Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

#BREAKING: Dem campaign chairman: Dems willing to fund candidates who oppose abortion rights hill.cm/tA0Y3zG

Was this discussed?

I was chatting with NYCmets earlier about how people on both sides of the left are saying that this proves the other side doesn't support women's rights.

I don't agree with this at all, but the guy also says supporting Pelosi as speaker is not a litmus test, so maybe he's just, like, dumb.

 

[PBY]

I was chatting with NYCmets earlier about how people on both sides of the left are saying that this proves the other side doesn't support women's rights.

I don't agree with this at all, but the guy also says supporting Pelosi as speaker is not a litmus test, so maybe he's just, like, dumb.

I mean, if this is the party line I never want to hear about purity tests again.

But I'm more inclined to buy your "just dumb" argument.

 

[Kusagari]

There's a difference between personally being against abortion and being for anti-abortion policies.

If you're the latter you have no place in the party imo.

 

[Pryce]

#BREAKING: Dem campaign chairman: Dems willing to fund candidates who oppose abortion rights hill.cm/tA0Y3zG

Was this discussed?

This will be unpopular with the far-left social types. but this would certainly help in some areas of the country. Of course, who knows if that would even get people to vote Democrat in those areas.

I sometimes believe if Dems ran more of a "abortion is bad but it shouldn't be regulated" ala more 1990's Democrats they'd have a much better image, in regards to that issue, in many parts of the country. I know a lot on the left/feminists want a "abortion should be taxpayer funded" route but I don't think that will play.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

They just need 1 more vote. How they get it, who knows. But this is real close to happening, closer than I expected. Really seems like the best hope is to hope the legislative clock is basically run out, we get to 2018 and things shut down/campaign season.

That 1 more vote seems impossible with what they want. Collins and Murkowski aren't changing theirs, McCain SEEMS to want to bring it back to regularity, and something like this would take close to a year.

They absolutely 100% will not try this in 2018 but heck, I could be wrong. I just couldn't imagine they'd want this to be a hot topic during an election year. Shit they lie to their constituents about everything else, why not just lie that you changed Obamacare to the ACA and be done with it?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I was chatting with NYCmets earlier about how people on both sides of the left are saying that this proves the other side doesn't support women's rights.

I don't agree with this at all, but the guy also says supporting Pelosi as speaker is not a litmus test, so maybe he's just, like, dumb.

Honestly, I think it's a messaging gambit. Trying to free local candidates as thoroughly as possible from association with the national party. Taking the lessons of GA-6 vs. SC-5 to their logical conclusion. Naturally, once they're actually IN congress, the pressure to vote on party lines for things like women's rights and the Speakership would be enormous.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it'll work. Just registering as a Democrat is enough to tie them to Pelosi and abortion rights in the places where those are wedge issues. Meanwhile, the lack of national pro-choice messaging could be an actual issue in other races.

 

[PBY]

Honestly, I think it's a messaging gambit. Trying to free local candidates as thoroughly as possible from association with the national party. Taking the lessons of GA-6 vs. SC-5 to their logical conclusion.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it'll work. Just registering as a Democrat is enough to tie them to Pelosi and abortion rights in the places where those are wedge issues. Meanwhile, the lack of national pro-choice messaging could be an actual issue in other races.

Okay, but if that's negotiable wtf does the party stand for? I never want to hear one whisper about the far left being sexist if this is the centrist position.
It's a betrayal.

 

[pigeon]

Honestly, I think it's a messaging gambit. Trying to free local candidates as thoroughly as possible from association with the national party. Taking the lessons of GA-6 vs. SC-5 to their logical conclusion. Naturally, once they're actually IN congress, the pressure to vote on party lines for things like women's rights and the Speakership would be enormous.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it'll work. Just registering as a Democrat is enough to tie them to Pelosi and abortion rights in the places where those are wedge issues. Meanwhile, the lack of national pro-choice messaging could be an actual issue in other races.

