Are there way more pro-choice Republicans than previously thought?

[Alben Barkley]

Previously, many (including myself at times) assumed that much of the Republican Party's success was actually on the strength of voters who were de facto single-issue voters against abortion. And that many of these "pro-life" voters would either stay home or maybe even vote Democratic if not for that issue.

But now with Kansas shooting down an attempt to repeal abortion rights by 20 points, Michigan polls showing an amendment to protect abortion rights easily prevailing, a seeming revolt against many Republicans and their extreme positions on the issue to the point even Blake Masters is walking back from the "pro-life" label... It seems there are a LOT of Republican voters in this country who at the very least favored the status quo under Roe, and that maybe those polls showing like 70% of Americans supported Roe staying intact were an accurate reflection of the nation after all.

Have Republicans colossally miscalculated in even understanding their own base on this issue?

[jojoju1998]

I think we're conflating Pro Choice and Pro Abortion.

Alot of Americans, are like, I don't approve of Abortion myself, and I will never get one, but other people can do what they do.

[Alben Barkley]

I think we're conflating Pro Choice and Pro Abortion.

Alot of Americans, are like, I don't approve of Abortion myself, and I will never get one, but other people can do what they do.

But that certainly is not the position of the Republican Party. So the question remains: Has the GOP misunderstood their own base, or a large part of it at least, on this issue? Because it seems a lot of their voters, whatever their personal feelings on abortion, are decidedly NOT pro-forced birth.

[jojoju1998]

I think we're conflating Pro Choice and Pro Abortion.

Alot of Americans, are like, I don't approve of Abortion myself, and I will never get one, but other people can do what they do.

But that certainly is not the position of the Republican Party. So the question remains: Has the GOP misunderstood their own base, or a large part of it at least, on this issue? Because it seems a lot of their voters, whatever their personal feelings on abortion, are decidedly NOT pro-forced birth.

Well; Pope Francis has made his statement on this, his elevation of Cardinal Robert McElroy, has shown that well, Pope Francis does not like what he is seeing in the US.

It doesn't mean that Francis or McElroy approve of abortion, far from it, but Public Policy in a two party system like the US is nuanced, and you can't be reactionaries when it comes to dealing with public policy.

[Alben Barkley]

Here's a particularly interesting quote from a Republican pollster from an article related to the Blake Masters debacle:

Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona Republican pollster, said he just wrapped up a survey of voters that suggests Masters is trailing Kelly by 10 points. A recent Fox News survey found Kelly up by 8 points, too.

"Abortion is a devastating issue for Republican candidates," Coughlin said. "There are three constituencies who don’t like the Republican position: women, independents and voters over 64 — who are just tired of all the change and chaos and want to go back.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/arizona-blake-masters-backtracks-abortion-scrubs-campaign-website-rcna44808

Emphasis mine. I think a curious irony here could be that the fundamental "conservatism" of many voters, perhaps particularly older voters, has led many to be opposed to radical change in either direction, and they view Dobbs as a radical change.

[jojoju1998]

Here's a particularly interesting quote from a Republican pollster from an article related to the Blake Masters debacle:

Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona Republican pollster, said he just wrapped up a survey of voters that suggests Masters is trailing Kelly by 10 points. A recent Fox News survey found Kelly up by 8 points, too.

"Abortion is a devastating issue for Republican candidates," Coughlin said. "There are three constituencies who don’t like the Republican position: women, independents and voters over 64 — who are just tired of all the change and chaos and want to go back.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/arizona-blake-masters-backtracks-abortion-scrubs-campaign-website-rcna44808

Emphasis mine. I think a curious irony here could be that the fundamental "conservatism" of many voters, perhaps particularly older voters, has led many to be opposed to radical change in either direction, and they view Dobbs as a radical change.

Well Conservativism in it's classic form is " Keep things the same. Don't make chaos "

[Progressive Pessimist]

Just given the results of the Kansas referendum, and polling on the California and Michigan ones, the answer is yes. However, while they will vote to support abortion in a ballot initiative, it's a different story from voting for an actual Democratic candidate, for the most part. They likely prioritize different things in a typical candidate versus candidate contest. It is possible that this could drive at least some away from the GOP, perhaps not enough to make a clear difference in any one election, but still a definite possibility.

