NBC: Noem and Scott may well lose veepstakes for being too pro-life

[Steve from Lambeth]

We all know that Donald Trump is less hawkish on the abortion issue than your average bear. Dasha Burns, reporting for NBC News, has only confirmed this with her recent investigations.

She says that Trump has been vetting every serious vice-presidential candidate on the abortion issue - and has gotten two Trump-adjacent sources on the record as noting that he's not inclined to select anyone who themselves believes in a tight abortion ban or one without the established exceptions.

Major supporters from both parties have also told Burns they believe that Trump selecting such a candidate would result in problems for him and a major opportunity for the Democrats - with Tim Scott and Kristi Noem most often criticised in these regards. A simple reading of the map would suggest it unlikely that either will be the chosen one.

[Redban]

There was a rumor a while back that he was considering a former NY politician . Lee Zeldin seemed to navigate the abortion issue fairly well in liberal NY. His position, basically, is that he is anti-abortion, but he would take no action on the issue (“Let me be clear. As governor, I will not change and could not change New York’s abortion law,”). He then pivoted away from the issue by saying Hochul was bringing up abortion to avoid talking about crime, rent costs, and cost-of-living etc. Abortion, to my knowledge, didn't affect Zeldin in 2022

[Arizona Iced Tea]

He's going to try to vaporize the abortion issue as much as possible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They don't bring a single Northern State into the fold, the problem is Trump doesn't have a Shapiro, PPP and IPSOS has Biden leading Trump

[Sir Mohamed]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

[Dan the Roman]

Nancy Mace....

[Senator Incitatus]

Trump is running as the most palatable Republican on abortion since Gerald Ford.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem is that everyone knows Trump is responsible for the Dobbs decision in the first place.

[mjba257]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

Most of those European countries either 1-Do not enforce the ban even after the cutoff period and/or 2-Have so many loopholes or exceptions that it's effectively not banned at all.

[Tekken_Guy]

Nancy Mace....

Stop trying to make her happen. She will never be picked as his VP.

Also Trump would not have backed her for her highly competitive primary if he was considering her for the job.

[7,052,770]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

Most of those European countries either 1-Do not enforce the ban even after the cutoff period and/or 2-Have so many loopholes or exceptions that it's effectively not banned at all.

And more importantly, those countries don't let their provinces ban it altogether like 30% of US states have.

Democrats could probably work toward a compromise that nationally bans after ~16 weeks with exceptions if it's federally protected and universally available before 16 weeks. To compare Trump's plan to any European country is ridiculous.

[Electric Circus]

There's another way to view this: Trump is running as a hero of the pro-life movement by virtue of his Supreme Court picks. He doesn't need to put someone else on the ticket to prove that they can trust him to deliver on their priorities. There's more to gain by balancing the ticket in a different direction.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

We all know that Donald Trump is less hawkish on the abortion issue than your average bear. Dasha Burns, reporting for NBC News, has only confirmed this with her recent investigations.

She says that Trump has been vetting every serious vice-presidential candidate on the abortion issue - and has gotten two Trump-adjacent sources on the record as noting that he's not inclined to select anyone who themselves believes in a tight abortion ban or one without the established exceptions.

Major supporters from both parties have also told Burns they believe that Trump selecting such a candidate would result in problems for him and a major opportunity for the Democrats - with Tim Scott and Kristi Noem most often criticised in these regards. A simple reading of the map would suggest it unlikely that either will be the chosen one.

There is no "investigation" here. And there is certainly no "news" here either, unless you count as "news" that when fed a talking point by Donald's surrogates, NBC picks it up and runs with it.

Donald lies constantly. Donald lies reflexively. Donald lies to everyone, about everything, all the the time, doubtless including himself.  His VP pick will be: whoever he feels like picking at the time. His criteria will be: his belief that they will murder children and shred the Constitution for him, and that he thinks they look right.

All past and future discussion of his Vice-Presidential plans is just "hey, I'd like some good coverage, so let talk about something  besides all the crimes, failures and lies".

[Progressive Pessimist]

Who does that even leave? There aren't any pro-choice or moderate Republicans who are also sufficiently bootlickers.

And no, this will not nullify Trump's Supreme Court overturning Roe. Biden's campaign is making sure no one forgets that.

[Roll Roons]

So... Stefanik? As much of a MAGA bootlicker as she is, she's not known for being particularly socially conservative.

[Ljube]

Trump is going to pick a moderate because he has a problem with his moderate wing. He does not need a social conservative like in 2016 when he had a problem with his conservative wing.

The kinds of picks that are possible are Glenn Youngkin and Lee Zeldin.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump is going to pick a moderate because he has a problem with his moderate wing. He does not need a social conservative like in 2016 when he had a problem with his conservative wing.

The kinds of picks that are possible are Glenn Youngkin and Lee Zeldin.

