The News Thread

The abortion story seems like bad optics for 2020 to me. Can't imagine this helping Republicans anywhere outside of the Deep South, unless Reps elsewhere create a split in the party on this issue.

EDIT: Apparently Missouri is now banning a significant chunk of abortions as well, lol. But maybe all of this will at least finally kill of the evangelical base, that would be worth it.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
The abortion story seems like bad optics for 2020 to me. Can't imagine this helping Republicans anywhere outside of the Deep South, unless Reps elsewhere create a split in the party on this issue.

EDIT: Apparently Missouri is now banning a significant chunk of abortions as well, lol. But maybe all of this will at least finally kill of the evangelical base, that would be worth it.
Click to expand...

Why would it kill it off? This is gonna head to the Supreme Court in short order. This is the most success the anti-abortion coalition has had in years.
 
And the Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn the Alabama law. Right now Republicans, even more moderate and urban ones, are basically forced to give in to the broad evangelical coalition wherever abortion is concerned. Anti-abortionists are among the strongest single-issue voters, iirc, but they're also the most relevant only in the deepest red states. If Reps stay married to this issue, that hurts them in 2020 in the various swing states they need to hold.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
And the Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn the Alabama law. Right now Republicans, even more moderate and urban ones, are basically forced to give in to the broad evangelical coalition wherever abortion is concerned. Anti-abortionists are among the strongest single-issue voters, iirc, but they're also the most relevant only in the deepest red states. If Reps stay married to this issue, that hurts them in 2020 in the various swing states they need to hold.
Click to expand...

What would red state laws have to do with swing state federal election votes? Supreme Court punts the issue to the states, and it ceases to become a federal issue.
 
The issue for the GOP isn't what happens in Alabama, it's what happens in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, the few red counties in California, etc. Senators, Congressmen, and Trump get asked to take positions on Alabama's abortion policy, they either dodge (bad look), admit that abortion is OK in some circumstances (turning off a small but potentially important part of the base), or double-down (encouraging Dem turnout to oppose an increasingly radical GOP platform). The GOP had nice control of the abortion platform for quite a while now, and being able to twist recent Dem moves like in New York aided that, but this is going in the opposite direction. And if the SC strikes it down 5-4, with Roberts siding with the liberal court again, you've just emboldened a lot of pro-abortion diehards to vote Dem to ensure RBG isn't replaced with a Trump nominee.

The only potential positives for them that I see is if/that the Supreme Court strikes down the total ban, and sets up the stage for a proper debate in Congress. Congress formally enacts a federal law mandating that all states allow abortions through the first trimester, but also federally bans abortions, say, halfway into the second trimester, except where mother's health is risked, etc. Republicans split on the vote according to local constituencies, allowing them to save face. Meanwhile, a portion of Dems rejects the bill unless Reps push the ban to the third trimester, putting them to the left of even Western Europe. Ball is back in Dem's court, they have to risk alienating moderate Catholic Hispanics, an increasingly large demographic, while keeping true to the "muh body muh choice" brigade.

But there's a lot of assumptions in such a perfect scenario. More realistically, the SC just overturns the Alabama law, a lot of political capital and time is wasted to no advantage, and continues to be wasted if/when the next state proposes a two week abortion window. Or, the Dems simply accept the hypothetical federal law on the whole, perhaps adding a rider to ensure federal funding of early pregnancy detection kits or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
That all looks like completely unsubstantiated conjecture. Looks like a lot of thought put into it though so an E for effort. There's little political capital spent federally on state by state legislation. Federal politicians punt or accept depending on their own prospects. The 5-4 "conservative" majority punts it to the states. Minorities in red states are more likely to be anti-abortion than whites/Jews in blue states. I don't think you get out/read enough. I don't see a Congressional ban getting passed, and if it does it will just be either fodder for national schism or overturning when the political pendulum swings.
 
Dak said:
That all looks like completely unsubstantiated conjecture. Looks like a lot of thought put into it though so an E for effort. There's little political capital spent federally on state by state legislation. Federal politicians punt or accept depending on their own prospects. The 5-4 "conservative" majority punts it to the states. Minorities in red states are more likely to be anti-abortion than whites/Jews in blue states. I don't think you get out/read enough. I don't see a Congressional ban getting passed, and if it does it will just be either fodder for national schism or overturning when the political pendulum swings.
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "punts it to the states". Do you think Roberts is seriously going to taint muh legacy by allowing a state bill that effectively bans abortion? The longer the law remains on the books is the more time Dems can reasonably build opposition to it. The Supreme Court generally chooses to hear cases that are big in the mainstream press, and in order to hear a case they don't even need a majority, meaning the 4 Dem justices alone can force the case to be received. When Stevens wrote in a dissent regarding state sovereignty last week, complaining about the destruction of precedent and how the conservative majority might overturn Roe v Wade next, it read like pointless rambling and fearmongering to me. Now that abortion is suddenly a major political issue again, it both justifies his words in the eye of the public, i.e. it was targeted and well-decided fearmongering, and shows that he (and undoubtedly most of the other judges) are keeping a close watch on the political landscape.

