Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy Abortion

The Democratic Party's main problem is actually poor turnout. If ROE being overturned can get a lot of Democrats and D-leaners to vote, that can change things dramatically. I doubt an overturn would really drive Republicans to vote, except maybe Republic pro-choicers voting for Democrats.

Two things JGW, I agree, Biden hasn’t been a bad president. He just drew into bad economic times. The economy has been the top issue in almost every election I can remember. Good economy equals folks voting for the party in power, bad economy, folks vote for the party out of power.

Two, the democrats considering their numbers in congress has tried to overdo what is possible. Thus, making them look inept. The in-fighting among congressional factions within the Democratic Party didn’t help matters. That left an impression that the congressional democrats didn’t know what the heck they were doing. There’s much more to it, but that would take a book to list it all.

Pondering you’re not going to get Republicans to vote Democratic. If you looked at the increase in pro-choicers, almost all came from democrats who are already going to vote democratic. Yes, enthusiasm may be up among democrats. It may drive some to vote where they wouldn’t have before. Voter turnout is always hard to predict and most who predict it, fail. This from a poll dated 31 May 2022.

Question 85 - Compared to voting in previous Congressional election years, are you more or less enthusiastic about voting in this year’s election?

Democrats 30% more enthusiastic, 20% less enthusiastic, 41% about the same
Republicans 44% more enthusiastic, 13% less enthusiastic, 35% about the same
Independents 29% more enthusiastic, 19% less enthusiastic, 39% about the same

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/o91vu7bpkr/econTabReport.pdf

Ask yourself the question, would the abortion issue or inflation be the driving force or make you more enthusiastic to get you to the polls? Depends on the party and whether you’re an independent or not. My guess, abortion makes the Democrats more enthusiastic, inflation and being the party out of power makes the Republicans more enthusiastic, with independents, no doubt inflation.

Being the party out of power has always driven that party to vote in a higher percentage than those of the party in power. Maybe the abortion issue will change that, I doubt it though.

Abortion and gun violence are still behind economics issues for the midterms. Democrats place abortion and guns above the economy and inflation, Republicans and independents go with the economy, inflation and rising prices. Good info in the link.

From the article/poll below conducted by ABC - A separate question asking what the single most important issue will be in their vote for Congress showed a similar ranking of issue priorities. The top issues were inflation (21%), the economy (19%), gun violence (17%) and abortion (12%).

Economic issues top the public's agenda: POLL

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/economic-issues-top-public-agenda-130018227.html

I’d bet the farm, give it 2 or 3 weeks with no mass shootings, gun violence returns to single digits. History has shown a steep rise for gun control after a mass shooting, then shortly after it done and over with, back to 4 or 5%. I see no reason why history won’t repeat itself here. Not surprising as a lot of issues are driven by knee jerk reaction when they happen, then as time goes by, the old steady issues that has always been there returns to their prominent place a top of issues that decide how one votes.

Let it be noted most polls include inflation in the economic issue category and usually don’t break it down. Under that, the economy would be at 40% in how voters will decide who to vote for in November.

That might be asking a lot. There was another shooting in Philadelphia today...

Here’s an interesting article Greger, it stacks everything up and breaks things down via party and no party.

CBS News poll: Can mass shootings be prevented, and if so, how?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbs-news-poll-mass-shootings-143004706.html

The Buffalo mass school shooting took place on 14 May, Texas 25 May, plus who knows how many more shootings that wasn’t school related elsewhere that hasn’t received the media’s attention. Philadelphia, Chicago, perhaps some more. None of them have moved the needle when it comes to who folks plan on voting for come November. How important are these issues to folks if they don’t change how they’ll will vote? It may simply mean there’s other issues out there more important to them. Mass shootings are sensational news. Then they die down and fade. It’s always been this way. Maybe keeping them on the front page for awhile might change that. Then again, it may become an, oh hum, another mass shooting, I wonder if my Braves won last night. I think you’d be surprised at how many folks are paying attention to the NBA finals or if their team won or watching their favorite reality TV show and the like than paying any attention to the news. This especially goes for politics.

