What impact would a pro-life Dem have in the general election?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I assume they wouldn't pick up too many conservative voters, but would a significant number of liberals, women especially, stay home?

[Pandaguineapig]

Abortion is an issue that both sides hyperventilate over and a reliable source of money from stupid donors but in reality it will almost never sway any election in a noticeable way

[Beet]

I would absolutely never vote for such a candidate.

[Adam Griffin]

Not much at all, but it would be a net negative. It might actually screw the Dem out of an EV win if the national PV is tied, and especially in a future scenario where we're fighting for our lives in VA & CO.

You'd no doubt have some ornery Democrats who would make that their hill to die on. After all, they've been programmed to do so: half of the modern Democratic campaign-season talking points revolve around "women's issues", which include abortion, birth control, political posturing when Republicans make nasty rape comments and "equal pay for equal work".

All of the conservatives and former Democratic socons who left the party over social issues would remain so brainwashed that they'd justify their obstruction by saying things like "that's what they want you to believe", "well, they still support gay marriage", and so forth.

[Beet]

Not much at all, but it would a net negative. It might actually screw the Dem out of an EV win if the national PV is tied, and especially in a future scenario where we're fighting for our lives in VA & CO.

You'd no doubt have some ornery Democrats who would make that their hill to die on. After all, they've been programmed to do so: half of the modern Democratic campaign-season talking points revolve around "women's issues", which include abortion, birth control, political posturing when Republicans make nasty rape comments and "equal pay for equal work".

All of the conservatives and former Democratic socons who left the party over social issues would remain so brainwashed that they'd justify their obstruction by saying things like "that's what they want you to believe", "well, they still support gay marriage", and so forth.

Yeah, if I ever leave the party, it'll be because of the sneering attitude against those of us who take women's rights seriously as onery programmed bots who somehow managed to care about an issue properly framed in "scare quotes", and other bullsh**t like "equal pay for equal work." How dare anyone expect progressives to actually give a sh**t about rights for half the human population.

[Adam Griffin]

Not much at all, but it would a net negative. It might actually screw the Dem out of an EV win if the national PV is tied, and especially in a future scenario where we're fighting for our lives in VA & CO.

You'd no doubt have some ornery Democrats who would make that their hill to die on. After all, they've been programmed to do so: half of the modern Democratic campaign-season talking points revolve around "women's issues", which include abortion, birth control, political posturing when Republicans make nasty rape comments and "equal pay for equal work".

All of the conservatives and former Democratic socons who left the party over social issues would remain so brainwashed that they'd justify their obstruction by saying things like "that's what they want you to believe", "well, they still support gay marriage", and so forth.

Yeah, if I ever leave the party, it'll be because of the sneering attitude against those of us who take women's rights seriously as onery programmed bots who somehow managed to care about an issue properly framed in "scare quotes", and other bullsh**t like "equal pay for equal work." How dare anyone expect progressives to actually give a sh**t about rights for half the human population.

Yeah...maybe it'd be different if they actually did something about any of these things that would stick (or at all), instead of just using it as a polarizing campaign talking point in every election. Democrats didn't give the country abortion. Democrats didn't deliver a functional birth control solution that's universal. Democrats only take on issues regarding rape in rhetorical terms whenever a Republican screws up and it's a viable way to cobble together votes. Democrats have accomplished jack-squat in regards to equal pay. Yet, it's a sure-fire way to completely polarize the political process by gender in the hopes that females make up 1% or more of the electorate than males and that males don't drop below 50% by any more than females move above it.

Also, don't know why you're talking about "scare quotes" since that is the exact phrase.

[Adam Griffin]

Not much at all, but it would a net negative. It might actually screw the Dem out of an EV win if the national PV is tied, and especially in a future scenario where we're fighting for our lives in VA & CO.

You'd no doubt have some ornery Democrats who would make that their hill to die on. After all, they've been programmed to do so: half of the modern Democratic campaign-season talking points revolve around "women's issues", which include abortion, birth control, political posturing when Republicans make nasty rape comments and "equal pay for equal work".

All of the conservatives and former Democratic socons who left the party over social issues would remain so brainwashed that they'd justify their obstruction by saying things like "that's what they want you to believe", "well, they still support gay marriage", and so forth.

Yeah, if I ever leave the party, it'll be because of the sneering attitude against those of us who take women's rights seriously as onery programmed bots who somehow managed to care about an issue properly framed in "scare quotes", and other bullsh**t like "equal pay for equal work." How dare anyone expect progressives to actually give a sh**t about rights for half the human population.

