Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,112 posts)
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:08 PM Jul 2017

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, the 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.”

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

128 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2017 OP
Stupid nt DURHAM D Jul 2017 #1
+25,144 Angry Dragon Jul 2017 #4
swing voters are mostly socially rightwing but favor government spending. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #2
So fuck the swing voters. Go after the unregistered voters - there's a much bigger pool of them. -nt CrispyQ Jul 2017 #7
"fuck the swing voters"--yeah, that's a winning strategy geek tragedy Jul 2017 #10
I totally disagree. -nt CrispyQ Jul 2017 #14
But that's like.....hard....and requires work and stuff... vi5 Jul 2017 #50
Right? CrispyQ Jul 2017 #54
What else will Lujan give away? SharonClark Jul 2017 #3
Just win, baby. DefenseLawyer Jul 2017 #5
Bad move. CrispyQ Jul 2017 #6
+1,000,000,000,000 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #9
Perfect is the enemy of good, but... CincyDem Jul 2017 #15
I agree romana Jul 2017 #24
+1 leftstreet Jul 2017 #33
That is a losing scenario, for sure. demosincebirth Jul 2017 #40
Neither will I. +1 demmiblue Jul 2017 #48
Nor I. And I've already marybourg Jul 2017 #84
So women's reproductive rights are expendable. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #8
what matters is (1) what legislation passes and (2) court nominees. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #11
I will not support any candidate who does not support reproductive rights. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #17
I don't either, but I'm not going to expect that candidates in rural Missouri geek tragedy Jul 2017 #20
What else are you willing to give up? 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #22
Who does more harm to reproductive rights: geek tragedy Jul 2017 #29
ANY member of congress who votes against choice does harm to reproductive rights. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #32
The choice in a lot of districts is who does less harm. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #34
The dems have practically conceded all of mid-America to the repubs by ignoring hate radio for 30+ CrispyQ Jul 2017 #42
so your solution is a mass deprogramming effort? geek tragedy Jul 2017 #44
Did you read any of those posts? CrispyQ Jul 2017 #52
I grew up in North Dakota. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #59
"And, realistically, there isn't anything the national party can do in those places." CrispyQ Jul 2017 #73
STATE parties are responsible for what happens in the states. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #82
Better late than never, I suppose. CrispyQ Jul 2017 #85
I'm not supporting any anti-choice candidate. Ever. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #43
no one's asking you too. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #45
Gun control Kaleva Jul 2017 #31
I will vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his name...we have already given up Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #65
Wrong...in a primary, I will support pro-choice. But if it comes down to the Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #63
A Democrat who supports Republican positions will never get my vote. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #106
I voted for Tim Ryan who has voted for our side always. He recently changed his view on abortion. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #107
same here! they can be against abortion personnally but must be PRO CHOICE... samnsara Jul 2017 #102
You are right, 100%. demosincebirth Jul 2017 #41
I think some may not understand how the legislative branch works. DefenseLawyer Jul 2017 #21
I understand perfectly. I will not support a candidate who votes against my most fundamental right. 50 Shades Of Blue Jul 2017 #23
So by default you are supporting a Republican DefenseLawyer Jul 2017 #27
No, just run a better candidate...one who won't treat the base as second class citizens all american girl Jul 2017 #51
In some places there is no better candidate. DefenseLawyer Jul 2017 #62
But why do women have to give up their rights? I just don't understand that many all american girl Jul 2017 #66
Because it's a two party system. period. JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #74
Tell me what rights you are willing to give up for the greater good. all american girl Jul 2017 #77
I'm feel that voting for a (D) willing to be conservative on XYZ issue... JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #81
Should we, as Democrats, have any standards at all? DLevine Jul 2017 #89
Republicans want to take away your reproductive rights. DefenseLawyer Jul 2017 #75
Yes, to take what you can get...I so agree with that, all american girl Jul 2017 #79
A lot of people don't do nuance. BannonsLiver Jul 2017 #99
Thank you! Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #108
Here We Go Again Me. Jul 2017 #12
... Solly Mack Jul 2017 #13
Like it or not, in some districts a pro choice candidate is a losing battle Lee-Lee Jul 2017 #16
Thank you. Thoughtful and well-reasoned. An excellent reply. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #18
1st District in Michigan is the same. Kaleva Jul 2017 #25
Only control matters, NOTHING else, Satan himself gets my vote if it gives us control. Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #28
Sen. Satan and a Democratic Majority...nice ring to it. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #109
Same in my district. No pro-choice candidate has a chance. n/t phylny Jul 2017 #39
Well said Bradshaw3 Jul 2017 #105
Any candidate that does not support a woman's right to choose... cynatnite Jul 2017 #19
I get the reasoning, but here is my question Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #35