Personally, I don’t believe any gun control law, no matter how strict will stop these mass killings. Gun control, banning of semi-automatics may limit the damage done per incidence. But won’t stop them, I believe the number incidences will continue to increase. Even banning all guns, that these killings will continue, only by other means. Why? Because the reason and cause is imbedded deep within our society. I’d say red flag laws could go a long way if enforced. Upping the age to 25 as someone suggested earlier to be able to purchase a semi-automatic would help also. But none of these would prevent or eliminate mass shootings/killings. The problem is too complex and too partisan today to solve.

Perhaps all we can hope for is limiting the damage and living with mass shootings and then mass killings by other means. Congress loves to investigate, why not investigate why no mass school shooting pre-1968 when the UT Texas tower shooting took place and why we have so many after that date? The same goes for mass shootings in general. Why were mass shootings so rare pre-1970 and so common place after?

As much as we might like to go back to 1968 or any other "simpler time" which wasn't riddled with today's problems we can't.

A detailed study would show you only that it was a different time, with different problems which also weren't solved satisfactorily by the government of the day.

There were a lot fewer people. There was a lot less pressure. There were no cell phones and no internet. Russia had the largest prison population in the world and the War in Vietnam was raging. The AR15-style weapon with a high-capacity magazine was not available. Blacks were second-class citizens, gays stayed in the closet.

Which one of those would you bring back to prevent mass shootings? Or perhaps you can think of others...

Point being...you can never go back. You can't make today like yesterday. But you can make tomorrow better than today.

Here's a couple of things that weren't problems...I kinda like to think they were big deals back then because they sure as Hell are big deals now.

1. I was a part time dishwasher at a greasy spoon and a full time starving college student in Minneapolis...in 1978, ten years AFTER 1968.
I was able to afford rent on a 120 - MAYBE 150 SF bachelor apartment, w/kitchenette and my own bathroom.
It was $110 a month. I was also able to afford gas for my jalopy, a 1967 Chevy six cylinder pickup, and food.
I suspect that same apartment was probably 50 bucks a month in 1968.

2. And my college tuition was couch change.

A different time with different problems, yes...but the BIG things like getting a decent education so you could have upward mobility, and a roof over your head, were not big problems.

And furthermore, in 1968 it was still illegal for corporations to profit off healthcare.

Guess what Perotista keeps harping about day in and day out...the cost of living.
Only he's fond of soothing and comforting the folks who think it's all Biden's fault.

We know that's bullcrap.
And so is just dismissing everything out of hand by saying "It was a different time".

Perotista keeps telling you why and how people vote according to the numbers. I don't see him soothing and comforting anyone but outraged democrats here who feel the economy is a nonissue and only the culture wars matter.

You seem to find it impossible to believe that the economy might sway their vote.

Rick is also completely aghast that people would vote according to their pocketbooks.

Has the economy ever been among the top issues of voters in years gone by?

Have voters ever been swayed by their own personal economic situation?

Probably not and I'm sure you can find the charts to prove it.

And I ask you the same question I asked Rick. If Trump were still president and inflation was out of hand, would you be shouting desperately from the rooftops that it wasn't his fault and he shouldn't be blamed for it?

No, because it is the pandemic, the associated economic slowdowns followed by rapid uptick in demand as the pandemic got dealt with, and the ongoing war. That said, there are things both Biden and Trump could try to do, with the help of Congress, to MITIGATE...if Congress was willing to help, that is, which they didn't and don't seem to be interested in.

But pandemics and the after effects at their core would not have been either one's fault.
To date, several attempts HAVE BEEN mounted to mitigate inflation.
Let's take a look!
We can start with gasoline prices.



And in the Senate?



Lather, rinse, repeat.

And you know this, so does Perotista.

And I responded, writing: