General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho is the genius
That decided a majority of Democratic women are going to turn out to vote for our own reduction to second-class citizenship, greatly increased poverty, and sharp increases in our own death rates?
They can't have forgotten that women are the majority of voters in the Democratic Party, that not one Democrat from dog catcher to Senator holds a seat without our votes. Why would anyone assume they own our votes, that our own lives matter so little to us that we would sit back while they engineer our subjugation?
Pretending any of this is about winning is the most transparent ruse possible. Excuses that a majority of the counties are red and anti-choice might convince someone with a lobotomy, but not many women or our male allies. The majority of districts have been red since the mid-60s, and Democrats controlled congress most of that time. The land mass game is as weak as it gets.
I don't believe for a second that this has a thing to do with winning. Democrats have had anti-choice candidates since Roe, and they had them during the recent electoral losses too. So why the push now? Interesting how people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton in the GE because she wasn't "progressive" enough have suddenly decided undermining the equal tights of the majority is a winning tactic.
This amateur shit doesn't cut it. The anti-equality crowd is going to have to up its game. And when they are coming up with their next scheme, they should remember that they are up against a segment of the population that doesn't need to exclude the majority from full citizenship to feel adequate.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying I hold the same position. I am saying it's not hard to understand their thoughts when it comes to funding a Democrat running in District 13.
Control-Z
(15,681 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)There are 50 states in this country and hundreds of districts.
People can run whoever the fuck they want anywhere. They still have to win. No way In hell majority of Democratic women vote for that, and without us they lose. Period.
Y'all are just going to have to come up with strategies that don't involve negotiating away women's lives. Or you can lose, bigger than you've ever lost before. Because you will. I guarantee that.
No, it's not hard to understand that men who resent women in the public sphere use our lives as pawns. Trump's win is a golden opportunity to empty the playing field of competition so they can come out on top. So they spew some weak excuses about winning. I do not for a second by it and I doubt many other Democratic women will either. And we have the votes.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You hit on a number of the points.
"Y'all are just going to have to come up with strategies that don't involve negotiating away women's lives."
"Y'all" is not the proper word to use in that instance.
"No, it's not hard to understand that men who resent women in the public sphere use our lives as pawns."
That isn't hard to understand at all.
"And we have the votes. "
No, you don't.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Women are the overwhelming majority of the party. The GOP is the party of white men. They have the votes in that party, but not the Democratic Party.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)If you think you simply have the numbers, why isn't District 13 ours? That is not how things work.
I agree that women are the majority of the party. They are also a majority of the country. They should be recognized as such.
If a Democrat comes out of a house primary and is anti-choice, that will not automatically take them out of the running for DCCC funds.
Not one person can claim a fifty state strategy without understanding this. I will never support an anti-choice individual in a primary. In the general I would consider it depending on their opponent.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Which state?
Do you mean this? https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/142523/the-district-13-house-taking-the-opposition-to-washington-dc
Google turns up that, the Hunger Games, and other movies.
Look, I'm not saying no anti-choice Dems should be allowed. I'm saying this RW putsch against equal rights is about something far more pernicious. Don't think for a second there is this intense interest over a few seats in red districts. There is a concerted agenda here.
I think that DCCC chair was trying to placate the anti-Democrats who are trying to seize control of the party through dominance, power they haven't been able to gain through elections. He could fund anti-choice Dems in conservative districts without announcing it to the press. The party has done it for years, and it doesn't magically result in wins. But publicly announcing it, that's for a reason, and it's not to win over anti-choice red state voters.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mothers life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jul 2014)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Mac_Thornberry.htm
It was an unnecessary comment. Completely unnecarry. For that alone your argument has clear merit. I believe my point was correct but it was not in line with the main point of what you put forward.
The DCCC leadership should at a minimum have to hold the party platform line in public statements.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Districts are different. Some are heavily evangelical, and pro-choice candidates have no chance. Some have a lot of coal or oil, and environmentalists have no chance. Some have other specific industries (e.g. finance) and won't vote for candidates that want to heavily regulate those industries. And so on.
