Arizona megathread

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1579295382827589633?cxt=HHwWgoDTjZCy5OorAAAA

I am honestly surprised and am very glad Lake and Masters were able to flip the script on abortion. Instead of constantly being put on the defense, they are highlighting Hobbs and Kelly's all-you-care-to-abort with no restrictions stances and calling them out on it.

Hobbs was given an opportunity by Major Garrett of CBS News to indicate support for at least some kind of week-based restriction, but she refused to do so and reiterated the generic Democratic position that abortion decisions should be "left between a woman and her doctor", and that late pregnancies are terminated only because "something terrible has gone wrong."

Which ... most rational and normal people know. If anyone honestly thinks there are "abortions after birth" or people getting abortions at 23 weeks for the fun of it, then they were never voting for a Democrat to begin with. The entire "Lake says YOU'RE extreme on abortion" thing is just a ridiculous talking point for the press to both sides yet another issue.

If this is the case, then how can it hurt the Democrats to explicitly support a week-based abortion ban. A 15-week ban? Or a 20-week ban? And a ban that includes the typical exceptions? I certainly think Republicans are distorting the issue, and exaggerating what takes place in later stages of the pregnancy. But the Democrats have adopted an entirely "hands off" approach to abortion that is far more progressive than the "safe, legal, and rare" approach of decades past. They are not comfortable with measures such as parental notification or parental consent laws either.

The point is the "bans" in general! Yes, most people if they had to choose would pick some type of week length, but the entire point of all of this is that this should not be something decided by politicians - that's the point she's making. People keep throwing out these arbitrary week markers when the point is that Republicans and anyone else shouldn't be making those decisions.

Lake literally only does this as a distraction from her own extreme views, which she has now been forced to somewhat back off of, depending on the day, because now her views have been all over the place, and in this particular interview, she couldn't even express where she draws the line either, but also supports the statewide ban.

Again, no reasonable person sees Lake flip-flopping on where she stands (after supporting a total ban) and then trying to make Hobbs the "extreme one" as persuasive imo.

I perfectly understand what she is saying, but why is it that abortion is the one particular issue where Democrats believe that the government should take a completely hands off approach? I don't understand that. But as to whether or not "reasonable people" view this as persuasive, we'll have to see what happens next month. I'll just say that Democrats could have nominated someone more disciplined and formidable than Hobbs, who is very much in jeopardy of losing this particular election.

Well it's Arizona in a Biden midterm, so I don't really think anyone else would've been doing much better

I would disagree with that. But at any rate, abortion has always been a policy where I've had considerable disagreement with the Democratic platform, and one where I think the Democrats could adopt a more moderate, pragmatic approach than the one which they currently take.

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1579295382827589633?cxt=HHwWgoDTjZCy5OorAAAA

I am honestly surprised and am very glad Lake and Masters were able to flip the script on abortion. Instead of constantly being put on the defense, they are highlighting Hobbs and Kelly's all-you-care-to-abort with no restrictions stances and calling them out on it.

Hobbs was given an opportunity by Major Garrett of CBS News to indicate support for at least some kind of week-based restriction, but she refused to do so and reiterated the generic Democratic position that abortion decisions should be "left between a woman and her doctor", and that late pregnancies are terminated only because "something terrible has gone wrong."

Which ... most rational and normal people know. If anyone honestly thinks there are "abortions after birth" or people getting abortions at 23 weeks for the fun of it, then they were never voting for a Democrat to begin with. The entire "Lake says YOU'RE extreme on abortion" thing is just a ridiculous talking point for the press to both sides yet another issue.

If this is the case, then how can it hurt the Democrats to explicitly support a week-based abortion ban. A 15-week ban? Or a 20-week ban? And a ban that includes the typical exceptions? I certainly think Republicans are distorting the issue, and exaggerating what takes place in later stages of the pregnancy. But the Democrats have adopted an entirely "hands off" approach to abortion that is far more progressive than the "safe, legal, and rare" approach of decades past. They are not comfortable with measures such as parental notification or parental consent laws either.