I understand the need for pragmatism... cynatnite Jul 2017 #94
Gotta win back power before progress can be achieved legislatively. JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #26
So women are to blame for Democrats losing power? leftstreet Jul 2017 #36
Majority of white women voted for Trump Kaleva Jul 2017 #47
Nothing brings white men and women together quite like racism... JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #67
The Repub candidate has been getting a majority of the white female & male vote for decades Kaleva Jul 2017 #93
"Does no one see the twisted logic in this?" ... what?? JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #64
Legal abortion is not a 'wedge issue' leftstreet Jul 2017 #76
Of course it is. JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #83
My biggest issue with the national democratic party CrispyQ Jul 2017 #92
I completely agree. We are where we are noe due to writing off these areas and JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #95
More proof that I didn't leave the party, the party left me elehhhhna Jul 2017 #30
the party is overwhelmingly pro-choice. The districts it needs to win Congressional majorities geek tragedy Jul 2017 #38
I agree completely. Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #72
Bull. elehhhhna Jul 2017 #96
Americans are overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro privacy elehhhhna Jul 2017 #97
just a coincidence that dozens of districts have never elected a pro-choice member of congress nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #98
OK screw privacy screw our rights to our bodies elehhhhna Jul 2017 #101
literally no one is arguing that. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #103
If the Dems nominate a social conservative in my district, I'll write my mom in. DemocraticWing Jul 2017 #37
Well do something that guarantees that a GOP type goes in...that will help (sarcasm). Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #69
Not if it wants to take my most basic civil right away Warpy Aug 2017 #127
We have to be willing to die on certain hills. This is one of them. No retreat from equal rights stevenleser Jul 2017 #46
If we are in the minority...the anti-choice folks set the agenda and we have way more of a chance of Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #110
I'm fine with Democrats who want to keep abortion legal Bettie Jul 2017 #49
I hate this loyalsister Jul 2017 #58
Throw it out with the rest of the expendable positions, huh? vi5 Jul 2017 #53
It is called a big tent...we either have a big tent with different views majority or we Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #111
they have the power of the who may run but I have the power of my vote ebbie15644 Jul 2017 #55
Fine then you elect a Republican who can then with his majority enact the policy you hate...does Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #112
How about we adopt all right wing policies except those on women's right first. MrsCoffee Jul 2017 #56
How about we use a 50 state strategy as Dean did successfully. He supported some Georgia House Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #113
Dean is now against supporting anti-choice Democrats. nt DLevine Aug 2017 #117
No one is perfect. I think his 50 state strategy was brilliant. It is a strategy that worked. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #119
So if you are anti choice you just aren't perfect? Is that the argument? MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #121
I am pro-choice but actually my words were for Governor Dean...I disagree with his take now. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #125
No, we don't have to. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #126
I'm with Dean. He realized that was a mistake. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #120
I won't vote against women's reproductive rights. Iggo Jul 2017 #57
What happened to all the purity test that was given to the woman canidate? all american girl Jul 2017 #60
I am as pro-choice as they come. But, I voted for an anti-choice Democratic candidate Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #61
All of our candidates should be pro-choice mvd Jul 2017 #68
Realistically it won't happen...as I said Tim Ryan was pro-life for years. He changed recently. Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #71
He does know that abortion is legal. doesn't he? rock Jul 2017 #70
It's a litmus test for me. hamsterjill Jul 2017 #78
I'm OK with that - except for any Supreme Court nominee elfin Jul 2017 #80
This is short sighted, and will not help. Caliman73 Jul 2017 #86
Most Americans are pro-choice. Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #87
Not in states that we need to win in order to get a majority. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #114
Yes, there is a litmus test, Rep. Idiot. It's the Democratic Platform. LanternWaste Jul 2017 #88
Thank you. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #123
Big mistake. We need to stand by our core principles. nt DLevine Jul 2017 #90
"...candidates that fit the district..." Hell Hath No Fury Jul 2017 #91
! elehhhhna Jul 2017 #104
It won't work. There is no indication that populism will work. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #115
If a Dem in Alabama or Mississppi or Tennessee BannonsLiver Jul 2017 #100
What a great post and true. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #116
You must be male. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #122
haha yeah that's exactly what I wrote BannonsLiver Aug 2017 #124
Hmm...how often does this conflict arise, really? MineralMan Aug 2017 #118
this is a more honest position than Tom Perez's, imo SethH Aug 2017 #128
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
2. swing voters are mostly socially rightwing but favor government spending.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:13 PM
Jul 2017

