Should Democrats become pro-life for electoral reasons?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Women who get abortions are disproportionately nonwhite and nonwhites vote Democratic. Should Democrats reverse their position on abortion so that more nonwhites are born and also to bring more socially conservative nonwhite voters into the fold? They can say that wanting legal abortion is white privilege to keep liberals in line too.

[Continential]

My friend Tyrone who is African American and lives in Dallas said something similar, so yes I agree. We discussed this at a bagel shop. (Good bagels, I'd recommend the Blueberry Bagels.)

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

I don't know. But random a young TikTok conservative seems to be for it.

[S019]

What type of question is this? Putting politics aside for a moment: forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is ridiculous and draconian.

[Samof94]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

[Person Man]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

My guess is about a third of people right now willing to vote Democratic won’t. Half of them would become Republicans and the other half wouldn’t vote.

Maybe in the bush years or earlier, there were enough moderate pro life voters who would switch given a conservative Democrat but I don’t think that many people exist

[Cassandra]

What type of question is this? Putting politics aside for a moment: forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is ridiculous and draconian.

You see, it takes a very high IQ to understand this thread.

[John Dule]

What type of question is this? Putting politics aside for a moment: forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is ridiculous and draconian.

You see, it takes a very high IQ to understand this thread.

I don't know if IQ factors into it, but an inability to detect sarcasm and humor is a documented sign of psychopathy.

[Samof94]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

My guess is about a third of people right now willing to vote Democratic won’t. Half of them would become Republicans and the other half wouldn’t vote.

Maybe in the bush years or earlier, there were enough moderate pro life voters who would switch given a conservative Democrat but I don’t think that many people exist

I could see this attempted in an alternate 1990’s where someone not named Clinton is
President.

[Person Man]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

My guess is about a third of people right now willing to vote Democratic won’t. Half of them would become Republicans and the other half wouldn’t vote.

Maybe in the bush years or earlier, there were enough moderate pro life voters who would switch given a conservative Democrat but I don’t think that many people exist

I could see this attempted in an alternate 1990’s where someone not named Clinton is
President.

Maybe Bob Casey? Al Gore? I’m not sure the party would go explicitly pro-life, but probably making it a freedom of conscience issue.

[DaleCooper]

There are reasonable compromises that the Democrats could've made (and in fact, used to make quite frequently) without becoming pro-life. There was never any reason to start embracing the position of abortion on-demand at any point in the pregnancy and funded by the taxpayer.

[RINO Tom]

If the question were, would a pro-life Democrat who somehow got the nomination do really well in the EC ... I would argue yes.

[Samof94]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

My guess is about a third of people right now willing to vote Democratic won’t. Half of them would become Republicans and the other half wouldn’t vote.

Maybe in the bush years or earlier, there were enough moderate pro life voters who would switch given a conservative Democrat but I don’t think that many people exist

I could see this attempted in an alternate 1990’s where someone not named Clinton is
President.

Maybe Bob Casey? Al Gore? I’m not sure the party would go explicitly pro-life, but probably making it a freedom of conscience issue.

That seems like something that could have been done at the time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course not, a lot of the left wing of the party would leave

My guess is about a third of people right now willing to vote Democratic won’t. Half of them would become Republicans and the other half wouldn’t vote.

Maybe in the bush years or earlier, there were enough moderate pro life voters who would switch given a conservative Democrat but I don’t think that many people exist

I could see this attempted in an alternate 1990’s where someone not named Clinton is
President.

Maybe Bob Casey? Al Gore? I’m not sure the party would go explicitly pro-life, but probably making it a freedom of conscience issue.

That seems like something that could have been done at the time.

For one brief shining moment in the late 70s it was a freedom of conscience issue (and also for some time before Roe). Historiographies vary on which party polarized on it first, but if memory serves the 1980 RNC platform was the first to explicitly include a partywide plank on it.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

No, the Democratic party should become Pro-Life because it's the moral and just position.




I'd also like to point out, that it's current position on abortion (no exceptions until birth) is wildly out of step with wide swaths of their own voting base.  Small wonder Starr and Zapata county Texas had wild pro-R swings.

[beaver2.0]

Yes and resurrect all the Union guys from that one YouTube video of old Union guys arguing in New York and have them run the party.

[TPIG]

I've always thought it'd make sense for the party that claims to stand for the voiceless, marginalized "little guy" to defend the rights of the unborn...a group made up of literally voiceless, little babies that deserve their shot at life...

[Samof94]

Squirrels eat acorns all the time.  Does that means they are murdering oak trees???

[Alcibiades]

No. Abortion is one of the issues where the Democrats are most relatively in step with the views of swing voters compared to Republicans (who by contrast largely use the issue to juice base turnout). In fact, if the Democrats leverage their pro-choice stance in the right way, it can be incredibly electorally effective, as in 2012.

[Samof94]

No. Abortion is one of the issues where the Democrats are most relatively in step with the views of swing voters compared to Republicans (who by contrast largely use the issue to juice base turnout). In fact, if the Democrats leverage their pro-choice stance in the right way, it can be incredibly electorally effective, as in 2012.

True. The idea mentioned above might have worked in the 90’s(but milder than OP) but not today.

[Person Man]

No. Abortion is one of the issues where the Democrats are most relatively in step with the views of swing voters compared to Republicans (who by contrast largely use the issue to juice base turnout). In fact, if the Democrats leverage their pro-choice stance in the right way, it can be incredibly electorally effective, as in 2012.

It didn’t work in 2014, though.

[Samof94]

No. Abortion is one of the issues where the Democrats are most relatively in step with the views of swing voters compared to Republicans (who by contrast largely use the issue to juice base turnout). In fact, if the Democrats leverage their pro-choice stance in the right way, it can be incredibly electorally effective, as in 2012.

It didn’t work in 2014, though.

Evangelical voters were easier to mobilize then.

[Person Man]

No. Abortion is one of the issues where the Democrats are most relatively in step with the views of swing voters compared to Republicans (who by contrast largely use the issue to juice base turnout). In fact, if the Democrats leverage their pro-choice stance in the right way, it can be incredibly electorally effective, as in 2012.

It didn’t work in 2014, though.

Evangelical voters were easier to mobilize then.

2021 was similar to 2014 as well but maybe the calculus would change if Democrats campaigned on a platform where abortion would be more restricted in certain ways but more available than others (a 12-15 week ban with a repeal of Hyde).

[Politician]

They don't have to become pro-life, but they should be more reasonable on the issue and keep the "safe, legal and rare" mentality as opposed to celebrating abortion like they do now, while also allowing some pro-life members of the party to be elected.

[Tartarus Sauce]

No, the country is already majority pro-choice and being pro-life is going to become an electoral burden in the coming years as Republican state legislatures and federal government officials start engaging in massively unpopular overreaches on the issue.