Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

[Atreus21]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion

Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “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.”

In taking the position, Luján and Democrats risk alienating liberals, as well as groups dedicated to promoting access to abortion and reproductive health services that represent the core of the party’s base.
“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

Luján, serving his second term as the DCCC’s chairman, has cast a wide net for candidates. A map on his office wall highlights districts held by dozens of Republican that he hopes to oust in the 2018 midterm elections.

“To pick up 24 [seats] and get to 218, that is the job. We’ll need a broad coalition to get that done,” Luján said. “We are going to need all of that, we have to be a big family in order to win the House back.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both argued against party litmus tests, saying there’s room for people with different opinions on abortion. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another influential voice, has echoed that argument.

Speaking for myself, I'd vote for pro-life democrats, and have in the past, such as for our present governor. So far abortion is the only issue that keeps me firmly in the republican camp.

This is a good move.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion



Speaking for myself, I'd vote for pro-life democrats, and have in the past, such as for our present governor. So far abortion is the only issue that keeps me firmly in the republican camp.

This is a good move.

So you are a single issue voter? And after you get your pro life agenda passed will you become a single issue voter on guns? And then Christian rights? When does the single issue voter stop being a single issue voter?

 

[IronWing]

Pro-life is just a pretense of supposed morality to cover the immorality of supporting Republicans.

Edit: Anyway, this idea is more of the mealy mouthed appeals to conservatism that loses elections for the Dems. The Dems win elections when they articulate a clear liberal vision and lose when they offer to be "Republicans, but not quite as nasty".

 

[Atreus21]

So you are a single issue voter?

Mostly, yes.

And after you get your pro life agenda passed will you become a single issue voter on guns?

No. I don't think the 2nd amendment is in substantial peril.

And then Christian rights? When does the single issue voter stop being a single issue voter?

What are Christian rights? Single issue voters stop being single issue voters when the single issue is resolved.

 

[alien42]

What are Christian rights? Single issue voters stop being single issue voters when the single issue is resolved.

the abortion issue was resolved decades ago and that isn't going to change.

regardless, do you not realize that it was a Republican Supreme Court during a Republican presidency that Roe vs Wade was decided?

oh the irony and hypocrisy.

 

[dullard]

So you are a single issue voter? And after you get your pro life agenda passed will you become a single issue voter on guns? And then Christian rights? When does the single issue voter stop being a single issue voter?

All valid points. But just as valid: why do single issue voters not hold their candidates up to their single issue standards?

In the G.W.Bush years, the house, senate, and presidency were all under republican control for most of his terms. The single issue abortion voters got nothing. So what did they do? They kept voting the same.

Now the Republicans have control of the house, senate, presidency, and supreme court. What is happening on the abortion issue? [All I hear are crickets chirping.]

Parties have no incentive to actually address problems for the single issue voters. Because then they lose their voters. Heck, Reagen himself EXPANDED abortion. This isn't even a republican issue (but they claim it is just to keep getting votes election after election).

 

[ivwshane]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion



Speaking for myself, I'd vote for pro-life democrats, and have in the past, such as for our present governor. So far abortion is the only issue that keeps me firmly in the republican camp.

This is a good move.

I assume you are a woman? Because I have no idea why someone would be a single issue voter on something that literally has zero impact on them.


Anyway. I get that Democrats are a big tent party but it doesn't make sense to include people who don't state similar beliefs. At that point it just becomes about winning and putting party before country and we already have a political party like that.

 

[HomerJS]

Pro-life/choice is a decision that should be made by the family not the government.

Science has yet to conclude when life begins so prior to viability let the individual decide.

 

[Chromagnus]

I assume you are a woman? Because I have no idea why someone would be a single issue voter on something that literally has zero impact on them.


Anyway. I get that Democrats are a big tent party but it doesn't make sense to include people who don't state similar beliefs. At that point it just becomes about winning and putting party before country and we already have a political party like that.

So a person needs to share 100% similar beliefs with the party in order to run as a democrat? The party has a lot of viewpoints and it seems dumb to not include someone in the party because they have one dissimilar belief. Don't alienate people based on one issue.

Edit: I should expand on this idea. The democratic party can have it's national platform and if voters don't want to vote D based on that it's ok but they shouldn't alienate good candidates that want to run for office because they don't toe the line 100% with the national platform. That's how you lose a lot of good people.

 

[fskimospy]

Mostly, yes.

No. I don't think the 2nd amendment is in substantial peril.

What are Christian rights? Single issue voters stop being single issue voters when the single issue is resolved.

Question about that. The research I've seen shows that making abortion illegal doesn't do a lot to lower the number of abortions in a country. What it does appear to do though is make those abortions much more dangerous. I get the whole moral disapproval aspect, but if the end result of your preferred policy is the same amount of abortions but more deaths total then is it really a good idea?

 

[Thebobo]

Pro choice SHOULD be part of the democratic platform. You want to be a religious zealot who thinks life begins at conception then vote republican. Stay out of my party and off my lawn!

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

 

[ivwshane]

So a person needs to share 100% similar beliefs with the party in order to run as a democrat? The party has a lot of viewpoints and it seems dumb to not include someone in the party because they have one dissimilar belief. Don't alienate people based on one issue.

Edit: I should expand on this idea. The democratic party can have it's national platform and if voters don't want to vote D based on that it's ok but they shouldn't alienate good candidates that want to run for office because they don't toe the line 100% with the national platform. That's how you lose a lot of good people.

The key word in that quote was "similar". At some point a person who doesn't support what the national platform is, stops being a Democrat. What are the pillars of the Democrat party and how many of those pillars can be discarded before it no longer represents what it means to be a Democrat?