We can wish that reality away, but look at 2016. Look at which seats--and the kind of candidates who represented them--allowed us to be a majority in 2006 and 2008 elections.

Liberals have won the culture wars on LGBT rights. They have not won it on race and abortion.

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
7. So fuck the swing voters. Go after the unregistered voters - there's a much bigger pool of them. -nt
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:18 PM
Jul 2017
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
10. "fuck the swing voters"--yeah, that's a winning strategy
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:22 PM
Jul 2017

Tapping into the mass of unregistered voters is fool's gold.

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
50. But that's like.....hard....and requires work and stuff...
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:16 PM
Jul 2017

...can't ask candidates to actually do the work required to go out there and win over voters can we.

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
6. Bad move.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:16 PM
Jul 2017

I will never vote for an anti-choice candidate, I don't care how perfect they are on every other issue. This is a bad move, IMO, but I'm sure someone will be here shortly, to tell those of us who's rights are being targeted, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

CincyDem

(6,283 posts)
15. Perfect is the enemy of good, but...
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:28 PM
Jul 2017


...this is not an issue of "perfect", it's an issue of fundamental. What does it mean to be a Democrat? Choice is part of that answer.

To me, the question of perfect comes in the minor, small issues of the day. Not the core issues of inclusion and health rights that have to exist in the future. The perfect/good argument makes a lot of sense to me if we're talking about whether speed cameras are legal or not. OK - some Dems may say yes, some may say no...but lets not elect a republican over that disagreement.

Choice is so far on the other end of the scale. For my money - and anti-choice dem is a republican opportunist trying to hide his/her real brand.

romana

(765 posts)
24. I agree
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:40 PM
Jul 2017

To me, support for women is a fundamental part of being a Democrat, and for the party to abandon that means they are willing to abandon their base. I can compromise on some things but not this. It's too important.

The party is making a huge mistake going there. You might win some elections with it, but you are going to lose a lot more in the process, not the least of which is the heart and soul of the party.

It's all part of the strategy to throw women and PoC over in favor of the white working class. It's so maddening.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
11. what matters is (1) what legislation passes and (2) court nominees.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:24 PM
Jul 2017

House candidates are irrelevant to (2) and it would be Nancy Pelosi determining (1) if enough anti-choice Dems get elected such that we retake the House.

We have to win elections with the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish we had.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
29. Who does more harm to reproductive rights:
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:49 PM
Jul 2017

1) an anti-choice Democrat who votes for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker
2) a pro-choice Republican who votes for Paul Ryan as House Speaker?

There aren't enough votes in Boston and Brooklyn and San Francisco to win a Congressional majority.

50 Shades Of Blue

(9,777 posts)
32. ANY member of congress who votes against choice does harm to reproductive rights.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:53 PM
Jul 2017

My reproductive rights don't know if a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
34. The choice in a lot of districts is who does less harm.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:55 PM
Jul 2017

There are many districts where there is zero chance of a pro-choice candidate.

In such districts, the smart play is to make the best of a bad situation.

If we concede every anti-choice district to Republicans, we will be a permanent minority. And that is the absolute worst case scenario for reproductive freedom and many, many, many other issues.

not to mention that the House is much less important for abortion rights than is the Senate.


CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
42. The dems have practically conceded all of mid-America to the repubs by ignoring hate radio for 30+
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:09 PM
Jul 2017

years, but now we have to make nice with anti-choice candidates to win middle America back? Fuck that. The dems need to get their act together & start fighting hate radio. Educate that electorate - don't just write them off. Certainly don't start capitulating on our core values.

Certainot is our resident expert on hate radio. I wish someone, anyone, in dem leadership, would read these posts! Maybe they could put some funding toward this fight, instead of funding anti-choice candidates. What an idea!

These 88 universities are Trump allies. Students and scientists can protest right on campus.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028541449

If your GOP Trump-tool won't do a town hall you might find him at the radio station
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029058881

88 universities that help Republicans deny global warming and minimize protests
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028961619

Are 'Climategate' '09, debt crisis '11, and Trump egs of the Kremlin's use of talk radio?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028771942

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
52. Did you read any of those posts?
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:19 PM
Jul 2017

I doubt it.

I've seen what hate radio does. It's not pretty & the dems don't do a gd thing about it. IMO, it shows the disconnect that the dem leadership has with rural America. Urban America doesn't listen to AM radio like rural America does. The dems can court all the anti-choice candidates they want, but they will continue to lose as long as they ignore the fact that millions are listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh for hours and hours everyday.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
59. I grew up in North Dakota.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:28 PM
Jul 2017

I know all about growing up in Trumpistan.

And, realistically, there isn't anything the national party can do in those places. It's all on the local party to recruit and groom good candidates who can thread the needle.

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
73. "And, realistically, there isn't anything the national party can do in those places."
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:46 PM
Jul 2017

I disagree. I think the national party has coasted for a long time & this last election, along with the loss of so many state legislatures has, hopefully, been a wake up call.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
82. STATE parties are responsible for what happens in the states.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:22 PM
Jul 2017

The DNC doesn't get involved in state legislature races--simply aren't anywhere near the resources for that.

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
85. Better late than never, I suppose.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:48 PM
Jul 2017
DNC invests earlier in state parties, voter persuasion
July 10

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/10/dnc-invests-earlier-in-state-parties-voter-persuasion/?utm_term=.0affe8a56e5d

snip...