So we have a choice. We can be blind to these obvious facts, and just run Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanderses everywhere. Then we can pat ourselves on the back for our purity. The downside, of course, is that the Republicans would end up with huge majorities in both houses, and everything we care about policy-wise, very much including reproductive rights, would go down the toilet.
Or, there's another option, where we run candidates who can actually win their states and districts, even though they disagree with the party platform on a few issues. This has the advantage of being able to actually take back congress and push the country in a progressive direction. But we don't get to be as morally smug about never ever supporting anyone who disagrees on any issue.
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)when your basic human rights aren't being debated.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What is being debated is a political strategy.
The real risk to human rights, and everything else, is the Republican party. Losing elections due to ideological purity does absolutely nothing to protect human rights, in fact it does the oppoisite.
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)compromising on what should be non-negotiable principles. Somehow it works for the other side.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But some parts of the country are extremely socially conservative, and pro-choice views just don't fly. That sort of leaves us a choice, do we just forfeit those parts to the GOP, or do we allow D candidates with anti-choice views to run.
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)to disagree on the answer to your question.
delisen
(6,039 posts)used to win by doing that.
Sure I am being facetious but nevertheless it was true.
The white south was solidly Democratic and the New Deal was built partly by not rocking the boat of segregation.
Don't want to return to the so-called "good old days" of inequality and I don't want to return to the whispering world of coat hanger health care for women and girls.
I do not believe that the only way a Democrat can win in some states is by promising to curtail the rights of women.
When you see polls that say Democrats don't stand for anything, consider this latest attempt to throw people under the proverbial bus, and then make a decision to be a party that stands for human rights, civil rights, and equality.
You will get more respect when you stand for something.
progressoid
(49,825 posts)People are elected on the local level where principles vary from state to state.
For instance, your senator Tester would likely be defeated as a senator in California or Connecticut for his gun support.
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)I find it puzzling and frankly, unacceptable, that men have the luxury of having any political say on a woman's right to choose or anything else when it comes to our bodies. This whole argument has moved uncomfortably to the right. Even birth control seems to be on the table for political discussion. Every reasonable man in this country ought to be leading the goddam birth control support parade!! Imagine if their penises and what they did with them were legislated? Laughable, right? It would not be entertained or tolerated. For many of us, this is our line in the sand.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)
It makes zero difference to me if they are a Republican or Democrat.
This has f all to do with ideological purity. This is about basic survival.
That you so glibly use the lives of women as a political strategy-- with no effort to even inform yourself on the likelihood of its succeeding--proves to me that our lives are inconsequential to you.
This is a strategy guaranteed to make the Dem Party lose like never before. That is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone who didn't want to destroy the party would even contemplate it. How anyone thinks they can attack the majority of their voters and still win defies comprehension.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Someone who can say, "Look, I share your pro-life views. But I'm not going to impose my personal, religious views on anyone else. I support the right of every woman to make this choice herself, without government interference."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)That my life is not a pawn in your weak power play.
There already are pro-life Democrats running in those districts. The Democrats still lost. No pro-lifer in their right mind votes Democrat. They know the difference between the parties. Your claim that all we need to do to win those seats is kill a few hundred thousand more women, to see more children pushed into poverty, is based on no evidence. There is no indication it will win more seats. None of you even try to provide evidence. You don't even care about evidence.
Concern for winning would mean careful examination of data, of specific races. It wouldn't involve sacrificing the equal rights and very lives of the majority of the population on a supposition, a whim. That is why it is obvious this argument had fuck all to do with winning.
Now, you are free to vote for any misogynist you want. You can complain to them about how uppity women refuse to understand how insignificant their lives are. I really don't give a shit. But if you think that you are going to convince Democratic women to vote for their own subjugation, for our own DEATHS, you have no idea who you're dealing with.