The point is the "bans" in general! Yes, most people if they had to choose would pick some type of week length, but the entire point of all of this is that this should not be something decided by politicians - that's the point she's making. People keep throwing out these arbitrary week markers when the point is that Republicans and anyone else shouldn't be making those decisions.

Lake literally only does this as a distraction from her own extreme views, which she has now been forced to somewhat back off of, depending on the day, because now her views have been all over the place, and in this particular interview, she couldn't even express where she draws the line either, but also supports the statewide ban.

Again, no reasonable person sees Lake flip-flopping on where she stands (after supporting a total ban) and then trying to make Hobbs the "extreme one" as persuasive imo.

I perfectly understand what she is saying, but why is it that abortion is the one particular issue where Democrats believe that the government should take a completely hands off approach? I don't understand that. But as to whether or not "reasonable people" view this as persuasive, we'll have to see what happens next month. I'll just say that Democrats could have nominated someone more disciplined and formidable than Hobbs, who is very much in jeopardy of losing this particular election.

Well it's Arizona in a Biden midterm, so I don't really think anyone else would've been doing much better

I would disagree with that. But at any rate, abortion has always been a policy where I've had considerable disagreement with the Democratic platform, and one where I think the Democrats could adopt a more moderate, pragmatic approach than the one which they currently take.

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

I don't support the blanket Republican bans either, but I've never been someone who is staunchly pro-choice. I support parental consent, parental notification, waiting periods, and other limitations on abortion that Democrats generally oppose, and I firmly believe that there should be a specific time limit in place for abortions. I also oppose taxpayer funding of abortion and support the Hyde Amendment, the opposite of the Democratic stances on these issues. If the Democrats were willing to change those stances, I would be more comfortable with their approach. But they won't, and I deem their approach as too progressive, and the Republican approach as too regressive. I want something in the middle.

[Devout Centrist]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

[Calthrina950]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

He's not. My stances on this issue are very clear.

[jamestroll]

If you live outside of Arizona, do virtual text or phone banking for Hobbs and any of the Democrats.

The stakes are too high. Another GOP sweep in Arizona would mean the state will run out of water in the next few years.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

Lol Calthrina is probably the single most open member in terms of having good faith debates about something without bringing in any excesses

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1579295382827589633?cxt=HHwWgoDTjZCy5OorAAAA

I am honestly surprised and am very glad Lake and Masters were able to flip the script on abortion. Instead of constantly being put on the defense, they are highlighting Hobbs and Kelly's all-you-care-to-abort with no restrictions stances and calling them out on it.

Hobbs was given an opportunity by Major Garrett of CBS News to indicate support for at least some kind of week-based restriction, but she refused to do so and reiterated the generic Democratic position that abortion decisions should be "left between a woman and her doctor", and that late pregnancies are terminated only because "something terrible has gone wrong."

Which ... most rational and normal people know. If anyone honestly thinks there are "abortions after birth" or people getting abortions at 23 weeks for the fun of it, then they were never voting for a Democrat to begin with. The entire "Lake says YOU'RE extreme on abortion" thing is just a ridiculous talking point for the press to both sides yet another issue.

If this is the case, then how can it hurt the Democrats to explicitly support a week-based abortion ban. A 15-week ban? Or a 20-week ban? And a ban that includes the typical exceptions? I certainly think Republicans are distorting the issue, and exaggerating what takes place in later stages of the pregnancy. But the Democrats have adopted an entirely "hands off" approach to abortion that is far more progressive than the "safe, legal, and rare" approach of decades past. They are not comfortable with measures such as parental notification or parental consent laws either.

The point is the "bans" in general! Yes, most people if they had to choose would pick some type of week length, but the entire point of all of this is that this should not be something decided by politicians - that's the point she's making. People keep throwing out these arbitrary week markers when the point is that Republicans and anyone else shouldn't be making those decisions.