[Skill and Chance]

I do think ~50% of the country was pro-life compared to the Roe limits, but only ~25% supports a total ban, and they are very geographically concentrated in the South.  All the small inland West/Plains states don't help Republicans on this issue like they usually do.

BTW I also thought single-issue pro-life voters were a huge deal in American politics and probably outcome-determinative in 2000 and 2016, so very confused now.

[Alben Barkley]

I do think ~50% of the country was pro-life compared to the Roe limits, but only ~25% supports a total ban, and they are very geographically concentrated in the South.  All the small inland West/Plains states don't help Republicans on this issue like they usually do.

BTW I also thought single-issue pro-life voters were a huge deal in American politics and probably outcome-determinative in 2000 and 2016, so very confused now.

Agreed in every respect except for the fact that essentially the Kansas amendment wouldn't have even done anything except ALLOW Kansas to restrict abortion at all beyond Roe. And STILL it was shot down badly. And the Michigan amendment enshrines Roe and then some, not allowing any restrictions even past viability as long as the health of the mother (even mental health) is deemed at risk. And STILL it is dominating in the polls by over 40 points. So this isn't even a matter of people saying "I'm OK with abortion up to 12 weeks but iffy past that" or whatever. This is a full-blown, massive revolt against the VERY long-standing default GOP position. This HAS to have caught them off-guard because it caught even me off-guard. I also think, or at least previously thought, they couldn't have won in 2016 without this issue and would have beaten Al Gore in 2000 if more single-issue pro-lifers had shown up to vote in Florida; then they wouldn't have even had to steal the election!

[Vice President Christian Man]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

[brucejoel99]

Here's a particularly interesting quote from a Republican pollster from an article related to the Blake Masters debacle:

Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona Republican pollster, said he just wrapped up a survey of voters that suggests Masters is trailing Kelly by 10 points. A recent Fox News survey found Kelly up by 8 points, too.

"Abortion is a devastating issue for Republican candidates," Coughlin said. "There are three constituencies who don’t like the Republican position: women, independents and voters over 64 — who are just tired of all the change and chaos and want to go back.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/arizona-blake-masters-backtracks-abortion-scrubs-campaign-website-rcna44808

Emphasis mine. I think a curious irony here could be that the fundamental "conservatism" of many voters, perhaps particularly older voters, has led many to be opposed to radical change in either direction, and they view Dobbs as a radical change.

I'd also guess that quite a lot of older voters - older women in particular - probably remember what it was like before Roe.

I do think ~50% of the country was pro-life compared to the Roe limits

But was ~50% of the country pro-life compared to the Casey limits?

[Hope For A New Era]

I think most likely we're experiencing something of a political buyer's remorse.

Also, total bans have never been popular, and people have now realized that that's what the overturn of Roe means in a lot of states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here's a particularly interesting quote from a Republican pollster from an article related to the Blake Masters debacle:

Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona Republican pollster, said he just wrapped up a survey of voters that suggests Masters is trailing Kelly by 10 points. A recent Fox News survey found Kelly up by 8 points, too.

"Abortion is a devastating issue for Republican candidates," Coughlin said. "There are three constituencies who don’t like the Republican position: women, independents and voters over 64 — who are just tired of all the change and chaos and want to go back.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/arizona-blake-masters-backtracks-abortion-scrubs-campaign-website-rcna44808

Emphasis mine. I think a curious irony here could be that the fundamental "conservatism" of many voters, perhaps particularly older voters, has led many to be opposed to radical change in either direction, and they view Dobbs as a radical change.

Well Conservativism in it's classic form is " Keep things the same. Don't make chaos "

Conservatives, either from lack of self awareness or constantly pointing to leftwing extremism (real or imagined), lost sight of what it means to be a conservative. It's not Reagan's three legged stool, its not storming the gates on a populist bender, its not dismantling the government. Its keeping the impulsive whims of human excess from disrupting society. Evidently some considered this too disruptive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

When you make one spoke too long, the wheel tends to break when used. That is the problem that happens whenever one piece of this coalition goes too far.