Now, you've enough made yourself very clear. We have nothing more to discuss on this or any other issue. You've made very clear that you see my life, my death, as a bargaining chip in a power play. I do not have discussions with people who threaten my life, which is precisely what your argument entails.
.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nancy Pelosi has stated she's against having a pro-choice litmus test. Do you really think she doesn't actually care about winning, and she's just doing it as some kind of underhanded plot to criminalize abortion? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
Sure, you can accuse me of being misogynist and in favor of subjugation of women if you want, but Nancy Pelosi has a stellar voting record on abortion, and one thing even her opponents will agree is that she very much does care about winning elections. So I think you should ask yourself, which is more likely. Do you think Pelosi said those things because she actually thinks its a winning political strategy? Or do you think her whole political career was just a sham leading up to this moment where she finally tries to criminalize abortion?
musette_sf
(10,184 posts)mopinko
(69,806 posts)the whole point is to represent the party, everywhere.
give them a watered down thug policy, and they will pick the real thing.
give them a real choice, and see what that gets you. the majority in this country support reproductive rights.
i guess it boils down to- do we want to bring dem non-voters out of the woodwork, or do we want to go on the fool's errand of trying to win over enough of "them" to win.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Wants to roll back voting rights? Destroy public education?
Look, I get your point. I live in a ruby red FL district. I understand that more conservative or Blue Dog Dems may be the best shot for these districts.
I could and would vote for an anti abortion Dem who is legislately pro- choice. But if they are advocating for taking away my right to health care, no, I could not vote for that person.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I love reading them.
I wish I had that talent.
Excellent points!!
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)I've wasted too much time on this. You can't convince people that women's lives are wotrthwhile. Either they already know it, or they will never care. I need to get in touch with PP and NARAL about that DCCC chair.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)leftstreet
(36,078 posts)I can't fathom why the brain surgeons of the DCCC would set this all off
They KNOW that anti-abortion voters will never vote for Democrats
DURec
boston bean
(36,186 posts)These people are bigots all the way around.
We would have to become the racist+bigoted party. Not the "just" misogynist one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pretending facts exist doesn't make one any nobler in a discussion.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Doesn't ask specifics about conditions of pregnancy - rape, length of pregnancy etc. All those things rabid wingers care so much about
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leftstreet
(36,078 posts)It was a poll designed to get a specific result
But I suspect you already know that
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Here's a hint: I know some in real life.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)If you HAD asked me if there are anti-choice Democrats....
Yep, most likely.
But they'll still vote for a Democrat before they'll vote for a GOPer
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This is what you said. It's also patently untrue--many anti-abortion voters do vote Democratic.
There are anti-abortion Democrats in Congress.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Sry. Thought everyone knew that.
I could amend my posts to be specific
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)couldn't stomach Donald Trump.
Not a lot, of course. Certainly not enough. But some.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)So your argument fails.
lakeguy
(1,639 posts)you're just making numbers up as you go. also you cite a survey that said legal in all/most cases. that's a pretty broad view.
84% support at link below...even a majority of republicans are in support of roe v wade. and you want to run an anti-choice democrat? smart.
https://thinkprogress.org/pro-choice-america-majority-d8963029ae45/
how about we run an anti-choice, anti-union, anti-fair pay, and anti-civil rights candidate, just to win. and how is that different than electing a republican?
if you run a republican light, voters who lean republican will choose the real one every time. why not change the equation instead of falling for the same trap we've been in for the last 30 f'in years!?!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)useful question. Republicans aren't trying to overturn it, they're chipping away at it.
LexVegas
(6,005 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)whereas whiny ass white men expect everyone to bow to their needs...
(even though we had the same needs for decades and the whiny ass white men didn't lift a finger).
You you've noticed that jobs are being replaced by technology/automation - how many women do you think lost jobs as secretaries/switchboard operations/bank tellers when technology and automation hit traditional women's jobs.
Did you say keep the teller/cashier/operator? Not frickin likely.
