Pro-life" only really matters if they'll vote against Supreme Court Justices.

 

[benicillin]

Restricting or banning access to abortion / Planned Parenthood / etc. should be a red line for any member of the democratic party. It's fine if you want to play to the crowd and say you have personal misgivings about it, as long as they fall in line when it's necessary. There shouldn't be any room for anyone willing to compromise on that.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

If they hold that view to begin with then why would they vote R on that issue anyway? It makes no sense to try to expand the party in that direction at all. Like, if a voter already is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it why would they change to voting D just because the candidate is personally opposed but doesn't vote on it. There's no distinction there. They either already vote D or they vote R for economic reasons.

It's not necessarily about expanding the party in that direction - the party already includes many members with those views, and wins the votes of people who hold those views. There are a lot of Catholics who fall in that spectrum...

What's happening now is that people (to be specific, Bernie people) are questioning what the democrat party is, and we're constantly seeing people like Pelosi/Obama/Biden/Clinton/etc reaffirm things we already know. The media reports it as news, think pieces arrive, etc.

There is no harm to the party here. I don't think we're ever going to see a return to the party we had in 2009 for instance, Blue Dogs etc. Some of those types will return, but Blanche Lincoln types won't be dictating shit. Thank god.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Except, as Cesare already said, many won't vote against preserving it.

???

Again, I'm not a huge fan of litmus tests. I think diversity in viewpoints within a party is actually beneficial. The party makeup is always going to be to the point where these viewpoints will never be the majority, but it is good to have those opinions.

That is the litmus test though. Not whatever candidates personally think, I actually generally don't care about that. But when push comes to shove and they're needed to defend said rights that they will.

With regard to the ??? It is loose paraphrasing of the type of rhetoric thrown at politicians who aren't even reversing the course on broad economic issues, rather just not as far in the right direction.

 

[TestOfTide]

People who win local elections go on to run and win federal elections.

This strategy only opens up the possibility of eventually having the anti-abortion proportion of the Dems in DC being problematic at the least, and posing a real threat to women's rights at worst. All to pick up like, 4 single issue voters who most likely won't come over to the party anyway.

Except that didn't happen when Dems won big in 2006 through 2008. I mean for fucks sake a lot of pro-life congressmen literally sacrificed their careers just to get the ACA passed. Or did you forget that moment when the GOP tried to stop the ACA by forcing red area Dems to vote on a pro-life amendment to the bill. In the end Bart Stupak got all the pro-life Dems to refuse to vote on the amendment even though it would cost them their careers.

 

[Plinko]

I have to agree with Shinra. I don't really see why abortion which is a critical issue for so many people is fine to disregard. It shows that it really isn't held in that high of a regard by the party if it can easily dismissed.

I mean I'm fine with someone who is personally against it, but if you are actually going to vote against bills what good are you? Presumably these are the vote we would need to pass bills on reproductive rights, and if we already have a majority without them what purpose do they serve?

1) I'm not sure they're getting a majority without these people any more, and 2) those type of people who would vote to pass bills to protect rights (regardless of their personal views) were exactly the people Pelosi was talking about.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

How, exactly, were they problematic in 2006-2009?

They weren't because their numbers were so limited but they were the last vestiges of the old pro-segregation Dixiecrats who skated by on party loyalty by Southern Dems alone. Part of the reason those districts have all been turning hard R is because of the GOP's emphasis on restricting abortion rights.

 

[royalan]

Politics is local. And considering the pathetic state the party is in, I don't think we can be picky. If some D candidate in some small race in the heartland can have an advantage by being seen as pro-choice, more power to him. And I feel the same way about giving a break to the D candidate in the purple district who doesn't want to run on free college.

But the national figureheads of the party need to think before they speak. We need to stop turning local races into national debacles.

I expect this kind of dumb shit from Bernie, because he feeds off this drama. Not Nancy. She should be smarter than this.

 

[TestOfTide]

Politics is local. And considering the pathetic state the party is in, I don't think we can be picky. If some D candidate in some small race in the heartland can have an advantage by being seen as pro-choice, more power to him. And I feel the same way about giving a break to the D candidate in the purple district who doesn't want to run on free college.