The Democratic National Committee, lagging its Republican rival in fundraising, is pouring what it has into new grassroots organizing for state parties. This week, the DNC is launching a State Partnership Program to deliver on what the new chairman, Tom Perez, ran on — brick-and-mortar rebuilding of local parties that shriveled in the Obama years.

“For too long, we poured our resources into races at the top of the ticket instead of organizing at the grass roots and building a deep bench of talent,” Perez said. “This unprecedented investment in our state parties is the first major step in our effort to get back to basics and rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up.”

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
45. no one's asking you too.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:12 PM
Jul 2017

But keep in mind that if you want stuff like Medicaid, Medicare, and climate change to be addressed, the party needs to make hard choices in order to win.

Otherwise we get Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell writing all legislation.



Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
31. Gun control
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:52 PM
Jul 2017

No candidate that is for gun control would have a chance of winning in my district. They w9uldnt even have a chance of winning the nomination.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
65. I will vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his name...we have already given up
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:36 PM
Jul 2017

the house, senate and presidency.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
63. Wrong...in a primary, I will support pro-choice. But if it comes down to the
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:33 PM
Jul 2017

general, I will vote for the Democrat period. We must have majorities or we lose everything.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
107. I voted for Tim Ryan who has voted for our side always. He recently changed his view on abortion.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:12 AM
Aug 2017

But I voted for him when he was 'pro-life'. I always vote Democratic in the general as any GOP is 10000000000000000000 times worse than any Democrat.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
21. I think some may not understand how the legislative branch works.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:38 PM
Jul 2017

You seem to be saying it is better to have a Republican that will vote against our agenda 100% of the time than a Democrat that is going to vote with you 98% of the time. FYI, if we get the majority back, some back bencher from Nebraska isn't going to be setting the agenda.

50 Shades Of Blue

(9,777 posts)
23. I understand perfectly. I will not support a candidate who votes against my most fundamental right.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:39 PM
Jul 2017

If you want to, be my guest.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
27. So by default you are supporting a Republican
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:48 PM
Jul 2017

That is not only against that fundamental right, but everything else too. I'm sorry, that just makes no sense. I support progressive candidates and I'm the first to say we ought be less centrist, not more. Given two choices that have an equal chance to get elected, I'll take the pro choice candidate 100% of the time. But at the end of the day if the candidate that can win is bad on an issue, we have to look at the big picture.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
62. In some places there is no better candidate.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:31 PM
Jul 2017

That is where the litmus test simply elects a republican. By insisting on a better candidate where one does not exist, by default you are electing a candidate that is worse in every respect.

all american girl

(1,788 posts)
66. But why do women have to give up their rights? I just don't understand that many
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:38 PM
Jul 2017

will draw a line in the sand for policies they believe in, but woman are just suppose to give up their rights to autonomy for the "greater good." I don't want republicans elected, but why can't we talk honestly about reproductive rights, and not be afraid? That's has been the problem, the conservatives make us afraid to stand up....now is the time we need to stand up for all us women...seems to me that women all over the country are standing up, and now our men, leaders, and the those afraid of the conservative narrative need to follow the lead of the women.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
74. Because it's a two party system. period.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:51 PM
Jul 2017

You want to elect candidates in the primaries that have ZERO chance of winning the general election in a particular region... then you are simply ensuring republican victories in the end. The only difference between that and actually voting for the R is the ability to delude yourself into not feeing personally responsible for the republican victory...


Politics is like chess and the game pieces are like policy.
You'll never win a game without losing some of your pieces.

all american girl

(1,788 posts)
77. Tell me what rights you are willing to give up for the greater good.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:02 PM
Jul 2017

Not to be snarky, but no one will tell us what rights they are willing to give up, like women. I know it's a 2 party system, but why do we give into the conservative argument instead of standing up for truth? Why is it that identity politics (women's reproductive rights) are less than economic justice? Why do banks get a higher billing than women's reproductive rights. The abortion argument was just the beginning...they seems to be going after birth control rights also...it's a slippery slope and we all need to say HELL NO.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
81. I'm feel that voting for a (D) willing to be conservative on XYZ issue...
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:22 PM
Jul 2017

whatever that issue may be is not going to amount to anything when they are sitting in the general assembly of legislators. If we've got majority status in the Senate or HoR, that oddball (D) voter is going to help you pass 95% of our caucus's legislation and in the end, becuase vast majority of the caucus disagrees with that person's vote... that persons democratic-inconsistency doesn't amount to anything in the end.

But withholding money to a candidate who may have one or two issue inconsistencies while otherwise embodying the rest of your party's stance can lose them an election in particular districts. Then you're stuck with an (R) in the legislature that will oppose you 95% of the time.