Ligyron
(7,592 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)K&R
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)No it isn't.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)Anti-choice bullshit isn't going to fly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)anyone is asking you to vote for a conservative candidate.
Political parties exist to win power and enact policies. They do not exist for mutual affirmation amongst groups of people who never disagree on anything.
Don't like conservative Democrats--easy solution--don't vote for any in your local primary.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and anti-choice Dems, in both winning and losing cycles.
this is about a concerted effort to try to reduce the majority to second class citizenship for the benefit of a minority (not even most D. white men) that can't compete for votes, jobs, or power on an even playing fielled.
You know, it's not even worth arguing. Women have the votes. It's our party. if they are so colllosally stupid to think they can attack the rights and lives of the overwhelming portion of the electorate and win, they deserve what they get.
All the more reason to ensure that party leadership positions continue to be held by women.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The only people participating in that effort are Republicans (and maybe Dan Lapinski--fuck that guy).
MuseRider
(34,058 posts)Especially this..." And when they are coming up with their next scheme, they should remember that they are up against a segment of the population that doesn't need to exclude the majority from full citizenship to feel adequate."
Thank you!
countryjake
(8,554 posts)and wonder why you'd think they might be the ones who are behind this current "Big Tent" move to the right, I'm happy to recommend your post since we all must fight to be more united now, much more than ever before. Our own party leaders have been signaling that abortion rights are no longer as important an issue to "Democrats" for quite awhile now, and I, for one, attempted to point that out here several times during the past year but was out-talked with silly Primary bullshit, instead of firm unity on Women's Rights.
Remember when DNC chair Tom Perez drew that "line in the sand" earlier this Spring? He made his statement on a Friday, to the relief and spirited cheers of vast numbers of progressive, conscientious women nationwide (a resounding "one voice" ), but by the following Sunday morning, our Democratic leadership had effectively and deliberately "walked" his statement back. That, right there, is and has always been a main concern of mine, that the Democratic Party would eventually give in to those members who are opposed to abortion and finally agree to compromise on that right-wing stance.
Thanks for this thread!
Now, get off the computer and write letters, make phone calls, our voices must be heard!
One voice!
Warpy
(110,907 posts)giving their church dogma the force of civil law, that's who.
They really are stupid fuckers and ultimately self defeating. The DCCC has always had a genius for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and this is one way they do it.
SonofDonald
(2,050 posts)There is no argument or reason to disagree with this, zero, zilch, nada.
Religious views do not matter in this, it's not your decision or business, your approval is not required.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)and not important enough to insist on. They make me sick.
How a candidate stands re: abortion rights is a valuable, necessary litmus test revealing how he or she (but mostly he) stands on women's rights in general. Hell, it isn't even about women's rights--it's about whether women are adult human beings.
I am out of patience even with the good guys like Biden and Kaine, who *have* to say "well, personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but..." Grow up. Either you respect women as equal human beings or you don't. And frankly, I don't *want* the votes of people who don't understand that.
MontanaMama
(23,238 posts)If we budge on this, what do we lose next?
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)is necessary but not sufficient.
I will not support a pro-choice corporatist.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Did something happen? What happened?
If not..then what's up with these angry posts? Is it "just in case"? I don't get it. I haven't seen anything in the news about this subject.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)DLevine
(1,788 posts)Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who are anti-choice, according to DCCC chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján. DUers are divided about whether or not it's a good idea.
BarbD
(1,191 posts)Could it be that someone is trying to stir things up?
countryjake
(8,554 posts)it will continue to fund Pro-Life candidates.
They say its paving a path to victory in 2018 at the expense of women.
by Becca Andrews ~ July 31, 2017
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/people-are-really-mad-at-the-dccc-for-saying-it-will-continue-to-fund-pro-life-candidates/
The Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who oppose abortion, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM).
There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates, said Luján in an interview with The Hill. As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.
Read the article...it's a fairly good summary of this disturbing development.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I can see both sides of that argument. Pragmatism, on the one hand...it's either this pro-life Dem or a Republican...a pro-choice Dem can't win in that area. OTOH, if they believe in overturning Roe v Wade, they would possibly vote for that on a Republican bill.