 

[Moonbeam]

Question about that. The research I've seen shows that making abortion illegal doesn't do a lot to lower the number of abortions in a country. What it does appear to do though is make those abortions much more dangerous. I get the whole moral disapproval aspect, but if the end result of your preferred policy is the same amount of abortions but more deaths total then is it really a good idea?

The problem I think Atreus has is that he believes that life is sacred in the absolute and that to allow abortion is to sanction murder of life absolutely. He will simply shift the burden of guilt from the state he is a part of, to the woman who breaks the law getting an abortion. In short, as long as he can feel his hands are clean, that he is not a part of a state that allows killing, the death toll of his policies, if implemented, do not matter to him. It is all about purity of his ego. He will not feel the grief that a rational secular compromise between emotionally irreconcilable truths must bring to the mind conscious enough of the issues to make them. It helps that he is not a woman with the life experiences to shake that conviction. He lives in the abstract world of ideals.

 

[Chromagnus]

The key word in that quote was "similar". At some point a person who doesn't support what the national platform is, stops being a Democrat. What are the pillars of the Democrat party and how many of those pillars can be discarded before it no longer represents what it means to be a Democrat?

Obviously the key word is similar but we are only talking about one issue here. We aren't talking about someone who disagree's with almost everything the party stands for. They are now just saying that you can run as a Dem and be pro-life, whereas before you couldn't. That to me seems like a good thing even though I'm pro-choice. I can disagree with someone but still be fine with them being a pro-life democrat.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem I think Atreus has is that he believes that life is sacred in the absolute and that to allow abortion is to sanction murder of life absolutely. He will simply shift the burden of guilt from the state he is a part of, to the woman who breaks the law getting an abortion. In short, as long as he can feel his hands are clean, that he is not a part of a state that allows killing, the death toll of his policies, if implemented, do not matter to him. It is all about purity of his ego. He will not feel the grief that a rational secular compromise between emotionally irreconcilable truths must bring to the mind conscious enough of the issues to make them. It helps that he is not a woman with the life experiences to shake that conviction. He lives in the abstract world of ideals.

I suspect this is pretty close to what he would say but I find that sad as it basically means you're willing to force conditions that will kill lots of people in order to feel better about your own position.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most of the folks who believe abortion to be the single most important deciding factor on who they'll vote for, probably aren't likely to vote for Democrats anyway...

While I agree that having litmus tests are a bad idea (just like Republicans being held hostage by Norquist on raising taxes) there has to be some sort of policy standard--i.e. anyone calling themselves a Democrat should be vehemently opposed to things like defunding Planned Parenthood.

 

[theeedude]

People with the means to raise a kid also have the means to travel where they need to have an abortion, if they so choose. So by banning abortion in your state, you are essentially forcing people who can't even afford to buy a bus trip out of state to be parents. Be ready to support those kids as tax payers, because their parents can't even support themselves.

 

[theeedude]

That said, I agree that Democrats don't need a litmus test for abortion and guns. Roe getting overturned will flip the tables in culture war and force conservatives to defend back alley abortion deaths and other side effects. It will be good for Democrats politically.

 

[HomerJS]

People with the means to raise a kid also have the means to travel where they need to have an abortion, if they so choose. So by banning abortion in your state, you are essentially forcing people who can't even afford to buy a bus trip out of state to be parents. Be ready to support those kids as tax payers, because their parents can't even support themselves.

Righties are all about fulling supporting a fetus until it is born.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suspect this is pretty close to what he would say but I find that sad as it basically means you're willing to force conditions that will kill lots of people in order to feel better about your own position.

It's much more than just sad. There is also the tragedy of abortion itself. He will not accept that which is the least tragic. His pain is all in the abstract. The suffering women go through that he would make worse is real.

 

[dank69]

It's much more than just sad. There is also the tragedy of abortion itself. He will not accept that which is the least tragic. His pain is all in the abstract. The suffering women go through that he would make worse is real.

Not to mention the suffering of a child that was never wanted or loved the way a child should be, or all the extra crime rate that comes along roughly 18 years after abortion is criminalized, etc.

 

[dank69]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion



Speaking for myself, I'd vote for pro-life democrats, and have in the past, such as for our present governor. So far abortion is the only issue that keeps me firmly in the republican camp.

This is a good move.

No thank you. You and your ilk are not wanted.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's much more than just sad. There is also the tragedy of abortion itself. He will not accept that which is the least tragic. His pain is all in the abstract. The suffering women go through that he would make worse is real.

Edit: Maybe I should add that I have the highest regard for a morality that believes that life is sacred,

 

[Chromagnus]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most of the folks who believe abortion to be the single most important deciding factor on who they'll vote for, probably aren't likely to vote for Democrats anyway...

While I agree that having litmus tests are a bad idea (just like Republicans being held hostage by Norquist on raising taxes) there has to be some sort of policy standard--i.e. anyone calling themselves a Democrat should be vehemently opposed to things like defunding Planned Parenthood.

I don't really think this is about single issue voters though. There are a lot of people in the middle. I actually see my mom as a good example of this. She is fairly religious and is pro-life, she also believes in helping the poor and expanding access to healthcare, so she has no issue with PP. She goes back and forth between voting for democrats and republicans depending on the individuals running. She lives in a mildly conservative district so if on a local level the Ds could put up a candidate who believes in most of the party ideology accept is pro-life he would have a very good shot at winning. In my opinion this is better than a Republican winning the district.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Democrats should advance an "anti-abortion" platform that aims at reducing the DEMAND for abortion thru education and social services for distressed mothers. Perhaps we can bring these single issue voters under our tent by actually producing the result of reducing abortions and improving other outcomes like maternal fatalities.

Who am I kidding? Reducing abortion isn't the right's aim. It's about punishing females for having sex with the same freedom men do.