Yeah...maybe it'd be different if they actually did something about any of these things that would stick (or at all), instead of just using it as a polarizing campaign talking point in every election. Democrats didn't give the country abortion. Democrats didn't deliver a functional birth control solution that's universal. Democrats only take on issues regarding rape in rhetorical terms whenever a Republican screws up and it's a viable way to cobble together votes. Democrats have accomplished jack-squat in regards to equal pay. Yet, it's a sure-fire way to completely polarize the political process by gender in the hopes that females make up 1% or more of the electorate than males and that males don't drop below 50% by any more than females move above it.

Also, don't know why you're talking about "scare quotes" since that is the exact phrase.

Furthermore, it's actually pretty demeaning and offensive when you think about it that almost all of the Democratic issues regarding the subject of women's rights revolve around us proposing policies regarding their reproductive organs. Very similar to how some seem to think Latinos only care about immigration reform of the lack thereof. It truly is stereotyping at its finest, and we engage in it because there is just enough effect among a just barely large enough segment of each group to make it a viable strategy. Of course, then we do absolutely nothing of substance to deliver on what we promised and then we wonder why they don't show up to vote in midterms.

[Beet]

Not much at all, but it would a net negative. It might actually screw the Dem out of an EV win if the national PV is tied, and especially in a future scenario where we're fighting for our lives in VA & CO.

You'd no doubt have some ornery Democrats who would make that their hill to die on. After all, they've been programmed to do so: half of the modern Democratic campaign-season talking points revolve around "women's issues", which include abortion, birth control, political posturing when Republicans make nasty rape comments and "equal pay for equal work".

All of the conservatives and former Democratic socons who left the party over social issues would remain so brainwashed that they'd justify their obstruction by saying things like "that's what they want you to believe", "well, they still support gay marriage", and so forth.

Yeah, if I ever leave the party, it'll be because of the sneering attitude against those of us who take women's rights seriously as onery programmed bots who somehow managed to care about an issue properly framed in "scare quotes", and other bullsh**t like "equal pay for equal work." How dare anyone expect progressives to actually give a sh**t about rights for half the human population.

Yeah...maybe it'd be different if they actually did something about any of these things that would stick (or at all), instead of just using it as a polarizing campaign talking point in every election. Democrats didn't give the country abortion. Democrats didn't deliver a functional birth control solution that's universal. Democrats only take on issues regarding rape in rhetorical terms whenever a Republican screws up and it's a viable way to cobble together votes. Democrats have accomplished jack-squat in regards to equal pay. Yet, it's a sure-fire way to completely polarize the political process by gender in the hopes that females make up 1% or more of the electorate than males and that males don't drop below 50% by any more than females move above it.

Also, don't know why you're talking about "scare quotes" since that is the exact phrase.

Furthermore, it's actually pretty demeaning and offensive when you think about it that almost all of the Democratic issues regarding the subject of women's rights revolve around us proposing policies regarding their reproductive organs. Very similar to how some seem to think Latinos only care about immigration reform of the lack thereof. It truly is stereotyping at its finest, and we engage in it because there is just enough effect among a just barely large enough segment of each group to make it a viable strategy. Of course, then we do absolutely nothing of substance to deliver on what we promised and then we wonder why they don't show up to vote in midterms.

If you're saying Democrats should do more, then I agree. But dropping any of those issues wouldn't be doing more, it'd be doing less.

Honestly, what I find a lot more offensive is the Democratic assumption that minorities are going to be in their camp forever, and that it's okay for blacks to vote 95% for us. I think if we're really going for a post-racial society, then you would see black conservatives, just as there are conservatives of any race. Blacks would vote about 70-30 for us still, but they would be comfortable in the GOP. It sucks that we have one party that is so toxic to minorities that even he conservative ones feel compelled to vote for Democrats, simply because we're the only non racist option.

But I totally agree with you that our rhetoric on women's rights shouldn't just be reproductive rights. Let's talk about paid family leave. Let's talk about child care. Let's talk about getting more women to run for office. Let's talk about getting a female press secretary or chief of staff the next time we win the WH, whenever that is.

[Mister Mets]

The candidate might do well with a subset of the Republican party that is socially conservative, but fiscally moderate. Just as important, those voters might stay home in November.

[H. Ross Peron]

I would absolutely never vote for such a candidate.

So how are you any better than a Democrat who refuses to vote for a candidate that favours legalized abortion?