But the national figureheads of the party need to think before they speak. We need to stop turning local races into national debacles.

I expect this kind of dumb shit from Bernie, because he feeds off this drama. Not Nancy. She should be smarter than this.

She probably said what she said because the last time she was speaker, it was with the help of a shitload of pro-life Dems.

She knows from experience that she can trust pro-life Dems to help Dems when they need the help.

 

[shinra-bansho]

1) I'm not sure they're getting a majority without these people any more, and 2) those type of people who would vote to pass bills to protect rights (regardless of their personal views) were exactly the people Pelosi was talking about.

The headline is "Pelosi: Democrats should not be forced to toe the party line on abortion"
The article talks about abortion rights. Not abortion views.
So if the intent is 2) then Pelosi spoke poorly. As pedantic as this may seem.
Because when you say abortion rights aren't nonnegotiable. You're not talking just about those people.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

why the fuck did i just see a trump ad?? like im watching baseball in missouri but still

I had heard he made a new ad but didn't really think he'd be buying ad space... that's not normal, is it?

 

[Emerson]

Abortion is literally a deal breaker for a ton of otherwise moderate republicans. There are absolutely people who would happily vote for a Democrat who brands themself as pro-life, even knowing that the party platform won't change.

You aren't going to pick up votes by courting anti-minimum wage moderate Dems. The only good comparison is gun control. And we already have some of those pro-gun Dems in office.

 

[kirblar]

why the fuck did i just see a trump ad?? like im watching baseball in missouri but still

I had heard he made a new ad but didn't really think he'd be buying ad space... that's not normal, is it?

It's not. It's completely bizarre. He only cares about running and winning.

 

[metalslimer]

Politics is local. And considering the pathetic state the party is in, I don't think we can be picky. If some D candidate in some small race in the heartland can have an advantage by being seen as pro-choice, more power to him. And I feel the same way about giving a break to the D candidate in the purple district who doesn't want to run on free college.

But the national figureheads of the party need to think before they speak. We need to stop turning local races into national debacles.

I expect this kind of dumb shit from Bernie, because he feeds off this drama. Not Nancy. She should be smarter than this.

In these off years, it's hard not to have every local race seen as a national race and referendum on the party in power/president

 

[TestOfTide]

Abortion is literally a deal breaker for a ton of otherwise moderate republicans. There are absolutely people who would happily vote for a Democrat who brands themself as pro-life, even knowing that the party platform won't change.

You aren't going to pick up votes by courting anti-minimum wage moderate Dems. The only good comparison is gun control. And we already have some of those pro-gun Dems in office.

Honestly the problem with Dems on guns isn't whether or not they are pro-gun.

It's that it's completely fucking tone-deaf to have someone like Chris Murphy (who has never held a gun in his life) talking about regulating guns.

That's why Jason Kander's commercial was so great. He was still advocating for gun regulations, but he did so while showing gun owners that he actually knows a thing or two about guns.


And no, there absolutely IS huge potential for Dems to pick up seats in suburban type red areas. Jon Ossof getting as many votes as he did proves it. There are a shitload of Republicans in suburban areas that are both sick of Bernie shitting on businesses AND are sick of Trump and his bigoted fanbase.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

It's not. It's completely bizarre. He only cares about running and winning.

such a waste of money! so, glad he's doing it i guess.

i had to do a double take as i saw it tbh

 

[Flying Toaster]

Dems and guns my 2 cents living in Arizona.

There are plenty of us gun owners that are not anti gun regulation and actually welcome and support it.

What we do not support is a complete "guns are bad lets get rid of them" sales pitch.

Contrary to what people in places like California and New York believe there are states like Arizona, Colorado, Oregon that are willing and open to regulation if people actually would start the discussion with regulation and not blanket statements and generalizations.

Guess us newer western states are just rednecks.

 

[TestOfTide]

Dems and guns my 2 cents living in Arizona.

There are plenty of us gun owners that are not anti gun regulation and actually welcome and support it.

What we do not support is a complete "guns are bad lets get rid of them" sales pitch.

