Opinion The Fall of Roe May Save Democrats in the Midterms, at Least in the Suburbs

Link (Archive)

The Fall of Roe May Save Democrats in the Midterms, at Least in the Suburbs​

For decades, while conservatives were patiently waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, they were busy undermining it. In Congress and in statehouses, they pushed policies to make it harder to secure legal abortions, efforts that helped to widen the gap between the two major parties. And yet during the same time, most Americans settled into a complacent state in which they assumed Roewas settled law, even among those whomRepublican Presidents appointed to federal benches.

Well, on Friday, conservatives finally got their wish. The proverbial dog caught the car—and, at least politically, may come to regret it. Americans are still digesting the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling and its potential far-reaching consequences that could stretch from reproductive rights to personal relationships and marriage equality. But there will be no dodging this topic on the campaign trail.

It’s still early, and Election Day is a relatively distant 19 weeks away. But quick polling conducted in the days since the Supreme Court struck down the 1973 precedent shows political problems for Republicans, who otherwise seemed on a glide path toward November. Historically, the party that holds the White House has a dismal showing in its first test with voters; only the Sept. 11 attacks spared an incumbent President that insult back in 2002. President Joe Biden’s job approval numbers are among the worst since World War II, inflationis a persistent irritant to the electorate, and high gas prices are hitting everyone. Put another way, Republicans would have to really try to mess up their hand.

Yet on abortion rights, Democrats seemingly have an advantage on a topic dominating the news and likely to remain top of mind as almost every state will be forced to revisit its abortion policies. A record number of voters say abortion will be the issue that determines their vote this year, according to Gallup, and recent polls suggest a jump in interest in the midterms that seem to favor Democrats. Yet the threat of apathy and exhaustion is real, and sustaining outrage is hard work.

One group in particular may have outsized sway: college-educated women who determinethe outcomes in the swingy suburbs. Many came to regret their support for Trump in 2016, and went back to supporting Democrats in the following two elections. Now they are none-too-happy with the Dobbs ruling. A significant 71% of college-educated white women support abortion rights, a recent NPR poll found, and they are a must-win bloc for Democrats’ longterm prospects.

Even before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the number of Americans who toldGallup pollsters that they identified as “pro-life” was at its lowest level since 1996. A near-record 55% of those surveyed said they identified as “pro-choice” and, in a first, a majority—52%—said abortion was morally acceptable. Over decades of polls, Gallup has found increasing support for abortion, and even in the last year, support for abortion rights has grown across every single demographic group.

Since Friday’s ruling, voters seem to have doubled down. An NPR-Marist poll over the weekend found 56% of all adults opposed the decision and 53% of independents said the same. And in a reason for Republican alarm, 66% of suburban women said they opposed it, alongside 70% of white women who graduated from college.

The same NPR-Marist survey found, among all registered voters, 48% of Americans said they would vote for the Democrat running for Congress, a slight edge over the 41% who said they’d vote for the Republican. Those numbers track with the same survey’s results a month before the 2018 elections that swept Democrats into power. (Keep in mind, when it comes to which party controls the House, gerrymandering has rendered many of these voters’ opinions unimportant as competitive districts are tough to find in many states.)

In short, if Democrats can sustain the intensity around this topic, they may defy history and a Biden drag and dodge an electoral disaster. They’ve been laying the groundwork for this moment for months, and further stepped up focus groups and polling after a draft of the ruling leaked in early May. EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL—the big three abortion-rights groups—plan a $150 million blitz on the topic heading into the fall.

Republicans, however, are far from despondent. Their base loved the ruling: it carries 75% support among white Evangelicals, 84% of those who voted for Donald Trump in 2020, and 54% of white working-class men, according to NPR’s polling. GOP strategists have long argued that abortion fires up a small but dedicated part of the electorate, the volunteers who knock on doors and make phone calls. The emerging strategy appears to be to cast Democrats who support abortion rights as extremists; in New Mexico, where Democrats control the legislature, the GOP nominee for governor says he’s pro-life but is pledging only to ban “late-term and partial-birth abortion that the current governor supports.” (New Mexico stands to become a destination for abortion services as many other states in that region ban it altogether.)

Then there’s the economy. Everyone is feeling the pinch. Systematically, Democrats are simply hemorrhaging their voter rolls. An Associated Press analysis finds that more than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party in the last year, a shift that is especially pronounced in the suburbs. If that trend holds, it could mean tens of thousands of suburban voters who were sour on Trump may have migrated back to the GOP, enough to potentially determine control of Congress.

What’s unknown is if the new abortion landscape might prompt those same voters to swing back into the Democratic fold. To that end, it’s worth listening to what suburban women are saying, especially the white ones with college degrees.

For Republican candidates, there will be little room to hide, especially if Democrats prove successful in painting the GOP as the party of extremism. Democrats will also have to address what comes next in a post-Roe world. Until recently, millions of swing voters had little expectation that Roe could really be struck down after so many years of hard-won durability. The surprise arrived and remade the political landscape. It’s now up to both parties to figure out how to read the new terrain.
 
One of the problems with 24hr corporate news media is that people have short memories regarding issues like this. There is always something that comes along to take eyes away because the media are whores and always have to push the next big story. Look how quickly people get over spree shootings or other tragedies. Even if the media makes this their primary issue until midterms and the Dems bring it up every time they're in front of a camera, normies are going to stop giving a shit pretty quickly. Especially when they struggle to feed their kids, make their mortgage payment, put gas in their vehicles, and can't find baby formula. There are more important issues for normies than immature young women being able to fuck their brains out guilt free and abort their babies if they get pregnant.
 