Anyways probably a slight net positive effect-Democrats might make marginal enough gains among white voters to succeed in places like North Carolina and Missouri. If there's a few election cycles of abortion and a few other issues such as gun control being de-emphasized, a few more Southern states start to become viable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Abortion is one of the very few issues that Democrats aren't completely terrible on. So it would not go well.

[Beet]

I would absolutely never vote for such a candidate.

So how are you any better than a Democrat who refuses to vote for a candidate that favours legalized abortion?

So someone who hasn't voted the Democratic ticket for president since 1972? I wouldn't exactly call them more than a DINO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both pro choice and did fine in the South.

[Xing]

A pro-life Dem would probably have a lot of trouble motivating progressives to come out to vote, unless he/she were running against an extreme conservative.

[Thunderbird is the word]

In the VP spot I could see them just waffling on them issue. I've actually thought of this before in regards to the possibility of someone like Bob Casey or Joe Donnelly as Hillary's running mate.

[Bojack Horseman]

As much as I like to talk about winning, and not caring who the nominee is as long as they win, that's a line I won't cross. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Bob Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania, much less a presidential candidate. If you don't support a woman's right to choose, you have no right to call yourself a Democrat, IMO.

[Sumner 1868]

So, as these comments emphasize, it wouldn't go over well, because this issue is the only real reason the Democratic Party exists at this point.

[Türkisblau]

As much as I like to talk about winning, and not caring who the nominee is as long as they win, that's a line I won't cross. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Bob Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania, much less a presidential candidate. If you don't support a woman's right to choose, you have no right to call yourself a Democrat, IMO.

Guess I'm not a Democrat...

Got to love those Dems who love being in the indefinite minority!

[TomC]

I wouldn't be thrilled. Are there other social issues this candidate veers right on? Is my other choice a Jeb Bush or a Ted Cruz?

Maybe some can chalk it up to a token issue; the federal courts protecting rights, including women's rights, is pretty important to me.

[Türkisblau]

I wouldn't be thrilled. Are there other social issues this candidate veers right on? Is my other choice a Jeb Bush or a Ted Cruz?

Maybe some can chalk it up to a token issue; the federal courts protecting rights, including women's rights, is pretty important to me.

This is a major part of it. It wouldn't be a big issue at all if they were a Harry Reid sort of pro-life, but someone like Bob Casey Jr. would present an issue to people like Wolverine22.

[Lief 🗽]

Supporting a woman's right to choose is a core issue in the Democratic Party. Just like we wouldn't nominate someone who is against gay marriage, wants a national right to work law, supports a flat tax, etc.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I assume they wouldn't pick up too many conservative voters, but would a significant number of liberals, women especially, stay home?

A pro-life Democrat could not be nominated for President, or even for Vice President, any more than a pro-choice Republican could be nominated on the GOP ticket.  It is one of those things that just can't happen, due to the structure of the nominating process.

At heart, I'm a socially conservative Democrat who's in line with the Democrats on many non-social issues who's stuck as a registered Republican because I would be disenfranchised in local elections if I were not.  (There is no local Democratic Party to speak of where I live now.)  I would welcome such a development, but I'm skeptical.  Even Southern Democrats have been pro-choice for the last 20-25 years.

[bobloblaw]

The "big tent" of the Dem party would newer nominate such a person.

Amazing how there is more diversity of opinion in the GOP than in the Dem party on the issue

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would absolutely never vote for such a candidate.

So how are you any better than a Democrat who refuses to vote for a candidate that favours legalized abortion?

So someone who hasn't voted the Democratic ticket for president since 1972? I wouldn't exactly call them more than a DINO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both pro choice and did fine in the South.

Carter criticized his party's abortion rights platform in 76. His lack of a consistent stand in favor of abortion rights would keep him from being nominated by today's Democratic party.

[IceSpear]

As much as I like to talk about winning, and not caring who the nominee is as long as they win, that's a line I won't cross. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Bob Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania, much less a presidential candidate. If you don't support a woman's right to choose, you have no right to call yourself a Democrat, IMO.

Casey is pretty bad on abortion, but he's actually still far better than most Republicans are on the issue. He frequently gets hammered among the single issue crowd for not being "pro life enough."

[IceSpear]

As much as I like to talk about winning, and not caring who the nominee is as long as they win, that's a line I won't cross. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Bob Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania, much less a presidential candidate. If you don't support a woman's right to choose, you have no right to call yourself a Democrat, IMO.

Guess I'm not a Democrat...

Got to love those Dems who love being in the indefinite minority!

You mean like those Democrats who want to nominate someone who would lose the general rather than Hillary Clinton?