So to answer you question directly:
Guns
Abortion
Charter Schools
Taxes
Welfare
Immigration
whatever

if an otherwise liberal (D) candidate holds or must adopt a controversial stance on an issue... I don't really care what that issue is because we want to win the Majority and that person's oddball view won't amount adverse results. Now, if a candidate starts to have a couple different inconsistencies or is asking for compromise on too many issues - then I give 'em the finger.

DLevine

(1,788 posts)
89. Should we, as Democrats, have any standards at all?
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:11 PM
Jul 2017

If the candidate believed only landowners should be allowed to vote, or that being gay is a disease which must be cured, or that white people are superior, should we support that candidate? A woman's right to control her own body is no less important than any other right to equal treatment under the law.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
75. Republicans want to take away your reproductive rights.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:55 PM
Jul 2017

It's in their platform. It's the agenda that their leadership wants to advance. Our party wants to protect your reproductive rights. If we are in the majority, an anti-choice agenda will not be advanced and a smattering of anti choice representatives won't change that dynamic. The only thing that changes the agenda is which party is in control. Period. At the end of the day, the way to protect those rights is to have a democratic majority. If that is achieved by electing a handful of blue dog clowns, that's what we have to do. And I agree with you, it would be a better country if everyone was pro choice and it would be a better party if all of our electable candidates were solid on that issue. The reality is, in some places you take what you can get. So you may have to have a gun nut from Montana or a prayer in school guy from South Carolina or a anti choice guy from Nebraska, etc. etc. We have to win. The only alternative is that they win. It's as simple as that.

all american girl

(1,788 posts)
79. Yes, to take what you can get...I so agree with that,
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:11 PM
Jul 2017

but we have people wanted to primary Dems because they aren't liberal enough. Now it seems that not supporting women's reproductive rights is just fine. Why is this? Why is it that people want to go after Manchin in WV?

All I have to say is that I never want to hear how we need to primary Dems who are not liberal enough ever again. And no, I will not stop arguing about our rights being thrown under the bus. I completely understand what you are saying, but after hearing that some Dems aren't good enough, and now this, I'm sick of it. I think some people (and so not you) maybe need to admit to themselves that women's rights are down on the list and not that important to them.

Ok, now I seem to be no making much sense Sorry

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
108. Thank you!
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:14 AM
Aug 2017

That is what I believe also. I voted for Tim Ryan who was 'pro-life'. He recently changed his mind, but I voted for him back in the day as my only other choice was a Republican. The GOP elected are always worse than any Democrat.

Me.

(35,454 posts)
12. Here We Go Again
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:24 PM
Jul 2017

Another big mouth male throwing women under the bus. Will they never learn to dance with the ones who brought them and stand up for women’s rights?

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
16. Like it or not, in some districts a pro choice candidate is a losing battle
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:31 PM
Jul 2017

I live in one of those. The last D we had was Heath Shuler who was definitely not pro choice.

But you know what? He had a D next to his name. That put one more D in the count and one less R and helped tilt control of the House to us. That put Nancy Pelosi in charge of all the House and us in control of what legislation came up.

That let us pass the ACA, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and a whole lot more.

He won office and reelection because he was more of a liberal Republican than any kind of Democrat on a whole lot of issues. Because that's the only Democrat that will win here.

Control matters! Period. Without it we get nothing.

If that means we have to run some non-liberal candidates in districts that are really red, I am fine with that. Because putting a few anti-choice D's in Congressional seats in order to put the pro-choice PARTY in CONTROL of Congress is a trade off well worth making by.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
28. Only control matters, NOTHING else, Satan himself gets my vote if it gives us control.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:48 PM
Jul 2017

Until we understand this, we will continue to lose.

Now, if we end up with anti choice or anti voting rights or anti environment or anti civil rights seats, more than a couple, then we get them out AFTER we get control , because they are unacceptable in the long run.

But the short run includes MAYBE NOT SURVIVING as a SPECIES!

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
105. Well said
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 04:57 PM
Jul 2017

To me the one issue Democrats could cost us the House in 2018 - what about these past seven months don't they understand? Losing control of every branch of government again is only going to hurt women even more for years if not decades to come when you factor in court appointees, gerrymandering, etc. And BTW, Tim Kaine had a mixed bag on abortion until getting elected to the Senate, and remains personally opposed t it. Did all of the people declaring they won't vote for a candidate unless they have a perfect record on abortion rights abstain from voting for Kaine for VP?

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
35. I get the reasoning, but here is my question
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:56 PM
Jul 2017

what if that vote means control of the house?

remember, the party that has 218 seats decides absolutely everything and the party with 217 decides nothing and has nothing to say about anything...

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
94. I understand the need for pragmatism...
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:27 PM
Jul 2017

I'm in a red state where social issues are pretty conservative. People around here go ape-shit over marriage equality and BLM.

I will always choose D over R any day of the week.