I agree with this. It's more defensive crouch Democratic Party nonsense.

We should be going to Georgia and telling them "fuck you, support Planned Parenthood." Honestly, our failure to do so contributes to shit like the conspiracy theory that PP is a Sanger eugenicist plot.

Okay, but if that's negotiable wtf does the party stand for? I never want to hear one whisper about the far left being sexist if this is the centrist position.
It's a betrayal.

Don't be dumb, Bernie said the same thing.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Okay, but if that's negotiable wtf does the party stand for? I never want to hear one whisper about the far left being sexist if this is the centrist position.
It's a betrayal.

I mean, the whole point of what I'm saying is that it's not actually negotiable. They just want to lift the top-down messaging pressure. Once they reach congress, they'd still be expected to vote how the party wants them to.

I agree with this. It's more defensive crouch Democratic Party nonsense.

We should be going to Georgia and telling them "fuck you, support Planned Parenthood." Honestly, our failure to do so contributes to shit like the conspiracy theory that PP is a Sanger eugenicist plot.

Yeah. Dems consistently overestimate the conservative lean of the election, this is kind of a permutation of that combined with the "let local do local" idea, which admittedly does have a ton of merit.

 

[PBY]

I mean, the whole point of what I'm saying is that it's not actually negotiable. They just want to lift the top-down messaging pressure. Once they reach congress, they'd still be expected to vote how the party wants them to.

How is this different from how the left gets painted on social justice?

It's all bullshit. And it's weak af.

 

[Poodlestrike]

How is this different from how the left gets painted on social justice?

It's all bullshit. And it's weak af.

I feel like you might have missed the bit where I said it wasn't a great play.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that the groups you're talking about don't have an actual record of pushing hard for social justice issues once they get into office regardless of their prior rhetoric, because, as outsiders, they don't have a record at all, which isn't actually a guaranteed positive in the results-oriented voting blocks on the left.

 

[Ogodei]

Honestly, I think it's a messaging gambit. Trying to free local candidates as thoroughly as possible from association with the national party. Taking the lessons of GA-6 vs. SC-5 to their logical conclusion. Naturally, once they're actually IN congress, the pressure to vote on party lines for things like women's rights and the Speakership would be enormous.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it'll work. Just registering as a Democrat is enough to tie them to Pelosi and abortion rights in the places where those are wedge issues. Meanwhile, the lack of national pro-choice messaging could be an actual issue in other races.

This is important to note. Just like there are pro-choice GOPers but they'll still vote for whatever ultrasound you-need-the-rapist's-permission bullshit that leadership vomits up.

Tim Kaine and Bob Casey are both pro-life but i'd trust either of them to pass a law that wasn't Hyde Amendment compliant.

 

[PBY]

I feel like you might have missed the bit where I said it wasn't a great play.

No I got that. I'm reacting to the point about messaging vs action.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Being pro-life and opposing abortion rights are two totally different and potentially unrelated beliefs.

So which one are they financing?

 

[Kusagari]

Honestly, I think it's a messaging gambit. Trying to free local candidates as thoroughly as possible from association with the national party. Taking the lessons of GA-6 vs. SC-5 to their logical conclusion. Naturally, once they're actually IN congress, the pressure to vote on party lines for things like women's rights and the Speakership would be enormous.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it'll work. Just registering as a Democrat is enough to tie them to Pelosi and abortion rights in the places where those are wedge issues. Meanwhile, the lack of national pro-choice messaging could be an actual issue in other races.

Yeah, I don't see it working at all. They'll still be tied to Pelosi and I don't trust them to vote with the party line either.

I think this could work on a lower level. Funding state senators or mayors who are anti-abortion? Fine.

But in congress? Nah.

 

[Ac30]

If Congresspeople lost their salaries during a shutdown rich legislators could literally bully poorer ones into signing on to regressive policies during budget crises.