Lake literally only does this as a distraction from her own extreme views, which she has now been forced to somewhat back off of, depending on the day, because now her views have been all over the place, and in this particular interview, she couldn't even express where she draws the line either, but also supports the statewide ban.

Again, no reasonable person sees Lake flip-flopping on where she stands (after supporting a total ban) and then trying to make Hobbs the "extreme one" as persuasive imo.

I perfectly understand what she is saying, but why is it that abortion is the one particular issue where Democrats believe that the government should take a completely hands off approach? I don't understand that. But as to whether or not "reasonable people" view this as persuasive, we'll have to see what happens next month. I'll just say that Democrats could have nominated someone more disciplined and formidable than Hobbs, who is very much in jeopardy of losing this particular election.

Well it's Arizona in a Biden midterm, so I don't really think anyone else would've been doing much better

I would disagree with that. But at any rate, abortion has always been a policy where I've had considerable disagreement with the Democratic platform, and one where I think the Democrats could adopt a more moderate, pragmatic approach than the one which they currently take.

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

I don't support the blanket Republican bans either, but I've never been someone who is staunchly pro-choice. I support parental consent, parental notification, waiting periods, and other limitations on abortion that Democrats generally oppose, and I firmly believe that there should be a specific time limit in place for abortions. I also oppose taxpayer funding of abortion and support the Hyde Amendment, the opposite of the Democratic stances on these issues. If the Democrats were willing to change those stances, I would be more comfortable with their approach. But they won't, and I deem their approach as too progressive, and the Republican approach as too regressive. I want something in the middle.

Even as a Dem I agree. I feel like the politicization of this issue has made it very all or nothing when I think there is a reasonable moral and scientific debate to be had. If it were up to me, I would allow all abortions up to the first trimester, and then only medically necessary abortions after that including if the fetus is not viable. Medically necessary abortions should be covered whereas elective abortions should not.

I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for states themselves to decide, you just need national minimum standards that protect the extreme cases and at least a few weeks where the fetus is basically a bean.

I think the Republican position generally is easier to attack because having something is generally seen as better than not having it at all.

I really wish at least somebody in the Dem caucus had put forwards a more reasonable bill that just protected abortion even for just a few weeks rather than trying to pass a bill not even all House Dems could get on boards with and then giving up.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

If you live outside of Arizona, do virtual text or phone banking for Hobbs and any of the Democrats.

The stakes are too high. Another GOP sweep in Arizona would mean the state will run out of water in the next few years.

Is running out of water your new COVID? You've mentioned it twice today.

[MATTROSE94]

If you live outside of Arizona, do virtual text or phone banking for Hobbs and any of the Democrats.

The stakes are too high. Another GOP sweep in Arizona would mean the state will run out of water in the next few years.

How do I do the text banking for Katie Hobbs? I have a relatively free schedule until the beginning of November, so I could theoretically do some text banking for Katie Hobbs.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Adrian_Fontes/status/1579825051733327874

[Del Tachi]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

Lol Calthrina is probably the single most open member in terms of having good faith debates about something without bringing in any excesses

Cal's persona causes hack brains to misfire because he doesn't employ the same bad-faith partisan arguments and tropes as most posters do.  He's speaking a language they can't understand. 

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/Adrian_Fontes/status/1579825051733327874

Not sure it matters, but good. I disagree with Kinzinger on >90% of issues, this is the right call though.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/Adrian_Fontes/status/1579825051733327874

Not sure it matters, but good. I disagree with Kinzinger on >90% of issues, this is the right call though.

Not turning people away is an important part of coalition building.

[wbrocks67]

Kinzinger endorsed Hobbs too.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Adrian_Fontes/status/1579825051733327874

How much longer will it be before Kinzinger becomes an independent?

[coloradocowboi]

Even as a Dem I agree. I feel like the politicization of this issue has made it very all or nothing when I think there is a reasonable moral and scientific debate to be had. If it were up to me, I would allow all abortions up to the first trimester, and then only medically necessary abortions after that including if the fetus is not viable. Medically necessary abortions should be covered whereas elective abortions should not.