"Fiscal Conservatism" is not that popular in Kansas either, when it meant trying to dismantle the state's public education system to cut taxes all the way to the bone.

Kansas is in theory the perfect state for a conservative Party when you think about it. The fact that Republicans have screwed the pooch twice in the state, first on fiscal issues and now on social issues, demonstrates the structural flaws of the Republican Party, and its failure to be an effective vehicle for "balanced Conservatism" in this country.

Kansas would settle in to being about 60% to 65% Republican if they would just stop the race to the bottom or the "Puracy with lunacy" as Ann Coulter of all people called it in 2012, the last time the GOP overstepped on Abortion and nominated a bunch of candidates who favored complete bans with no exceptions.

[smoltchanov]

IMHO - there are more pro-choice (or, at least - "moderate on choice") rank anf file Republicans then previously thought. But the problem is - there are much less among republican primary voters, especially - among "political activists". As a result - there are very few pro-choice Republican candidates, and evem less - winning republican candidates, because it's exactly the "activists", who frequently decide the result of primaries.

[jojoju1998]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

When you make one spoke too long, the wheel tends to break when used. That is the problem that happens whenever one piece of this coalition goes too far.

"Fiscal Conservatism" is not that popular in Kansas either, when it meant trying to dismantle the state's public education system to cut taxes all the way to the bone.

Kansas is in theory the perfect state for a conservative Party when you think about it. The fact that Republicans have screwed the pooch twice in the state, first on fiscal issues and now on social issues, demonstrates the structural flaws of the Republican Party, and its failure to be an effective vehicle for "balanced Conservatism" in this country.

Kansas would settle in to being about 60% to 65% Republican if they would just stop the race to the bottom or the "Puracy with lunacy" as Ann Coulter of all people called it in 2012, the last time the GOP overstepped on Abortion and nominated a bunch of candidates who favored complete bans with no exceptions.

We never have had Balanced Conservativism because we never had an established church, monarchy to preserve.

The UK for example has the Church of England, their monarchy. So their Conservativism is more " balanced " for the most part.

Germany has a Tradition of Christian Democracy, which is influenced by Catholic/Lutheran Social Ethics.


US Conservativism seems to be a mix of Economic Libertarianism, Calvinist Christian Theology, and Hyper Nationalism.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, there are 1l50 M females in this country and 55/45 white females vote D, look at all the Shelters especially Catholic Charities they aren't run by make Pastors they are ran by female mins, CC atholica aren't pro choice bit just like the Irish Nums are tolerant of pro choice

There is a tendency to think it's only white or black or Latino men out there but D's started to be win in 1932 after Hoover because white females began to vote not just Afro Americans

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

When you make one spoke too long, the wheel tends to break when used. That is the problem that happens whenever one piece of this coalition goes too far.

"Fiscal Conservatism" is not that popular in Kansas either, when it meant trying to dismantle the state's public education system to cut taxes all the way to the bone.

Kansas is in theory the perfect state for a conservative Party when you think about it. The fact that Republicans have screwed the pooch twice in the state, first on fiscal issues and now on social issues, demonstrates the structural flaws of the Republican Party, and its failure to be an effective vehicle for "balanced Conservatism" in this country.

Kansas would settle in to being about 60% to 65% Republican if they would just stop the race to the bottom or the "Puracy with lunacy" as Ann Coulter of all people called it in 2012, the last time the GOP overstepped on Abortion and nominated a bunch of candidates who favored complete bans with no exceptions.

We never have had Balanced Conservativism because we never had an established church, monarchy to preserve.

The UK for example has the Church of England, their monarchy. So their Conservativism is more " balanced " for the most part.

Germany has a Tradition of Christian Democracy, which is influenced by Catholic/Lutheran Social Ethics.


US Conservativism seems to be a mix of Economic Libertarianism, Calvinist Christian Theology, and Hyper Nationalism.

You don't have to have a Monarchy or establishment church to be able to read the room as it actually is, versus how your dogmatism would like it to be. You just need to not be so beholden to special interests and extremists groups that you long ago sold your brain for a little extra campaign cash.