But if it's between two Dems, one against abortion rights and the other for...there is no question.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
26. Gotta win back power before progress can be achieved legislatively.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:47 PM
Jul 2017

Looks like they're trying to keep from letting purity tests from preventing wider spread (D) victories.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
67. Nothing brings white men and women together quite like racism...
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:40 PM
Jul 2017

The 2016 debacle was about white retribution and voting for the candidate spewing racist/xenophobic crap and saying he would repeal Barrack Obama's achievments... 2016 was not about abortion rights. Heck, abortion rights probably weren't even in the top 5 reasons trump won.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
64. "Does no one see the twisted logic in this?" ... what??
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:36 PM
Jul 2017

You mean the twisted logic of taking what I wrote and somehow interpreting "women are to blame for Democrats losing power" from it... because that's the only twisted logic I see.
a) Nobody, especially me, said that.
b) That leap of logic assumes that abortion issues were to blame for the 2016 losses and that women's views on the aforementioned abortion rights that are all what matters... as if and men cant (or don't) support right to choose either.

Relax... nobody said any of that. I was merely saying the (D) leadership is trying to grow the legislative body of D's by allowing funding to go to (D) candidates who may have to run races in regions where large blocks of voters will oppose right-to-choose-candidates. Because, like it or not, at this time in history and for the next couple of election cycles, there ARE regions of the US that do not support abortion rights for whatever reason. I think we can all agree that a "lower quality Dem" winning is better than a republican when there is no chance of progressive/liberal dems winning that region.

In fact, I would go further and hope that the party leadership is willing to overlook a (D) candidate's conservative inconsistency on one of any such wedge issues (not just abortion) where they are trying to steal seats in a red district. For example, if a (D) candidate loves guns and the NRA, but is liberal on nearly every other issue... then that is a trade I'm willing to make for the sake of not having a (R) win the seat.

leftstreet

(36,081 posts)
76. Legal abortion is not a 'wedge issue'
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:58 PM
Jul 2017

You have to be able to make your case by acknowledging that legal abortion is not a 'wedge issue.'

Because if something legal is a 'wedge,' there are plenty of other ways the Democratic leadership could get back power.

Should people of color really be able to vote? Campaigning against that legal right would likely draw MASSIVE MASSIVE votes in these red districts.

Should gays be allowed in the workplace? There's another one for you!

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
83. Of course it is.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:39 PM
Jul 2017
https://www.google.com/search?q=wedge+issue
wedge is·sue
noun: wedge issue; plural noun: wedge issues
a divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate for public office in hopes of attracting or alienating an opponent's supporters.


Republicans hammer the abortion issue hard in the bible belt and down south to pull poor voters (whose best interest is NOT with wealthy republicans) to pull votes away from liberals. Hint: it works.

To cite your example, what if a (D) candidate held EVERY position that democrats hold but then also said, "gays should not be allowed in the workplace"? Financially supporting such a person in a campaign against an (R) would be the smart thing to do. It doesn't mean you hate LGBT people either. It means you're smart enough to recognize that no matter how much that candidate HATES gay people in the workplace, when they get to congress that particular issue goes nowhere because there's not enough traction in the general assembly of legislature to move the issue forward. But you also know that every other issue they will vote with your democratic party.

Well, in the actual story posted in the OP, the campaign chief knows that if we expand our funding to some dems that might be anti-choice in order to win the majority... that the anti-choice issue will go nowhere legislatively because Dems will have the MAJORITY and control the house/senate.

Or they could withhold critical campaign funding because of one issue, lose the races, and have (R's) in those seats supporting a republican majority guaranteed to vote against reproductive rights every time. Oh, and voting against every other dem initiative too.

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
92. My biggest issue with the national democratic party
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:19 PM
Jul 2017

is that they have capitulated to the idea that "there is no chance of progressive/liberal dems winning" in certain regions. In three decades they have never addressed hate radio & instead have written off huge areas of the country & haven't reached out to those voters in decades. Now they are using choice as the scapegoat issue.

 

JoeStuckInOH

(544 posts)
95. I completely agree. We are where we are noe due to writing off these areas and
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:45 PM
Jul 2017

lack of reaching out in decades past.

The problem is that normal political healing can not happen with someone like trump in the whitehouse, a conservative SCOTUS, and republican control of both the senate and HoR. Trump is not a typical republican and there are few checks and balances to stop his lunacy. We need to take back enough control to save what's left NOW... and see where things land when the dust settles. The only measure to try and appeal to single issue voters and syphon off support to win back seats in 2018.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
30. More proof that I didn't leave the party, the party left me
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:50 PM
Jul 2017

More proof that I didn't leave the party, the party left me

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
38. the party is overwhelmingly pro-choice. The districts it needs to win Congressional majorities
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:57 PM
Jul 2017

are anti-choice.

