XLnt Response to: "A pro-lifer Dem from Texas does more for choice than a pro-lifer Republican"

[ehrnst]

Link to tweet

No. No, they do not. Hear me on this one. /1

Outcomes of fights depend on more than strategy. They depend on resource allocation. How you divide forces, what support you give, etc. /2

If the Dem Party opens its doors to legislating away women's bodily autonomy, neither they nor women net any gains. Period. /3

At that point, women will be forced to fight a two-front war just to keep what dwindling rights and liberties we DO have. /4

Forced to defend our left flank as well as our right, the battle to keep what we have will become impossible. The center will not hold. /5

If you weren't in a coma during the 2016 election you might remember how the first female candidate had to fight just this two-front war. /6

And how that weakened the Party. /6a

This is BOTH a pragmatic & moral issue. Dems won the popular vote on the most pro-woman & pro-PoC platform ever. These issues matter. /7

Women aren't full citizens under the law. We don't have equal pay, we don't have equal rights. Our liberties are under attack every day. /8

Hard-won victories - Title IX, Roe, contraception - are fights we ARE STILL FIGHTING IN 2017 and we are BARELY HOLDING THE GROUND WON. /9

We aren't making strides forward. And now, supposed allies on our left in this fight are forcing us to defend our left flank. /10

It bears repeating here:

REPRODUCTIVE.

ISSUES.

ARE.

ECONOMIC.

ISSUES. /11

Women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. We make up 51% of the total US population and 54% of the total electorate. /12

54% of us are D. We don't just wink out of existence because we're suddenly deemed expendable by the minority of white men in our Party. /13

To put it in terms party officials should understand:

The more we're forced to bear, the less $ and time we have to support a Party. /14

And if you think this is just some bone to toss anti-choice pols' way in hopes of chasing a demo we lost in 65, think again. /15

If there is ANY issue that Republicans will suddenly 180 on to find compromise, it's abortion. Believe it. /16

Leftist dudes & some party officials probably think this won't matter, that it'll be just window dressing. They are WRONG. /17

This, if allowed, will be THE issue that suddenly gets wheels in Washington turning again. Under this administration/Congress/SCOTUS. /18

And they will ONLY turn on this issue. All our hard work, all our money, all our efforts will be broken on women's backs. /19

On women's backs. Women. Specifically black women. Who've had the back of the Democratic Party for YEARS. /20

[CrispyQ]

1. Kick & rec. -nt

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

I can't fucking believe the Democratic party is even HAVING this conversation in 2017

[prairierose]

4. exactly what I was thinking.....n/t

[musette_sf]

3. K&R

[HuskyOffset]

5. Goddamn right!

I say if you're not pro-choice then you're not supporting the Democratic party and no $$ for you from the D party. And no $$ from me individually, either.

[lark]

6. Excellent post.

I second everything you said. I will never support any candidate who thinks it's good to control and take away women's reproductive choices, no matter how otherwise progressive they are. This is just a total deal killer and it pisses me off when progressive men push candidates like that.

[luvtheGWN]

10. "no matter how otherwise progressive they are."

Frankly, I don't believe any of them could be "otherwise progressive". That's akin to saying about Trump voters/followers that "otherwise, they're good people". Nope. Definitely not.

[lark]

11. You are probably right.

I was just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but again would never vote for or support any DINO who wasn't a supporter of a womans' right to make her own reproductive choices.

[alp227]

7. "a demo we lost in 65"

IMO political appeal should be a two way street. Why should the democrats waste time pandering to those who are so brainwashed by AM radio, Fox News, evangelical preachers, the ConWeb (WND, Breitbart) so much they aren't willing to hear us out?

I wish the Democratic Party had DU's Terms of Service.

[bitterross]

8. Is it possible people may be missing the bigger point?

I agree with everything in the response. All of it is correct.

And, if we don't get more Democrats in office then we'll never have the means to redistrict state legislatures appropriately and we'll never have enough senators to confirm judges and Supreme Court Justices that are more open-minded and open to a living Constitution. Open to confirming in the courts a woman's rights. We need those Democrats in office so we don't get more of the same Gorsuch and Scalia types.

I think the bigger point is we'd better start working on getting Democrats elected to as many offices as possible. Even if we do not agree with every one of their positions on the issues.

Yes, this is one of the most crucial and important battlefields we have right now. I understand that, the right of women to control their own body is the key to economic justice.

Still, if we don't support Democrats for office and we get caught up in intra-party fights then we are doing the work of the GOP for them.

We HAVE to support Democrats from the state up to national level. There is a numbers game we have to start winning.

[ehrnst]

9. I don't think that there are that many districts that went red on choice alone.

I think that the DCCC statement is a bone thrown to the self declared "true progressives" on the left, who are tired of the time and energy put into issues that don't directly interest this very straight white male demographic.

And it's backfiring on them. The base is much bigger than the alt-left members.

[Amimnoch]

12. Sorry. I completely disagree.

24. Just 24.

That's how many seats in the House that we need to take back in the house to have the majority.

Personally, I'm working on 1.

Just this past weekend, in Bellaire in Houston James Cargas, who will be running against John Culberson yet again in 2018 had a fund raising dinner. in 2016, Texas House district 7 had one of the closest races for a Democrat contender that it has had since George HW Bush took the seat from the last Democrat that sat it in 1967. The dinner this past Sunday had twice as many paying supporters as I've ever seen at a Cargas fundraiser. James was that candidate.

Cargas is not a perfect Democrat. On abortion, I've never seen or heard his position. On my own "pony" issue of GLBT rights.. never a peep. He describes himself as a "fiscal conservative, social liberal", something that I'm not at all in line with since I'm liberal minded on both fiscal and social issues.

however, I know my district pretty well..
ANY candidate who espouses a pro choice stance WILL NOT WIN.
ANY candidate who openly supports GLBT rights WILL NOT WIN.

So why the hell do I support a candidate that is not in line with my beliefs? Because he CAN win, and he WILL vote mostly in line with the Democratic Party, and he WILL add to the numbers necessary to put Pelosi, or whomever is selected back in the speakers chair, which gives our entire party, and our platform which DOES support pro choice, and GLBT rights the steering rights of legislative power.

By all means, wherever we are able to, let's put in full down-the-board liberals and progressives into office. But in places like Texas House district 7, let's get the best that we can achieve, and get over that 218 count threshold and get our majority back.

[niyad]

13. k and r + several gazillion. . . . waiting for the but. . . . but. . . . responses.