I would argue that Conservatism was rather well balanced in the 1920s and 1980s.

[jojoju1998]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

When you make one spoke too long, the wheel tends to break when used. That is the problem that happens whenever one piece of this coalition goes too far.

"Fiscal Conservatism" is not that popular in Kansas either, when it meant trying to dismantle the state's public education system to cut taxes all the way to the bone.

Kansas is in theory the perfect state for a conservative Party when you think about it. The fact that Republicans have screwed the pooch twice in the state, first on fiscal issues and now on social issues, demonstrates the structural flaws of the Republican Party, and its failure to be an effective vehicle for "balanced Conservatism" in this country.

Kansas would settle in to being about 60% to 65% Republican if they would just stop the race to the bottom or the "Puracy with lunacy" as Ann Coulter of all people called it in 2012, the last time the GOP overstepped on Abortion and nominated a bunch of candidates who favored complete bans with no exceptions.

We never have had Balanced Conservativism because we never had an established church, monarchy to preserve.

The UK for example has the Church of England, their monarchy. So their Conservativism is more " balanced " for the most part.

Germany has a Tradition of Christian Democracy, which is influenced by Catholic/Lutheran Social Ethics.


US Conservativism seems to be a mix of Economic Libertarianism, Calvinist Christian Theology, and Hyper Nationalism.

You don't have to have a Monarchy or establishment church to be able to read the room as it actually is, versus how your dogmatism would like it to be. You just need to not be so beholden to special interests and extremists groups that you long ago sold your brain for a little extra campaign cash.

I would argue that Conservatism was rather well balanced in the 1920s and 1980s.

The 1980s still had the influence of the WASP Establishment. People like George Bush, John Mccain,



Now, people like them are all democrats.....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think a lot might actually be better described "Joe Manchin-style pro-life" instead. Basically after Dobbs Manchin issued a statement condemning the decision, it was pretty milquetoast compared to most Democrats', but he said that he's always been pro-life but that he considered the Roe decision to be mostly settled, and that without exceptions like rape and incest it would endanger women. So personally pro-life but not in favor of the decision as it was given. I think a lot of nominally pro-life people also enjoyed being able to hide behind Roe as a means to NOT support things like prosecuting women for abortions or even doctors and instead talk about how they would work to reduce abortions by other means, things like maternity leave and access to birth control (this is basically the position of a good chunk of people at my church), and thus this is pretty uncomfortable territory to enter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Previously, many (including myself at times) assumed that much of the Republican Party's success was actually on the strength of voters who were de facto single-issue voters against abortion. And that many of these "pro-life" voters would either stay home or maybe even vote Democratic if not for that issue.

But now with Kansas shooting down an attempt to repeal abortion rights by 20 points, Michigan polls showing an amendment to protect abortion rights easily prevailing, a seeming revolt against many Republicans and their extreme positions on the issue to the point even Blake Masters is walking back from the "pro-life" label... It seems there are a LOT of Republican voters in this country who at the very least favored the status quo under Roe, and that maybe those polls showing like 70% of Americans supported Roe staying intact were an accurate reflection of the nation after all.

Have Republicans colossally miscalculated in even understanding their own base on this issue?

This isn't really THAT new though, we've had referendums well before Dobbs showing this:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP is basically an informal coalition of 4 separate parties:
Social conservatives (Could be divided further into Evangelical/Conservative Catholic conservatism which is the main base of the pro-life movement and the more culturally conservative type which is more centered around gun-rights and less around religion)
Fiscal conservatives
Neoconservatives
Nationalists


There's a lot of overlap between these "parties" and someone like Lindsay Graham fits into all 4 boxes, but while there are plenty of people who only/primarily vote GOP over the abortion issue, there are plenty of others who only vote for one of the other reasons above. That is why the GOP did particularly bad in Kansas, as well as other races where the candidate made it a referendum on Roe. Despite this, I don't expect the GOP to lose in Kansas, because the voters of the state have proven in elections such as 2014 that they are still supportive of fiscal conservatism which continues to be a main tenant of the GOP.

When you make one spoke too long, the wheel tends to break when used. That is the problem that happens whenever one piece of this coalition goes too far.