Never thought of it that way, thanks. I was just thinking about that congresswoman during the last shutdown who was acting like furloughed employees being without wages was no biggie.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

"Pro life" Democrats won't really have a situation where they would have to vote that way.

Example: Tim Kaine and Joe Biden

 

[Dr. Worm]

Never thought of it that way, thanks. I was just thinking about that congresswoman during the last shutdown who was acting like furloughed employees being without wages was no biggie.

The members of Congress who already have tremendous net worths have zero issue with losing their salary; the opposition to losing wages comes from those who aren't millionaires.

This came up a few years back.

 

[PBY]

"Pro life" Democrats won't really have a situation where they would have to vote that way.

Example: Tim Kaine and Joe Biden

This isn't the case at issue.

 

[Kusagari]

"Pro life" Democrats won't really have a situation where they would have to vote that way.

Example: Tim Kaine and Joe Biden

There's no way they're talking about politicians in the vein of Kaine or Biden because it makes no sense to even bring up they'll fund candidates like that.

They already are.

 

[Emerson]

We've just had a very public demonstration of how important it is to have as many Democrats in national office as possible. Literally one less Democrat in the Senate and the ACA was dead.

"Democrats" who want to actively pursue restricting women's rights should not be supported by the party, but I'm not sure there are many, if any, of those.

Ones who just want to earn points by making campaign ads saying they are pro life and then fall in line for actual votes when they're important? We need as many as we can get.

 

[TumblingHippo]

Messaging like that is how they lose more Democratic voters and get zero Republican voters.

 

[BlastProcessing]

https://twitter.com/AdrienneLaF/status/891965104165662720

Jesus they're dense.

Is he actually this stupid or was this a not-so-subtle dig?

 

[jtb]

This is a very bad decision but not one that will have tangible legilagive impact, I think.

Being pro-life and opposing abortion rights are two totally different and potentially unrelated beliefs.

So which one are they financing?

Completely disagree.

No one means pro-life when they say they're pro-life. If Biden/Kaine position was 'pro-life' then abortion would not be a mobilizing issue. Clearly they're co-opting the label, but they're also very clearly not pro-life.

 

[Dan]

Is he actually this stupid or was this a not-so-subtle dig?

Yeah, I'd like to imagine the latter.

 

[RustyNails]

They just need 1 more vote. How they get it, who knows. But this is real close to happening, closer than I expected. Really seems like the best hope is to hope the legislative clock is basically run out, we get to 2018 and things shut down/campaign season.

How true is this though. If the waffling R's like Heller and Johnson knew McCain was going to shoot the bill, they simply used his cover. If McCain was going to vote Yes, would they have voted the same way?

 

[PBY]

We've just had a very public demonstration of how important it is to have as many Democrats in national office as possible. Literally one less Democrat in the Senate and the ACA was dead.

"Democrats" who want to actively pursue restricting women's rights should not be supported by the party, but I'm not sure there are many, if any, of those.

Ones who just want to earn points by making campaign ads saying they are pro life and then fall in line for actual votes when they're important? We need as many as we can get.

I fundamentally don't think this will help anyone win, and its a slap in the face to women constituents.

 

[Dr. Worm]

I'm reminded of this article from The Nation:

Imagine if Democrats, sick and tired of losing white votes in Mississippi, decided to nominate a segregationist for governor. Imagine if they found that LGBTQ rights turn off voters in Tennessee, so they ran one of those anti-same-sex-marriage Christian bakers. Imagine if they found that plenty of Oklahoma voters didn't believe in climate change, so they ran a denialist. After all, why get hung up on one item in the long list of good things we all support when the important thing is getting back into power? Everyone has to take one for the team sometimes, right?