There are those who would prefer to have a strictly uniform, permanently impotent Democratic party. I fail to see the wisdom in that.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
97. Americans are overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro privacy
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:56 PM
Jul 2017

Americans are overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro privacybut hey if we have to throw our daughters and gay people and minorities and whoever these morons hateand who knows who else under the bus whatever right?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
103. literally no one is arguing that.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 04:12 PM
Jul 2017

what people are arguing is that having an anti-choice Democrat who will vote for a pro-choice speaker of the house is vastly superior to having an anti-choice Republican who will vote for an anti-choice speaker of the house.

Not to mention that the Democrat would be better on every other issue as well--health care, etc.

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
37. If the Dems nominate a social conservative in my district, I'll write my mom in.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 12:56 PM
Jul 2017

Democrats and Republicans in Kentucky want to team up and outlaw abortion for good. We have one clinic left in the whole state. I'm afraid we might lose it.

I will never vote for an anti-choice or anti-LGBTQ candidate. I have refused to vote for candidates like that before and I will again.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
69. Well do something that guarantees that a GOP type goes in...that will help (sarcasm).
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:42 PM
Jul 2017

vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his name.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
127. Not if it wants to take my most basic civil right away
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:55 PM
Aug 2017

Anyone who wants to insert religious dogma into civil law should be disqualified immediately.

You want me to vote for my enslavement? Not a fucking snowball's chance in hell.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
46. We have to be willing to die on certain hills. This is one of them. No retreat from equal rights
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:12 PM
Jul 2017

if we lose a race or an election because of it, I am OK with that.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
110. If we are in the minority...the anti-choice folks set the agenda and we have way more of a chance of
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:18 AM
Aug 2017

losing our rights than if we have some who are pro-life elected as Democrats and a majority. We may lose Roe V Wade soon because a GOP president was elected and he has a Republican Senate. I refuse to die on that hill for nothing.

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
49. I'm fine with Democrats who want to keep abortion legal
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:16 PM
Jul 2017

but also want to work to reduce the number of them, through comprehensive education, access to contraception, and whatever else they can come up with.

I'm not cool with people (D or R) who want to make abortion illegal and/or unavailable to anyone but rich women.

Sorry, that's a baseline position for the Dem party.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
58. I hate this
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:27 PM
Jul 2017

But, I would settle for won't "work to make it illegal" in winnable districts at this point, IF it is a person who is 100% behind making birth control widely available. We need more seats and I certainly am not sure how to make it happen.

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
53. Throw it out with the rest of the expendable positions, huh?
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:20 PM
Jul 2017

Gun Control
Death Penalty
Unions
Public Option
Taxes on the wealthy


What else am I missing?

Sounds like a great strategy to win over all those people who don't think the Democratic party stands for anything.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
111. It is called a big tent...we either have a big tent with different views majority or we
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:19 AM
Aug 2017

are in the minority permanently.

ebbie15644

(1,208 posts)
55. they have the power of the who may run but I have the power of my vote
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:21 PM
Jul 2017

and I'll never vote for anyone that does not respect my right as a human being to have control over MY body. F^^^ that

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
112. Fine then you elect a Republican who can then with his majority enact the policy you hate...does
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:20 AM
Aug 2017

that make sense?

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
56. How about we adopt all right wing policies except those on women's right first.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:22 PM
Jul 2017

And see how that works out.

Both parties need to quit fucking using our rights over our bodies as political bargaining chips.

Ask Heath Mello how that worked out for him. Stupidest shit I've read today.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
113. How about we use a 50 state strategy as Dean did successfully. He supported some Georgia House
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:22 AM
Aug 2017

members who were pro-life, and they won. It was thanks to Howard Dean...that we were able to enact the ACA.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
119. No one is perfect. I think his 50 state strategy was brilliant. It is a strategy that worked.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:49 AM
Aug 2017

and lead to the ACA...healthcare! We had attempted it for 100 years.

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
121. So if you are anti choice you just aren't perfect? Is that the argument?
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 10:00 AM
Aug 2017

Denying half the population their rights goes beyond imperfection.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
125. I am pro-choice but actually my words were for Governor Dean...I disagree with his take now.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:45 PM
Aug 2017

In order to get back a majority, we will have to tolerate pro-life in red states.

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
120. I'm with Dean. He realized that was a mistake.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:55 AM
Aug 2017

This issue is going to backfire big time.

We've just about had it with old white men calling all the shots. Women are going to rule soon and then we can have nice things AND rights over our own bodies.

all american girl

(1,788 posts)
60. What happened to all the purity test that was given to the woman canidate?
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:28 PM
Jul 2017

So we aren't suppose to care about purity when it comes to women's bodies? I think not. A person can disagree with abortion, but must be prochoice. No if, ands, or buts about it...That's my purity, and don't give women bs that we have to give up rights...not happening. Women fought way too hard to be able to control their own bodies...we aren't going back. We need to run more prochoice candidates and not be afraid to talk about it. We cannot let the conservatives define the message any longer. We need to stand up.