The debate is over though ini scientific and philosophical communities, if you read into it. Almost all late term abortions are medically necessary. People don't generally get "elective" late term abortions, because vacating a baby corpse from your body is painful and dangerous. Any notion otherwise is just yet another conservative delusion masquerading as an opinion worth respecting. But just like I dgaf about climate deniers or election truthers, I see no need to engage (in false faith) with the GOP on an issue they either don't understand or lie about.

It's cruel. It's disingenuous. I'lll have a reasonable, moderate debate on the issue with pro-lifers when they decide to be "pro life" about any other topic. But while they remain committed to ransacking the biosphere, letting cops kill at will, and letting babies die in cages on the border, it's futile. The idea that it's "just an opinion" to force a woman to carry a dead fetus to term is the same kind of logic that says "it's just an opinion" to let oil companies lie about carbon for decades, dooming us all. It's not "just an opinion," it's a lie or a delusion and those have no place in democratic discourse

[Calthrina950]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

Lol Calthrina is probably the single most open member in terms of having good faith debates about something without bringing in any excesses

There are people on this forum who continue to hate me and who wish for me to die. I have no interest in conversing with those who hold such views.

[Calthrina950]

Not sure I understand. Nobody - any Dem - is advocating for late term abortions. Democrats advocate for the right to choose what is best for yourself in your situation. I'm confused as to how you're not more upset with the GOP's extreme approach of banning it outright and taking the right away from people to make their own decisions.

you are talking to a brick wall

I also say that it is very revealing that you would be making such a comment. Did you bother to try and refute what I said about Kari Lake and the Hispanic townhall? No! Have you ever bothered to read any of the many comments I've made criticizing Trump and Republican candidates, as well as Republican politicians? No! Instead, you jump to and seize upon preconceptions of what I believe and what I say. But that's not surprising for the likes of you and for others on this forum who engage in similar behaviors. Your kind is not worth conversing with anymore, because you don't think I contribute anything of value, and you refuse to turn aside from your uncompromising and cruel ways.

[Calthrina950]

Even as a Dem I agree. I feel like the politicization of this issue has made it very all or nothing when I think there is a reasonable moral and scientific debate to be had. If it were up to me, I would allow all abortions up to the first trimester, and then only medically necessary abortions after that including if the fetus is not viable. Medically necessary abortions should be covered whereas elective abortions should not.

The debate is over though ini scientific and philosophical communities, if you read into it. Almost all late term abortions are medically necessary. People don't generally get "elective" late term abortions, because vacating a baby corpse from your body is painful and dangerous. Any notion otherwise is just yet another conservative delusion masquerading as an opinion worth respecting. But just like I dgaf about climate deniers or election truthers, I see no need to engage (in false faith) with the GOP on an issue they either don't understand or lie about.

It's cruel. It's disingenuous. I'lll have a reasonable, moderate debate on the issue with pro-lifers when they decide to be "pro life" about any other topic. But while they remain committed to ransacking the biosphere, letting cops kill at will, and letting babies die in cages on the border, it's futile. The idea that it's "just an opinion" to force a woman to carry a dead fetus to term is the same kind of logic that says "it's just an opinion" to let oil companies lie about carbon for decades, dooming us all. It's not "just an opinion," it's a lie or a delusion and those have no place in democratic discourse

Of course, I'm someone who has long been in favor of renewable energy and who has been concerned about climate change for some years now. I've long supported granting amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here through no fault of their own, and I certainly didn't support the Trump policy of locking kids in cages. I've also long been in support of criminal justice reform, which is an issue that is especially relevant to me as a black man. I think these positions can be adequately paired with taking a more moderate stance on the abortion issue.