Don't worry, Nation readers. These scenarios aren't about to happen. Only women are expected to let history roll backwards over them. Only women's rights to contraception and abortion are perpetually debatable, postponable, side-trackable, while those who insist on upholding the party platform—and the Constitution—are dismissed as rigid ideologues with a ”litmus test." Party leaders can't come right out and say so—in fact, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has issued a statement declaring that abortion rights are non-negotiable. But if you pay attention, you can feel the waters are being tested. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi told The Washington Post, ”This is not a rubber-stamp party." Why else would Perez meet with Democrats for Life? And why did so many pay such close attention to Heath Mello, a former state legislator in Nebraska with a long record of anti-abortion votes, who ran for mayor of Omaha with the approval of both Bernie Sanders, and, initially, Perez? Maybe they hadn't done their due diligence and didn't know, or maybe it was a test: Can we win in red states if we run anti-abortion candidates?

 

[PBY]

I'm reminded of this article from The Nation:

Pretty much.

 

[benicillin]

I guess the Republicans had a really bad week so some Democrats thought it was important that we remember why our party is shit sometimes too.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Completely disagree.

No one means pro-life when they say they're pro-life. If Biden/Kaine position was 'pro-life' then abortion would not be a mobilizing issue. Clearly they're co-opting the label, but they're also very clearly not pro-life.

I guess it depends on whether the candidate is being sincere in their supposed stance or not. Tim Kaine said he wouldn't let his personal beliefs on abortion impact his legislative stance and I believed him. If those are the kind of Democrats they would finance, I'm fine with that.

I hate marijuana and oppose its recreational use, but I still voted to legalize it in my state last year. Obviously positions like that are nuanced and probably not common, but I feel like they would be most common with abortive agendas. Perhaps I have too much faith in people to separate what's right for them and what's best for everyone.

But you're right that most ordinary people use "pro-life" as a poor veil over their sexist fanaticism and this would likely manifest in candidates the same as if manifests in voters.

 

[Vixdean]

Weren't a good portion of the Democrat wave in 2006 pro-lifers from southern states? Granted, announcing it like that is dumber than hell.

Wait, all he actually said was that there would be "no litmus test" for 2018 candidates. That's totally fine and completely different that the wording that suggested they outright said "we'll support anti-abortion candidates". Words matter folks.

 

[PBY]

Weren't a good portion of the Democrat wave in 2006 pro-lifers from southern states? Granted, announcing it like that is dumber than hell.

Democrats for Life of America / pro-life Dems were a bigger force in 2006 (and even got endorsements from people like Schumer).

That doesn't mean shit. Its 2017.

 

[Pyrokai]

Man, I cannot give a big enough fuck you to the GOP for their health care bullshit. Just thinking back on the last seven months on their terrible proposals:

-Destroying Medicaid
-Fucking with employer benefits
-Kicking millions off their plans
-Defunding Planned Parenthood
-Raising Premiums
-Keeping everything a secret
-Their garden party when the House passed it
-Using Skinny Repeal as a way to cram through a ton of more evil crap in an 8 page document. AN 8 PAGE DOCUMENT FOR 1/6 of our economy!

I had so many sleepless nights and I wouldn't have even been as terribly affected as a good chunk of our population.

I know that feel. I regularly wake up in a panic when I think about RBG being replaced in the next 3.5 years.

 

[kirblar]

Every time this issue comes up there is so much pearl clutching over a tiny minority of candidates.

 

[PBY]

Every time this issue comes up there is so much pearl clutching over a tiny minority of candidates.

LOL at fundamental women's rights being reduced to pearl clutching.

Fucking RAD.

 

[whyamihere]

Doesn't the DCCC and DGA already help fund Colin Peterson, Marcy Kaptur, and John Bel Edwards?

 

[jtb]

LOL at fundamental women's rights being reduced to pearl clutching.

Fucking RAD.

Legislatively, a pro-life Democrat is still infinitely preferable to a pro-life Republican. With a majority, you control the legislation that comes to the floor and the rules, committees, etc. The caucus will shield members from taking 'pro-choice' votes, while still getting pro-choice outcomes that are, again, infinitely preferable to a GOP caucus.

