Hasn't the "I won't vote for the lesser evil" nonsense hurt us enough already?

[DanTex]

Seriously, Donald F-ing Trump just recently became president of the United States, due in no small part to a bunch of whining idiots who figured that if a candidate wasn't for single payer, or $15 minimum wage, or whatever else, they were worthless and there's no difference and blah blah blah.

This just happened, just now.

So... apparently some Democratic officials have suggested that in certain districts that will not vote for pro-choice candidates, the Dems should consider running anti-choice candidates, because it's better to have an anti-choice D than an anti-choice R.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I mean, even if the D and the R had the exact same views on abortion (which is unlikely, because anti-choice Rs are generally much more extreme than anti-choice Ds), it would still be better to have a D than an R, because of all the other issues. In fact, even in the totally extreme unrealistic situation where the D candidate and the R candidate have the exact same views on everything, it is STILL better to have the D, because it helps Ds get the majority, which in turn means setting the legislative agenda and having committee chairs.

Is this not obvious? Nobody is suggesting that we replace pro-choice Ds with anti-choice Ds. Nobody is suggesting that the party as a whole should weaken its position on choice. All people are saying is that in certain districts (which we all know exist), where abortion is a total non-starter, would it not be better to occasionally put anti-choice Ds into congress rather than simply concede these districts to the GOP?

[Raster]

1. You know, I don't care if any politician in their personal life does not approve of abortion...

...that's fine, no one is forcing them to have one. HOWEVER, any politician that is willing to force their anti-choice stance upon anyone else IS WRONG, and I could not and would not support their candidacy. I could NOT vote for a candidate that would not support a woman's right to choose. That is a line I will not cross.

Sorry, but I would rather support a pro-choice Republican than support an anti-choice Democrat. It they were both anti-choice, then I would support the Democrat, of course.

[mcar]

13. That's how I feel too

[PoliticAverse]

14. "It they were both anti-choice, then I would support the Democrat, of course." - so you would vote..

for a "candidate that would not support a woman's right to choose" despite writing "That is a line I will not cross."

[Raster]

15. If the ONLY CHOICE was between a non-choice Dem and a non-choice Rethug...

...I would *probably* vote for the Dem, unless they were both so odious I could not stomach either.

[7wo7rees]

2. Have you lost your mind? Have all Dems? Anything to win?

Is that it? Leave us alone about our choices of what to do with our bodies. This anti choice, pro-life whatever is nothing but absolutely nothing but bullshit distraction!

Let's talk about health care, let's talk about and get rid of our enormous, bloated, out of control Military Budget!!

Good God Almighty everyone!!

[R B Garr]

3. NPR: Bernie Sanders defends campaigning for anti-abortion rights Democrat

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

[DanTex]

4. Problem is, Bernie wants to impose purity tests on economic issues.

I'm fine with the fact that he campaigned for an anti-abortion Dem, not because I like anti-abortion Dems, but based on the basic principle that Ds are better than Rs even if the Ds aren't ideologically pure. My beef with Bernie is the double standard: he's willing to let impurity slide on social issues but not on economic issues (e.g. his comments on Joel Ossoff).

[R B Garr]

5. That's why I placed it here. The double standards. nt

[Kathy M]

18. From the NPR article RB Garr posted.......

""And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

Social issues are conditioning ,belief ..... We have visited many states / areas of our country they are all different and unique in their own way ........

Economics affects everyone ..... its the bottom line

I do not see where there is a double standard .... One subject is law of the land the other is what you have to have to live

[flotsam]

6. To answer your question, no...

not if the leadership is willing to run candidates who vote anti-abortion. When "we" are hurt enough the "let's compromise our principles" nonsense will stop.

[yallerdawg]

7. I remember the arguments last year about...

the "safe, legal and rare" candidate who just wasn't good enough, strong enough on this issue.

It's kind of a sore spot for some of us.

[musette_sf]

8. "anti-choice Rs are generally much more extreme than anti-choice Ds"

Bullshit. They're every bit as extreme. They're perpetuating the FALSE hate speech propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood, continuing to regurgitate the same FALSE lying hate speech that is directly responsible for the domestic terrorist massacre at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

From so-called "Democrats For Life" website:

Democrats For Life of American fully supports reallocating Planned Parenthood's Title X funding to the 13,000 community health centers and rural health care clinics.

“Planned Parenthood has duped the American public into believing it provides comprehensive healthcare for women,” said [Kristen] Day [executive director of so-called "Democrats For Life"]. “Once people know the truth, that Planned Parenthood will continue to harvest body parts from aborted babies and taxpayer dollars will continue to subsidize the nations largest abortion business, support declines.”

RESIST!!

[obamanut2012]

9. Who you advocate for a candidate who supports segregation

If the answer is no, then just stop all this anti choice apologist garbage. It is no different.

I refuse to debate that it is.

[mopinko]

10. do you get these talking points in an email, or

do you just keep the engine running so you can jump on them when they come along?

a 50 state strategy will include some losses, but the whole point is to bring the party to every district.
are we trying to coax non-voting dems out to the ballot box, or are we on the fools errand of trying to win "them" over?

[Jakes Progress]

11. Some people don't know how government works.

[johnp3907]

12. Hasn't misogony hurt (some of) "us" enough already?

[Hint: The answer is "Yes."]

[ecstatic]

16. What I want to know is: How did this topic get brought up in the first place?

I vaguely remember a thread stating that the DNC would be funding anti-choice candidates. I never clicked on it. But we need to see who wrote the article and why. It was for a reason. Since that thread, there have been back to back flame wars which I have not participated in.

Here's my thing: NONE of this is new. We've been talking about this for years now. The topic of whether or not to accept anti-choice into the party will always be divisive, even here on DU. It's one of those things that we have to just agree to disagree and move on with life (making sure that we fight like hell to preserve Roe vs Wade, etc). I assume that anyone who calls him or herself a democrat will vote in a pro-choice manner, despite his/her personal views. As long as that's the case, who cares?

BTW I value my reproductive rights dearly. I'm actually keeping an IUD with very unpleasant side effects in to avoid any GOP led forced-birth campaigns.

[meadowlander]

17. I think less than the "vote for anyone with a D after their name no matter what" nonsense has.

Campaigns get energy and votes from having ideas that connect with the majority of the voters, not from telling people "The opponent is worse" and "If you vote for anyone but my candidate you're responsible for all the shit that happens afterwards". Or by calling people with principles "idiots" and "purists" who "want a unicorn".

The majority of Americans are pro-choice. And people who are anti-choice will vote for Democrats if the party is out there fighting for them on other issues they care about like the economy.

My large extended family is Catholic, probably 70-80% of them have personal reservations about abortion but only one of them is actually anti-choice. And all of them vote for Democrats because they come from a blue collar, pro-union background.

Obama won a lot of the districts we're talking about only four years ago and he did it without throwing human rights under the bus.

[ck4829]

19. Fight It, not each other

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029417391