To be clear, I am supportive of abortion during the first trimester, and certainly before fifteen weeks. I'm also aware that the vast majority of late-term pregnancies are terminated due to medical complications. But I'm not comfortable with taxpayer funding of abortion, and I'm not comfortable with a permissive framework that doesn't establish any kinds of limits on the practice, provide conscience protections, or include specific exemptions.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/Adrian_Fontes/status/1579825051733327874

Not sure it matters, but good. I disagree with Kinzinger on >90% of issues, this is the right call though.

He has his priorities straight, I have to give him that. I don't know if he helps or not but what he does, at least, is help bring attention to the stakes with Arizona's elections this year as they pertain to election denial.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Even as a Dem I agree. I feel like the politicization of this issue has made it very all or nothing when I think there is a reasonable moral and scientific debate to be had. If it were up to me, I would allow all abortions up to the first trimester, and then only medically necessary abortions after that including if the fetus is not viable. Medically necessary abortions should be covered whereas elective abortions should not.

The debate is over though ini scientific and philosophical communities, if you read into it. Almost all late term abortions are medically necessary. People don't generally get "elective" late term abortions, because vacating a baby corpse from your body is painful and dangerous. Any notion otherwise is just yet another conservative delusion masquerading as an opinion worth respecting. But just like I dgaf about climate deniers or election truthers, I see no need to engage (in false faith) with the GOP on an issue they either don't understand or lie about.

It's cruel. It's disingenuous. I'lll have a reasonable, moderate debate on the issue with pro-lifers when they decide to be "pro life" about any other topic. But while they remain committed to ransacking the biosphere, letting cops kill at will, and letting babies die in cages on the border, it's futile. The idea that it's "just an opinion" to force a woman to carry a dead fetus to term is the same kind of logic that says "it's just an opinion" to let oil companies lie about carbon for decades, dooming us all. It's not "just an opinion," it's a lie or a delusion and those have no place in democratic discourse

Yes late term elective abortions are rare, but outright allowing them gives the GOP a lot of ammunition. Restricting 3rd or even 2nd trimester elective abortions in practice would only stop a very very small minority of abortions and it pushes Republicans to have to more seriously defend their position.

I will agree though that a lot of pro-lifers are very hypocritical in their beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should at least try and understand where their concerns are coming from and be able to better message to make them feel more comfortable. A lot of people just in the way they are raised have a very hard belief that killing a fetus is immoral and changing their mind will be very hard.

These days, we often ask all these voters to have thorough understandings of like 100 different issues when that just isn't possible, and blaming voters who have poorly informed opinions just leads to more toxicity imo.

[AZdude]

Early ballots go out in the mail today in Maricopa County.  Every time I open my mailbox and see that big yellow envelope, I feel a little bit like it's Christmas morning.  Oh yeah, I'm also a huge dork haha.

I'm feeling very good about Kelly. Hobbs...  I'm hoping for the best.

[xavier110]

Early ballots go out in the mail today in Maricopa County.  Every time I open my mailbox and see that big yellow envelope, I feel a little bit like it's Christmas morning.  Oh yeah, I'm also a huge dork haha.

I'm feeling very good about Kelly. Hobbs...  I'm hoping for the best.

How do you feel about the props? I think we are on target for Kelly victory…and then potentially a string of unconscionable wins, including the outcomes of the ten props

[AZdude]

So many of the props just seem like the GOP chewing away at voting rights.  Given how big citizen referenda are here, I hope people can see through them.  It would be funny ('cause it's sad) if 132 (which will require 60% approval for future initiatives) passes with less than 60% of the vote.  I think the same thing happened in Florida when they passed their 60% law.

Since I always vote by mail, 309 doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but requiring photo ID for in-person voting will likely make E-day voting even more of a mess.

I honestly have to confess I'm undecided on 308 though.

All of that said, I'm shocked how little airtime any of these have gotten.  Some of the props in the past (marijuana, marriage, etc) absolutely sucked the air out of the room as I remember.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/hankdeanlight/status/1580256953808261122
https://twitter.com/hankdeanlight/status/1580256958090649601