If Democrats became the pro-life party, and Republicans became the pro-choice...

[Blue3]

If Democrats became the pro-life party, and Republicans became the pro-choice party, how would that change elections? (With them staying the same on the other issues.)

Who would it help who with? Who would it hurt who with?

I could see Catholic Americans of every ethnicity solidifying behind the Democratic Party, like over 90%.

[Asian Nazi]

lol

[YaBoyNY]

why would this happen

[Blue3]

why would this happen

I'm not saying it will. I'm asking how that would impact election trends.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Republicans wouldn't win the Catholic vote ever again.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

Seriously, I would have no party to vote for in this world.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

Seriously, I would have no party to vote for in this world.

If you are an "extreme" Republican, I wouldn't expect one issue to sway this much.

Anyway, this would be a much better (and IMO more natural) political world.

[TDAS04]

I could see Catholic Americans of every ethnicity solidifying behind the Democratic Party, like over 90%.

I don't think so.  Some Catholics are pro-choice; I'm pretty sure more than 10% of them are.
There may even be plenty of pro-choice Catholics who would vote GOP for other issues.  Catholics today are far from being much of a voting bloc.

[SingingAnalyst]

I love questions like this. While this scenario has been off limits since the 1980 election cycle, it is possible to imagine how it might have been. If Nelson Rockefeller had become a major GOP force, possibly running against Humphrey in '72 (if Humphrey had won) or winning in '76 as VP. Had the pro-life movement been more indeologically consistent (anti-war, pro-environment, etc.) and especially if they had painted abortion as a tool of oppression of women, it might have happened. As it is, many pro-life Democrats in the 1970s were among the most full-throated advocates for the Vietnam War.

For examples of elections involving pro-life Dems vs pro-choice Republicans, we need to look to the past. In 1978 in Michigan, pro-life Dem William Fitzgerald challenged pro-choice GOP governor William Milliken. Milliken won 57-43%. Milliken's best showings by county were Washtenaw (seat of Univ of Mich), Ingham (seat of Mich State Univ), Oakland, Livingston and Grand Traverse (his home county). His worst showing was in Oscoda, where a tainted beef outbreak was blamed by Firtzgerald on the governor. Fitzgerald was noticeably weak in Detroit and in southern Oakland County, but relatively strong in blue-collar Catholic Macomb County.

Perhaps if Black leaders, who were already allied with the Dem party and were concerned about legal abortion (and contraception) decimating their communities, and certain feminists who saw abortion as a tool of women's oppression (by enabling men to have sex without responsibility) had formed an alliance within the Democratic party-- and if more Republicans had embraced Ayn Rand's views, rather than those of evangelicals, the party alignment you speak of might have happened. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how.

[RINO Tom]

why would this happen

It certainly wouldn't from now on, but I could easily see how it would have happened back in the '50s or '60s.  It's not hard to imagine a SJW-type occupation of the pro-life movement, and Democrats would defend the "unborn" in the same way that they've always fancied themselves as the "helper" of those who can't help themselves.  Additionally, I could imagine Republicans taking a limited government/individual liberty style stance on the issue, publicly acknowledging that abortion is a horrible thing that should be avoided, but it's made even worse when the government can bud its nose in on a woman's personal affairs.

However, NOW a days, I'm not sure all that much would change electorally.  If we got 20-30 years out and things were less polarized, I'd expect Republican gains in Northern suburbs and losses in Appalachia for one (a regression to the norm of the '80s).

[Illiniwek]

<3<3<3<3 I would be very happy that there truly exists a Catholic party then.

[This account no longer in use.]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

wat

Anyways, I could see a Bob Casey vs. Brian Sandoval election similar to this.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

welp.... sh**t.... *fades away slowly*

[Clark Kent]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

Seriously, I would have no party to vote for in this world.

If you are an "extreme" Republican, I wouldn't expect one issue to sway this much.

Anyway, this would be a much better (and IMO more natural) political world.

I don't really see how.

[RINO Tom]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

Seriously, I would have no party to vote for in this world.

If you are an "extreme" Republican, I wouldn't expect one issue to sway this much.

Anyway, this would be a much better (and IMO more natural) political world.

I don't really see how.

I attempted to explain above why it wouldn't be that weird of an alternate timeline.

[Clark Kent]

Abortion would be banned nationally within 10 years, because the media would suddenly become the biggest pro-life advocates!

Seriously, I would have no party to vote for in this world.

If you are an "extreme" Republican, I wouldn't expect one issue to sway this much.

Anyway, this would be a much better (and IMO more natural) political world.

I don't really see how.

I attempted to explain above why it wouldn't be that weird of an alternate timeline.

I understand why it wouldn't have been implausible, but "natural" implies that pro-lifers would fit better in the Democratic coalition and pro-choicers in the Republican one than vice versa, which is sort of similar but not the same as your scenario.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

How about this scenario:
President Trump turns out to be pro choice (no surprise), and seems to be heading towards a landslide reelection. Democrats decide to nominate a pro life moderate Democrat to try to even the field, perhaps conservative on gun rights and foreign issues and other issues Trump will probably be liberal on.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Far from hard to imagine. In the 1950's in Connecticut, it was Prescott Bush running as the candidate of Planned Parenthood, and Nelson Rockefeller was the New York Governor to push for abortion legalization in, what, 1970? In 1976, while Carter was obviously pro-choice, he had a certain benefit from running against a pro-choice, Yankee, Washington insider. To my knowledge, Republicans on the East Coast were early-ish supporters of abortion for reasons related to immigrant populations. It's not hard to imagine a modern-day Wall Street, bourgeois party that eschews "troglodytic" beliefs like a large welfare state or abortion restrictions. What RINO Tom refers to as "natural" is not in the conservative sense--my perspective, anyway--but in the sense of the GOP now representing the zenith of liberalism: atomization of the populace, triumph of individualism, secularization, and so on.

As much as it would pain me to separate from GOP icons like Nixon, it's relatively easy to see myself as a Democrat in this version of events.

[hurricanehink]

As far as the plausibility argument goes, I could see a program where birth control is near universal under a Democratic regime. As a result of the declining birth rates, the government would help provide child care for women intending to give their children up for adoption. The Democrats then become pro-life. Meanwhile, the Republicans are against the government being involved with providing child care, citing it as an unnecessary expenditure. This is part of a broader trend toward more libertarianism, while Democrats embrace a larger government.

[SingingAnalyst]

While this scenario was commonplace in the past, I just don't see it happening going forward. If anything, the parties will become even more entrenched in their positions as the last remaining pro-life Dems convert to pro-choice, convert to the GOP, or die. We are stuck with a political environment in which the GOP is the party of those who march on Washington to protest abortion-- while the Democratic position on abortion could come straight out of the writings of Ayn Rand.

[Kingpoleon]

209
209
120

[OSR stands with Israel]

209
209
120

Utah would be Republican

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Democrats became the pro-life party, and Republicans became the pro-choice party, how would that change elections? (With them staying the same on the other issues.)

Who would it help who with? Who would it hurt who with?

I could see Catholic Americans of every ethnicity solidifying behind the Democratic Party, like over 90%.

Catholics are about 50/50 now, so you think 40% of Catholics are Republicans who vote for them ONLY based on abortion? Including those who are quite affluent?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Boston Bread]

I doubt Utah would switch. It was solid GOP back when both parties were divided on the issue.