I don't know how your "minorities in red states" thing is relevant either. As I've said, deep red and deep blue states don't matter that much, except for the handful of opposition House seats they possess. What matters for Trump and for Congress are the swing states and swing districts. Per Pew, blacks and whites on the whole have virtually identical overall views on abortion. While obviously there's the implication that there are a bunch of anti-abortion Democratic blacks (60% of blacks support abortion, yet 90%+ blacks are Dems), I don't know where you see that the Dems have the potential to turn them away over abortion politics. By contrast, Hispanics are more split on the issue, which is what I implied in saying that's the Rep's best chance at gaining over this issue. Abortion is only a primary issue for two groups: devout Christians and liberal women.

You were deadass wrong the last time you tried to make a prediction btw

Dak said:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...d-border-wall-midterm-immigration-referendum/

If true this is some genius politicking.
Click to expand...
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "punts it to the states". Do you think Roberts is seriously going to taint muh legacy by allowing a state bill that effectively bans abortion? The longer the law remains on the books is the more time Dems can reasonably build opposition to it. The Supreme Court generally chooses to hear cases that are big in the mainstream press, and in order to hear a case they don't even need a majority, meaning the 4 Dem justices alone can force the case to be received. When Stevens wrote in a dissent regarding state sovereignty last week, complaining about the destruction of precedent and how the conservative majority might overturn Roe v Wade next, it read like pointless rambling and fearmongering to me. Now that abortion is suddenly a major political issue again, it both justifies his words in the eye of the public, i.e. it was targeted and well-decided fearmongering, and shows that he (and undoubtedly most of the other judges) are keeping a close watch on the political landscape.

I don't know how your "minorities in red states" thing is relevant either. As I've said, deep red and deep blue states don't matter that much, except for the handful of opposition House seats they possess. What matters for Trump and for Congress are the swing states and swing districts. Per Pew, blacks and whites on the whole have virtually identical overall views on abortion. While obviously there's the implication that there are a bunch of anti-abortion Democratic blacks (60% of blacks support abortion, yet 90%+ blacks are Dems), I don't know where you see that the Dems have the potential to turn them away over abortion politics. By contrast, Hispanics are more split on the issue, which is what I implied in saying that's the Rep's best chance at gaining over this issue. Abortion is only a primary issue for two groups: devout Christians and liberal women.

You were deadass wrong the last time you tried to make a prediction btw
Click to expand...

There are few swing states, and they are generally swingy due to whites prerogatives, not minority populations. I didn't "fail" in predicting the wall as good politicking. I failed to predict the wall getting stymied, and there is a precedent in midterm elections that shows the losing party usually doing better due to winning primary election voter base apathy/losing base showing up. It always could have been worse, and it could have been better if the wall wasn't stymied at every turn by a mix of Democrats and Cuckservatives. I don't want to give the impression that I think a Wall is even a panacea, but it's better than nothing, which is why so many countries have been building them.

Judges trying to judicate based on leftist journalistic fearmongering is a possibility, but if that is the case, it shows that there is no USA. My longterm prediction (feel free to go hunting on it, it's somewhere on the board) is US balkanization, and abortion is only one of the issues that will lead to that.
 
The White House won’t join a global pledge to combat online extremism.

So what does the White House object to? It’s not entirely clear.

A spokesperson told the Post that it’s about concerns the document runs afoul of free speech principles and the First Amendment.

”We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” the White House told the Post. “Further, we maintain that the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech, and thus we emphasize the importance of promoting credible, alternative narratives as the primary means by which we can defeat terrorist messaging.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MetalAges
Fellas - about the T&A thread......
Replies
54
Views
3K
Bloodbath
DarkGift
D
N
Independent Artists Can Now Distribute Worldwide
Replies
0
Views
178
Self-Promotion
nicholasg980
N
Z
Check out my idea that could revolutionize the music industry
Replies
2
Views
462
General Metal Discussion
Carpe Mortem
C
Symphony
More album distribution news
Replies
8
Views
771
Power Quest
WeekendWarrior
W
Chris_P_Critter
Behind the Suit
Replies
0
Views
591
Bar
Chris_P_Critter
C
Top Bottom