Now stop throwing women under the bus for convents sake.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
61. I am as pro-choice as they come. But, I voted for an anti-choice Democratic candidate
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:31 PM
Jul 2017

Tim Ryan in Ohio. He has recently changed his position, but I voted for him for years. I will vote for the Candidate with the 'D' next to his name period. I hope all Democrats will. These purity tests are why we have lost the presidency, House and Senate. When we had majorities, we had moderate and conservative Democrats. There are not enough liberals in red states to elect a liberal candidates. I say this sadly. But it is the truth. If Bernie Sanders could endorse Mello and Perriello, we can support Democrats who may differ in their viewpoints from us.

mvd

(65,148 posts)
68. All of our candidates should be pro-choice
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:41 PM
Jul 2017

I feel just as strongly about this as the candidate not being against single payer.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
71. Realistically it won't happen...as I said Tim Ryan was pro-life for years. He changed recently.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:44 PM
Jul 2017

Would I have been better off to vote for the Republican? No, of course not.

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
78. It's a litmus test for me.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:06 PM
Jul 2017

Why would a Democratic platform be ashamed of being pro choice?

Oh, I get it. It's the beginning of "normalizing" that it's okay NOT to be pro choice.

No thank you.

elfin

(6,262 posts)
80. I'm OK with that - except for any Supreme Court nominee
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 02:17 PM
Jul 2017

A risk worth taking if it gets the Dem count up. Just my individual opinion. I don't think there will be that many forced birthers looking to be Dem nominees to be a big issue for us. Hope I'm right.

Caliman73

(11,694 posts)
86. This is short sighted, and will not help.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:02 PM
Jul 2017

You do not have to be pro-abortion but you have to be pro-choice. There are many women who would not consider having an abortion themselves, but they support the right for all women to choose for themselves. This is not that hard of an issue to understand.

There should be a litmus test on the issue of choice. Forget abortion, it is about a woman's right to choose when and how she has children, that she is most likely going to have to have the significant responsibility in raising and maintaining.

It may happen, but I am sure that it is very rare that women just wake up and think, "Hmm, it's Tuesday, I think I will have an abortion...no reason, just think it will be fun and awesome!! And... I won't tell anyone, not my husband, not my partner, nope, just me, just for kicks". In reality, the issue is a serious one that is usually decided after thought and most likely discussion with significant people. Digression aside, it is for women to choose what processes occur within their bodies. I am not understanding why this is so hard for people to accept.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
87. Most Americans are pro-choice.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:04 PM
Jul 2017

Of course, most Americans also support cannabis legalization, and our last DNC chair voted to send medical marijuana users to federal prison on repeated occasions.



Fucking stupid. The beltway conventional wisdom needs to catch up to where the people actually are.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
88. Yes, there is a litmus test, Rep. Idiot. It's the Democratic Platform.
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:07 PM
Jul 2017

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates..."

Yes, there is a litmus test, Rep. Idiot. It's the Democratic Platform.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
91. "...candidates that fit the district..."
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:15 PM
Jul 2017

Shorthand for more guns, more God, and more right-wing drift.

Economic populism is the way to go in these districts, but the Dems are too afraid to piss off their real base.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
115. It won't work. There is no indication that populism will work.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:24 AM
Aug 2017

The special election candidates who ran on populism lost.

BannonsLiver

(16,162 posts)
100. If a Dem in Alabama or Mississppi or Tennessee
Mon Jul 31, 2017, 04:03 PM
Jul 2017

Or some other far right wing state wants to run to the right of the party on abortion I have no problem with it.

The problem of Dems who run to the right of the party on abortion in places like Vermont and California will sort itself out. As in they won't be the nominee.

Viola! Problem solved.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
116. What a great post and true.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:25 AM
Aug 2017

I have experience with holding my nose and voting for a Democratic candidate...Tim Ryan in Ohio. He was not pro-choice. for years. He recently changed his views. But how would electing a GOP have been the better course of action for me and for Ohio?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
118. Hmm...how often does this conflict arise, really?
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:45 AM
Aug 2017

Certainly not in any place where I've lived, but I've never lived in a red state or district. What I usually see from Democratic candidates who run in red or districts that can go either way is some sort of waffling on choice, rather than an actual anti-abortion position. The "Well, I'm personally against abortion, but support the laws that give women freedom of choice." That sort of waffling.

So, who can provide an example of a Democratic candidate who has won while espousing a real anti-choice position? There may be such candidates, but I can't think of any.

SethH

(170 posts)
128. this is a more honest position than Tom Perez's, imo
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 05:02 PM
Aug 2017

I saw Perez's stance as being for show. That when it came down to it, the DNC would just redefine the litmus test if they wanted to support a pro-life candidate.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Dem campaign chief vows n...