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.
 
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?
What grift? You think the Democrats would vote for a nationwide ban?

Now that RvW is gone, what do you think, all these pro-life organizations are going to pack up and go home? Absolutely not. Like the LGBTQ+ organizations after Obergefell, they'll move on to the next thing, the bigger thing. After the initial post-RvW honeymoon phase, it won't be good enough that abortion is outlawed in a few states. If I'm a religious conservative in Ohio, the satisfaction I feel about babies being saved in Ohio will give way to a gnawing ache at all those babies being killed next door in Michigan and Pennsylvania. With a moral question like that, you think social conservatives are going to be happy that at least it's happening beyond an invisible state line?

I think this will especially help the Democrats in blue states where abortion remains currently legal, both in state and federal elections They can definitely point to their Republican opponents and say "he/she will make abortion illegal in our state." And what's the Republican going to say, "No, I won't?" They'll be vilified as RINOs then and they'll lose their base.

I'm not against RvW being overturned, but you're nuts if you think "No one will care" or "This will actually help!". "Letting states do their own thing" is an academic attitude that will not last very long. You give people way too much credit. A thousand rainbows upon your brow.
 
What grift? You think the Democrats would vote for a nationwide ban?
I don't think they would do anything, because they didn't do anything to try to codify Roe after 50 years.

Now that RvW is gone, what do you think, all these pro-life organizations are going to pack up and go home? Absolutely not. Like the LGBTQ+ organizations after Obergefell, they'll move on to the next thing, the bigger thing.
Again, if that were the case, the state of abortion prior to Roe wouldn't have been what it was. It isn't "academic"-- nobody with a conception of history prior to Roe would say that. Actually, nobody with a sufficient understanding of Roe and the general surrounding scene would say that.

I think this will especially help the Democrats in blue states where abortion remains currently legal, both in state and federal elections They can definitely point to their Republican opponents and say "he/she will make abortion illegal in our state." And what's the Republican going to say, "No, I won't?" They'll be vilified as RINOs then and they'll lose their base.
What's the difference from before the overturn and now? Using your example, the Democrat could just say "he/she will make abortion more difficult to obtain in our state", and there's no way it wouldn't have the same effect, especially when states crafted proven ways to make getting an abortion more cumbersome in their limits despite Roe. And this is to say less of the reality that if they think about policy, there's multiple points of policy to consider unless the Republican contender was already vulnerable to being labeled a RINO.
 
So, in essence you believe that it's morally right to withold an essential right from people by extorting them with better economic opportunities? I believe that you should give them both, since these two in no way cancel each other out.



Oh, they will, once they have to start paying for their teenage girls trips to another state to get abortion. They will.



Because these people still remember, especially the boomers, what it was to live in a world where abortion generally was illegal. They don't want that, and neither do younger people once they realize in what kind of Hell they are.

But all in all the cope seen in this thread is extremely amusing. You know, deep within, that this was a really fucking stupid move politics-wise, one that will inevitably come to bite back at your side of the issue come the elections, but you rather choose to engage in wishful thinking and elaborate fictions about how people will not vote against this at the ballot box, now that they have the chance.
Look everybody! It's a crumpet that thinks he knows American politics. Everybody point and laugh!
 
Because these people still remember, especially the boomers, what it was to live in a world where abortion generally was illegal. They don't want that, and neither do younger people once they realize in what kind of Hell they are.
which was also a world where birth control had only very recently become functional and accessible, and also a world in which easy fast cheap private pregnancy testing wasn't available, a world in which single motherhood was still social death, and a world in which there was no plan B

live in the now
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
I was watching a Tucker Carlson clip last night where he showed clips of left-wing news outlets saying the quiet part out loud about abortion being about population control and how it’s a good thing you can’t have kids because you can’t afford them, but you’re not allowed to ask why your parents and grandparents could afford to have kids.
 
Or Congress orders to mass purge Republicans outright.
1656608255507.png


"Execute Order 66"
 
Now that RvW is gone, what do you think, all these pro-life organizations are going to pack up and go home? Absolutely not. Like the LGBTQ+ organizations after Obergefell, they'll move on to the next thing, the bigger thing.

this has also occurred to me, this is going to be exactly like how activists shifted from gay marriage to trans stuff. you have all these super powerful wellfunded organizations, they are not going to pack up and go home.
 
this has also occurred to me, this is going to be exactly like how activists shifted from gay marriage to trans stuff.
These aren't even in the same category for comparison.

Gay marriage, talk less of trans privilege, wasn't enshrined as law in most states prior to some judicial activist action that put half-assed restrictions on them after inventing a fit-tailored right ex nihilo. Obergefell didn't restore a preexisting legal landscape-- it novelly transformed the one that existed.

Think-- why was there no national abortion ban before Roe, even though most states all but banned abortion absent extreme or mostly extreme circumstances?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
I was watching a Tucker Carlson clip last night where he showed clips of left-wing news outlets saying the quiet part out loud about abortion being about population control and how it’s a good thing you can’t have kids because you can’t afford them, but you’re not allowed to ask why your parents and grandparents could afford to have kids.
Yep. Pro-immigrants (Demographic replacement) groups like Democrats and neo-Cons use the excuse that couples aren't having kids anymore and that's why they need to take in more to make-up for it. The real reason is that corporations don't want to pay for paternity leave or pay a good wage when Fernando from across the border will work for a fraction of the pay or outsource the job to someone from across the country. That's why everyone sperged out when Sessions announced the end of DACA.
 
Back