They already did that even before Roe.

They also do that with sob stories about how not playing pretend with mentally ill people will make them want to kill themselves.

They can cry wolf only so many times before people get fed up with them.
I mean it's very easy to cry wolf and get away with it if you can criminalize your criticism, Make anyone who disagrees with it is labeled an ist or phobe.

Not to be blackpilled but it's very concerning at least in the short term.
 
Idk we’ll see I guess but my gut says that the threat Dems pose to our living children will massively overshadow concerns over some places putting restrictions on abortion access. And they only ever double-down on their whole “we will literally do anything to your kids we want and we will work together to prevent you from knowing what we’re doing until they’ve been sufficiently indoctrinated into our cult so that you will be unable to recover their ruined psyches and we will make TikToks about it” thing.
 
Some affluent libshit women might get motivated to politically sperg in the midterms, but otherwise I really doubt this is going to, in aggregate, move the needle for most voters.

You had 5 decades. RBG warned you. Quit fucking crying about the Supreme Court deciding "hay we aren't supposed to be legislating from the bench." They're literally just doing their jobs for once.
 
These levels of copium are lethal. Here are some harsh facts for leftys:
  1. Most people who would want abortions can still get them, they are not inconvenienced by this change
  2. Most people don't need abortions every 6 months, very few people will have to consider abortion between now and voting time
  3. Most people deal with the shit economy every single day. They buy groceries, buy gas (or at least drive past gas stations), go out to eat, pay rent, pay bills, or do literally anything involving money. They will constantly be reminded of how shit the economy is, it is inescapeable.
People are simple creatures, often their votes are based on little more than gut feelings. An omnipresent ass fucking like the economy WILL influence their decision, meanwhile most will have forgotten about Roe v Wade by September.
 
This brainless gash does not see the contradiction in "reduce to chattel" and "in power," and that's why women shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Probably thinks that all heterosexual sex is rape unless it's the guy she wants to fuck. But yes, getting pregnant is literally a form of slavery and oh no there's nothing you can do about it. Grow up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
Now that RvW is dead, the next thing is a nationwide abortion ban.
If that's where we're heading, why wasn't it what was the case before Roe?

Dems can run on stopping that
Nah, their grift's run out. What are they going to rely on the Democrats to do? The same nothing they did for 50 years?
 
Yeah, right.

The Democrats didn't bother doing anything to avoid this by attempting to codify Roe, in the first place-- and fair enough, it would have been immaterial if the SCOTUS ruled against the law,

ruled against it on what constitutional grounds? if there were constitutional basis for banning abortion, there would be constitutional challenges to existing abortion law. you'd need a fetal personhood amendment first.

and the reality of the matter is that it was never codified federally because the support for that flat out doesn't exist.
nope, there has always been broad, bipartisan support for legal early abortion. It was never codified federally because both parties decided to build their support on the crazy person vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
ruled against it on what constitutional grounds?
The Tenth (ADD: and Fourteenth) Amendments and practiced precedent (in the form of states already having individualized abortion laws) effectively indicating that it was a matter for the states to individually adjudicate instead of having the federal government uniformly lord one statute over them all.

nope, there has always been broad, bipartisan support for legal early abortion.
Always? No state allowed it when the Tenth Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. I don't even think most, if any, states readily allowed it outside of strict circumstances prior to Roe.

And what is "early abortion"? 40 days? First heartbeat? Six weeks? 14 weeks? Right until the baby crowns?

The cutoff for when abortion is acceptable has always been a point of contention with no national consensus, in part because when your cutoff isn't either "conception" or "after it's born", such a person's determination is based on how they feel about killing a baby when the woman's belly is however enlarged.

The only bipartisan statement is that there should be a cutoff at all.
 
Last edited:
The Tenth Amendment and practiced precedent (in the form of states already having individualized abortion laws) effectively indicating that it was a matter for the states to individually adjudicate instead of having the federal government uniformly lord one statute over them all.

enh maybe.

Always? No state allowed it when the Tenth Amendment was ratified.

no state explicitly allowed it or forbade it afaik

I don't even think most, if any, states readily allowed it outside of strict circumstances prior to Roe.


And what is "early abortion"? 40 days? First heartbeat? Six weeks? 14 weeks? Right until the baby crowns?

The cutoff for when abortion is acceptable has always been a point of contention with no national consensus, in part because when your cutoff isn't either "conception" or "after it's born", such a person's determination is based on how they feel about killing a baby when the woman's belly is however enlarged.

The only bipartisan statement is that there should be a cutoff at all.

"early" is mushy and oldfashioned quickening is probably as good as it gets.
 
Sure people are pissed about Roe v. Wade dying now. But as fuel prices continue to climb, inflation continues to grow, and the economy continues to tank further into recession, I'm pretty sure people are going to care a lot less about abortion. And everyone except blind Lefties recognize who is to blame. This isn't going to help Dems as much as they're banking on.

The odd thing is we are only seeing the protests and outpouring of anger from deep blue cities. Places in fact very very very unlikely to ever even think about maybe talking of the chance of banning abortions.

Even the "fact" that 75% of Americans support abortion is a psuedo-fact. If you look at the survey they keep quoting 75% of Americans support abortion under very limited terms. Life threatening illness, rape, incest and upto the first 9 weeks.

The Dem's keep acting like they have the mandate of the masses, that the average Jane Doe is perfectly OK with scrambling a late term fetus if the mother just can't be assed to give it up for adoption.

I don't think that this SCotUS decision will make that much of a difference over all honestly.
 
Back