Contrary to what people in places like California and New York believe there are states like Arizona, Colorado, Oregon that are willing and open to regulation if people actually would start the discussion with regulation and not blanket statements and generalizations.

Guess us newer western states are just rednecks.

I'm sure it doesn't help Dems when they have too many gun regulation advocates be people who have never owned a gun in their entire lives.

 

[pigeon]

Let's focus on the real issue here

Cars

 

[royalan]

Dems and guns my 2 cents living in Arizona.

There are plenty of us gun owners that are not anti gun regulation and actually welcome and support it.

What we do not support is a complete "guns are bad lets get rid of them" sales pitch.

Contrary to what people in places like California and New York believe there are states like Arizona, Colorado, Oregon that are willing and open to regulation if people actually would start the discussion with regulation and not blanket statements and generalizations.

Guess us newer western states are just rednecks.

But the bold gives up the ghost.

Which Democrat is running on "guns are bad lets get rid of them"? In fact, some of the most carefully chosen words Democrats use in campaigns are on the subject of gun control because they don't want to give that impression. Not even Bernie would shit on guns.

But it goes to show that people aren't actually for gun regulation in this country despite what the poling says, because whenever someone even HINTS at it, all you hear is "they're trying to take my guns!!!!"

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Let's focus on the real issue here

Cars

no one would ever die in a car accident if they had their own car there to stop it

 

[Flying Toaster]

I'm sure it doesn't help Dems when they have too many gun regulation advocates be people who have never owned a gun in their entire lives.

I am a non practicing Catholic pro science gun owning Democrat. I have come to terms with my party hating me.

I really do subscribe to political movements being local and that the local ground troops will participate and help the national level movement. I voted Bernie in the primaries and as soon as Clinton won the primary in my state I started to do work for her campaign locally. But apparently people like me do not exist.

 

[royalan]

I'm sure it doesn't help Dems when they have too many gun regulation advocates be people who have never owned a gun in their entire lives.

I don't think I buy this, either.

You shouldn't have to be a levis-wearing gun enthusiast to have an opinion on guns. And a lot of the advocates you see in the Democratic party are advocates because they either represent areas with high rates of gun violence, or have personal experience.

Gabby Giffords doesn't need to be a gun owner to want gun regulation, because she was shot in the freaking face with one. Her opinion is worth no less than someone who goes to a range every weekend.

 

[AntoneM]

Dems and guns my 2 cents living in Arizona.

There are plenty of us gun owners that are not anti gun regulation and actually welcome and support it.

What we do not support is a complete "guns are bad lets get rid of them" sales pitch.

Contrary to what people in places like California and New York believe there are states like Arizona, Colorado, Oregon that are willing and open to regulation if people actually would start the discussion with regulation and not blanket statements and generalizations.

Guess us newer western states are just rednecks.

Starting by calling for closing private seller and gun show loopholes? Starting by calling for licensure? Because Dems try that over and over again, but, all gun owners seem to hear is "ban all guns!"

And believe it or not, I live AZ.

 

[pigeon]

no one would ever die in a car accident if they had their own car there to stop it

I don't personally believe in cars but I believe it's a personal choice, so I will vote in favor of government programs to make cars accessible

Cars should be safe, legal, and rare

 

[Flying Toaster]

But the bold gives up the ghost.

Which Democrat is running on "guns are bad lets get rid of them"? In fact, some of the most carefully chosen words Democrats use in campaigns are on the subject of gun control because they don't want to give that impression. Not even Bernie would shit on guns.

But it goes to show that people aren't actually for gun regulation in this country despite what the poling says, because whenever someone even HINTS at it, all you hear is "they're trying to take my guns!!!!"

I made a broad generalized statement and it was incorrect and wrong. I will own that. But lets not pretend most leading democratic candidates are not anti gun.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Starting by calling for closing private seller and gun show loopholes? Starting by calling for licensure? Because Dems try that over and over again, but, all gun owners seem to hear is "ban all guns!"

And believe it or not, I live AZ.

I don't know how we make much headway on this. The good thing is the Dems' gun control proposals are broadly popular, but the only people who vote on gun issues are fucking lunatics who want to act out their Rambo fantasies.