It depends on the individual candidate, maybe.
pwb
(11,204 posts)For around fifty years republicans have used abortion as a wedge issue to divide otherwise like minded people. And the beat goes on.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Just kidding, it wasn't really me.
About the only thing I have the power to decide, is what I am going to have for lunch.
I had a bit of a surreal experience back in 2011. I think that was the year anyway. The precinct committee people in my district were being called upon to replace a legislator who was being deployed to Afghanistan (or maybe it was Bosnia, the details escape me now). There were only five of us - but that was reduced to four because the couple from the other county chose to give their county chair their votes by proxy, so she had two votes, and then myself, a black woman and two white women, that was our committee of four. Had we filled all the precinct seats in our district, there should have been about twenty of us.
So anyway, we were questioning two candidates who might replace the woman who had just won the election. One was a former county commissioner who had lost in the primary to the winning candidate, and the other was the previous person in that seat for five terms. SHE was anti-choice and pro gun. The woman who had just won the election was anti-choice and pro gun. The former county commissioner was also anti-choice. None of the three women mentioned the issue of abortion or seemed to care that both of our choices were anti-choice.
Well, this is Kansas, where some elected Democrats, even female ones, are anti-choice, and where some of the democratic voters are anti-choice and others apparently do not care that much about the issue one way or another. And some people believe that we have strong candidates like, say, Dennis McKinney or Josh Svaty and that we should support them even as others complain about their stance on abortion. As Bird (retired poly sci professor Burdett Loomis) says - that's why we have primaries.
PoorMonger
(844 posts)I do live in Nebraska too. I totally understand not wanting to compromise your core - but I do wonder, in a state like mine when we have a largely do nothing Republican in Deb Fischer up for re-election in 2018, would I support a return of someone like former Senator Nelson ( a conservative D, who often frustrated me?) yes I would vote for him if it was him or Fischer.
Right now, I'm concerned that she may even sail by unopposed. No one has declared intent in Nebraska for us Democrats.
While I would support and campaign for a better option, and not want an anti choice Dem if I could help it... I have to admit that a squishy candidate who agrees with me 80% of the time is better than conceding seats all together.
We can worry about so called policy purity in primaries - where I would push for a pro choice person.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)SethH
(170 posts)The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.
This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party, Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.
I grew up Nancy DAlesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic, she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. Most of those people my family, extended family are not pro-choice. You think Im kicking them out of the Democratic Party?
So the people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wasn't progressive enough decided three months after that statement that they were so inspired by Nancy Pelosi that the would begin an assault on abortion rights? And of course we're supposed to forget the events leading up to that comment and pretend it began and ended with her.
There have been anti-choice Democrats for as long as there has been choice. Nancy didn't invent that. Nor did she as a strong defender of all equal rights decide to run around the interwebs telling women and people of color they had to give up equal rights to "win." After refusing to vote Dem in the general election because the party didn't give then a reason to vote for Hillary rather than against Trump, they decided the reason they were looking for is reducing women to second class citizenship, greater poverty and sharp increases on death rates. Winning couldn't be achieved by their actually voting for a Democrat rather than Trump or third Party. No that's only possible by compelling the majority to become second class citizens so that a self-entitled few could have the power and wealth they believe is their birthright but can't achieve through competence or actually winning a single election anywhere. Nancy Pelosi is their inspiration, the person they demanded be replaced by a "progressive" anti-choice Democrat whose voting record resembles another Ryan. The no compromises crowd suddenly decided they would compromise the lives of everyone but themselves because they were so inspired by Nancy.
I suppose Nancy is to blame for all the assaults on candidates of color and the warm fuzzies toward Rand Paul and the White Supremacist Trumpsters as well.
Yeah, it was all Nancy because what she said is totally the same as shit being piled mile deep now.
Nice try. Well, not really.
I need waist high Wellies to wade through all this.