"Fiscal Conservatism" is not that popular in Kansas either, when it meant trying to dismantle the state's public education system to cut taxes all the way to the bone.

Kansas is in theory the perfect state for a conservative Party when you think about it. The fact that Republicans have screwed the pooch twice in the state, first on fiscal issues and now on social issues, demonstrates the structural flaws of the Republican Party, and its failure to be an effective vehicle for "balanced Conservatism" in this country.

Kansas would settle in to being about 60% to 65% Republican if they would just stop the race to the bottom or the "Puracy with lunacy" as Ann Coulter of all people called it in 2012, the last time the GOP overstepped on Abortion and nominated a bunch of candidates who favored complete bans with no exceptions.

We never have had Balanced Conservativism because we never had an established church, monarchy to preserve.

The UK for example has the Church of England, their monarchy. So their Conservativism is more " balanced " for the most part.

Germany has a Tradition of Christian Democracy, which is influenced by Catholic/Lutheran Social Ethics.


US Conservativism seems to be a mix of Economic Libertarianism, Calvinist Christian Theology, and Hyper Nationalism.

You don't have to have a Monarchy or establishment church to be able to read the room as it actually is, versus how your dogmatism would like it to be. You just need to not be so beholden to special interests and extremists groups that you long ago sold your brain for a little extra campaign cash.

I would argue that Conservatism was rather well balanced in the 1920s and 1980s.

The 1980s still had the influence of the WASP Establishment. People like George Bush, John Mccain,

Now, people like them are all democrats.....

McCain was an irrelevant nobody in the 1980s, whose only claim to fame was being investigated for corruption at the time. I would also not consider McCain to be WASP elite like say a Bush or a Romney for that matter.

Reagan was the center of the 1980s GOP and he was the antithesis of WASP establishment and yet his foreign policy was tough but restrained (He pulled out of Lebanon and he drew fire occasionally from the conservative activist class including on some of his deals with the Soviet Union), he cut a deal with the Democrats to secure Social Security, compromised on taxes in 1986, and he didn't go overboard on social issues. He campaigned as a diehard free trader, but implemented quotas on Japanese cars. You don't have to be direct descendent of a Mayflower passenger and also attend Harvard/Yale, to be able to lead a balanced coalition.

At the end of the day, I think combination of the Iraq War and the GFC broke the GOP and the conservative movement in this country. And rather than having an internal analysis and adjusting on foreign policy for instance, the GOP establishment doubled down, leading to a populist revolt. Rather than coming to terms with the new economic reality, the GOP establishment threw billions of donor money at the problem to try and turn back the clock and the result was again a populist revolt and the divide between Paul Ryans of the world and the Donald Trumps of the world.

If we had a "responsible establishment", they would have made the adjustments themselves and thus avoided the populist revolt and all that such entailed. This did not happen! Instead people like John McCain became the architects of their own downfall. You have charlatans like Ted Cruz pushing ever to the right and forcing himself as a litmus test by which all other Republicans were being compared and as a reaction to both, you had Donald Trump.

The elite sow the seeds for the revolution that eventually overthrows them. That is what happened here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Previously, many (including myself at times) assumed that much of the Republican Party's success was actually on the strength of voters who were de facto single-issue voters against abortion. And that many of these "pro-life" voters would either stay home or maybe even vote Democratic if not for that issue.

But now with Kansas shooting down an attempt to repeal abortion rights by 20 points, Michigan polls showing an amendment to protect abortion rights easily prevailing, a seeming revolt against many Republicans and their extreme positions on the issue to the point even Blake Masters is walking back from the "pro-life" label... It seems there are a LOT of Republican voters in this country who at the very least favored the status quo under Roe, and that maybe those polls showing like 70% of Americans supported Roe staying intact were an accurate reflection of the nation after all.

Have Republicans colossally miscalculated in even understanding their own base on this issue?

This isn't really THAT new though, we've had referendums well before Dobbs showing this:

We have also seen candidates collapse because they go too far on abortion as well. Todd Akin is the prime example, though obviously his "justification" is what did him in the underlying problem was that he was in the first place trying to justify not including a rape exception.