 

[facelike]

lol that feeling when you accidentally post your to-do white board on twitter: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/859534440359497732

What is a Reputation Tax?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Worst thing about the gun debate regardless if you are pro or against...

The NRA.

Those assholes need to be removed.

 

[chadskin]

Trump calling House Rs to try to save AHCA, per multiple sources. R leaders & WH claim they're "making progress." But they've said it before

https://twitter.com/brespolitico/status/859573197498462209

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't think I buy this, either.

You shouldn't have to be a levis-wearing gun enthusiast to have an opinion on guns. And a lot of the advocates you see in the Democratic party are advocates because they either represent areas with high rates of gun violence, or have personal experience.

Gabby Giffords doesn't need to be a gun owner to want gun regulation, because she was shot in the freaking face with one. Her opinion is worth no less than someone who goes to a range every weekend.

You know how it looks to us when a GOP panel on abortion has only men?

well that's how it looks to gun enthusiasts when Chris Murphy talks about gun regulations.

Why do you think Jason Kander outperformed Hillary in Missouri by 19 points? Because he showed everyone in that state then when he advocates for background checks, he's speaking as someone who knows how guns work.

Another example of Dems being tone deaf on guns is the term "Assault Weapon". I know lots of moderate and even left leaning people who cringe whenever they hear someone use the term "assault weapon".

I get WHY Murphy wants to talk about guns. But he is only hurting his own cause.

And no, its not just NRA scumbags that this is turning off. I met many otherwise liberal voters that said they were sick of the way that democrats talk about guns.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

https://twitter.com/brespolitico/status/859573197498462209

Yea, because Trump butting his head in has worked so well all the other times.

 

[Flying Toaster]

https://twitter.com/brespolitico/status/859573197498462209

I would appreciate if this still dies in Congress. Getting shoved upwards towards the Senate would be a minor win for Trump and I don't want him to get anything out of this madness.

 

[whyamihere]

https://twitter.com/brespolitico/status/859573197498462209

He's said this before.

 

[mo60]

Looks like democrats have chosen who will run in that special house race for SC-5 now.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/331571-south-carolina-primary

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

All politics are presidential politics, there are no local politics.

 

[kirblar]

This is exactly the reason I thought the political theater surrounding Quists' funding was a good thing, regardless of the merits, it completely plays into his rhetoric: https://twitter.com/RobQuistforMT/status/859567891854893056

@RobQuistforMT

The DC health care bill wld be a disaster for Montana—it even threatens coverage for those w/ preexisting conditions
The #AHCA wld raise Montanans' premiums by $300/mo. But my opponent's campaign is being bankrolled by special interests supporting the bill!
We need an independent voice in Congress who will fight for affordable health care—not a bill that's really just a tax cut for millionaires.
Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition, but my opponent thinks it should be—that's not the Montana way. #mtpol

 

[ShironRedshift]

His avatar is also a Nidoran, which is to this day one of the best Pokemon and understandably puts people into a positive frame of mind. Imagine where this thread would be if it was Garbodor.

Huh. Looking closely it's actually an Espeon.

My opinion of Bonen has decreased.

Lol, was confused for a moment there as I was catching up on the new thread and thought you guys might have been talking about me for a second there and was like wait... What? xD Anyway...

I would appreciate if this still dies in Congress. Getting shoved upwards towards the Senate would be a minor win for Trump and I don't want him to get anything out of this madness.

Yeah, definitely. Though the absolute best case scenario would be for Ryan to get cocky or stop giving a fuck, put the stupid thing to a floor vote, and end up not having the votes after all and just have a lot of egg on his face while also actually have votes on record going into midterms. But Ryan is just barely competent enough to understand how whip counts work, so no chance of that.

 

[Veelk]

So what would it take for Fox to be officially labeled propaganda?

My parents watch fox exclusively in the background and I constantly overhear their talking points. It's always, ALWAYS, without any pause or hesitation, just a Trump circle jerk and why everyone is wrong about him.

Like, jesus christ, how does this even qualify as a news organization?