Nonetheless, playing defense on social issues is dumb and not effective, particularly when the abortion access movement has seen major losses across the board for decade after decade (unlike other social movements that have seen progress). And repealing Hyde needs to be major party plank going forward.

I guess it depends on whether the candidate is being sincere in their supposed stance or not. Tim Kaine said he wouldn't let his personal beliefs on abortion impact his legislative stance and I believed him. If those are the kind of Democrats they would finance, I'm fine with that.

I hate marijuana and oppose its recreational use, but I still voted to legalize it in my state last year. Obviously positions like that are nuanced and probably not common, but I feel like they would be most common with abortive agendas. Perhaps I have too much faith in people to separate what's right for them and what's best for everyone.

But you're right that most ordinary people use "pro-life" as a poor veil over their sexist fanaticism and this would likely manifest in candidates the same as if manifests in voters.

Well, a candidate's personal views are irrelevant - politically and electorally. Either they're going to vote for bills or against them, and that's what matters. That's why the pro-choice label is mutually exclusive with the pro-life label.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Doesn't the DCCC and DGA already help fund Colin Peterson, Marcy Kaptur, and John Bel Edwards?

What you don't understand is that I don't know who any of these people are.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Weren't a good portion of the Democrat wave in 2006 pro-lifers from southern states? Granted, announcing it like that is dumber than hell.

Wait, all he actually said was that there would be "no litmus test" for 2018 candidates. That's totally fine and completely different that the wording that suggested they outright said "we'll support anti-abortion candidates". Words matter folks.

That's all he said? That's quite a bit different than the tweet implied

Liberal Twitter strikes again

 

[PBY]

This Ukraine business that the OT is discussing at the moment, compiled with the pushback on Russia sanctions, is looking like it will be a supreme shit show.

 

[PBY]

That's all he said? That's quite a bit different than the tweet implied

Liberal Twitter strikes again

He said that in the context of whether a pro-life candidate would be supported. That's exactly what he meant.

 

[kirblar]

LOL at fundamental women's rights being reduced to pearl clutching.

Fucking RAD.

The amount of these reps actually running and not supporting the platform is going to be less than a fraction of a percent. The Democratic Party is majority female. The electorate will self regulate on its own.

 

[jtb]

I'd rather get riled up over an abortion rights litmus test than, say, a single payer or $15 minimum wage litmus test.

 

[PBY]

The amount of these reps actually running and not supporting the platform is going to be less than a fraction of a percent. The Democratic Party is majority female. The electorate will self regulate on it's own.

This is unacceptable, sorry.

 

[Sickboy007]

Am I the only one to find Joy-Ann Reid kinda bad and shallow? She's on Pod Save America and she keeps contradicting herself.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Don't worry guys, Trump is on top of things...

Trump on North Korea: "It will be handled"

"We have a lot of tremendous things going on. We have some interesting situations we'll handle -- North Korea, Middle East, lots of problems we inherited from previous administrations -- we'll take of them, well take of them very well," he said.

When pressed further on how exactly he would "take care" of the North Koreans, he told reporters, "We'll handle North Korea, we'll be able to handle North Korea, it will be handled, we handle everything."

 

[GoldenEye 007]

This is unacceptable, sorry.

Well then keep having no realistic shot at winning elections in conservative areas? Congrats a republican is in office not only voting for abortion stuff, but all other terrible conservative issues too!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I get softening on things like guns where we probably aren't actually appealing to more than 10% of the public, but women's rights are non-negotiable. Bernie calling Mello a progressive was an embarrassment and can definitely cost us. Women are like most of the protesters and angry callers to Congress. It's why I not down with chasing the rural white male vote as our core base.

Democrats are women, and that's how you win.

 

[PBY]

Well then keep having no realistic shot at winning elections in conservative areas? Congrats a republican is in office not only voting for abortion stuff, but all other terrible conservative issues too!

Telling women and POCs to go fuck themselves isn't a winning strategy.

Congrats, you've alienated your base, and conservatives still won't vote for you.