They aren't "moderates."

[Ljube]

Trump is going to pick a moderate because he has a problem with his moderate wing. He does not need a social conservative like in 2016 when he had a problem with his conservative wing.

The kinds of picks that are possible are Glenn Youngkin and Lee Zeldin.

They aren't "moderates."

They appear as moderates.

[TDAS04]

There are downsides to any potential VP pick, but it doesn't make sense that this issue would be a particular problem for either Noem or Scott. Trump's probably not picking anyone pro-choice (and he's not pro-choice either). While not in the national majority, voters with staunchly pro-life views tend to feel very strongly about the issue, sometimes to the point of using it as a litmus test when it comes to even bothering to vote (though it's probably not an issue for Trump in any case, considering Biden's pro-choice reputation, not to mention Harris visiting an abortion clinic).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I will say that Iowa Republican voters who said abortion was their top priority overwhelmingly backed DeSantis.  I'm sure that most rank-and-file pro-lifers will vote for Trump no matter what, but there's a segment of "hard" pro-lifers that are already skeptical of his statements on the issue since 2022.  It's not a ton of votes, but he does risk alienating some of the most socially conservative 5% of Republican voters.

[Indy Texas]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

Then why didn't Republicans pass a 16 week federal abortion ban in 2017-2018 when they had the presidency and Congress and could have done whatever they wanted?

Why, instead, do Republicans want to force a little 11-year-old girl who gets raped by a pedophile to have a baby? Why do Republicans want to ban IVF? Why do Republicans want women to die in childbirth from pregnancies that have no hope of succeeding?

[mjba257]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

Then why didn't Republicans pass a 16 week federal abortion ban in 2017-2018 when they had the presidency and Congress and could have done whatever they wanted?

Why, instead, do Republicans want to force a little 11-year-old girl who gets raped by a pedophile to have a baby? Why do Republicans want to ban IVF? Why do Republicans want women to die in childbirth from pregnancies that have no hope of succeeding?

[/b]

This is exactly what is wrong with American politics. You attribute the absolute worse intentions to the other side and cite extreme examples to support your claim. People aren't pro-life because "they hate women", just like I don't assume people are pro-choice because they "want to murder children". Me being the pragmatic centrist I am can see the merits of both sides, hence why my stance on this hot button issue is quite nuanced.

Also, let me just that abortion is just another wedge issue used to divide people, when in reality, our country has far more serious issues to attend to. I will loudly proclaim that anyone who cites abortion as their most important issue when voting is extremely privileged and doesn't have any real problems in the world.

[Indy Texas]

Didn't Trump recently renew his call for a national abortion ban?

All these Trump VP news are noise so far. The press is bored of the fact there was no primary and Trump himself likes to keep attention on his campaign.

16 weeks is hardly a ban, that's a more liberal stance than most of Europe. Now if you're one of those people wanting it up to and even after the moment of birth, even the most minor limitations would be unpalatable to you. But those people are a fringe minority.

Then why didn't Republicans pass a 16 week federal abortion ban in 2017-2018 when they had the presidency and Congress and could have done whatever they wanted?

Why, instead, do Republicans want to force a little 11-year-old girl who gets raped by a pedophile to have a baby? Why do Republicans want to ban IVF? Why do Republicans want women to die in childbirth from pregnancies that have no hope of succeeding?

This is exactly what is wrong with American politics. You attribute the absolute worse intentions to the other side and cite extreme examples to support your claim. People aren't pro-life because "they hate women", just like I don't assume people are pro-choice because they "want to murder children". Me being the pragmatic centrist I am can see the merits of both sides, hence why my stance on this hot button issue is quite nuanced.

Also, let me just that abortion is just another wedge issue used to divide people, when in reality, our country has far more serious issues to attend to. I will loudly proclaim that anyone who cites abortion as their most important issue when voting is extremely privileged and doesn't have any real problems in the world.

Can you tell me where in America any state governor is insisting on elective abortion "up to and even after the moment of birth?" What Democratic members of Congress are proposing that bill?

Multiple Republicans are on the record saying they favor an absolute abortion ban with no exceptions. This is not a "both sides" issue.

Do you think it's "privileged" to care about a woman who had to travel to New York to get an abortion because Louisiana wanted to force her to give birth to a baby that didn't have a head and had zero chance of surviving?

Privileged people will always be able to get abortions, no matter what Republicans do. They will be able to fly to blue states or even to Europe if necessary. Unlike Clarence Thomas, real Americans do not have rich friends who can fly them across the country on private jets when they need to get an abortion because Mississippi or wherever doesn't allow it.

[7,052,770]

This is exactly what is wrong with American politics. You attribute the absolute worse intentions to the other side and cite extreme examples to support your claim. People aren't pro-life because "they hate women", just like I don't assume people are pro-choice because they "want to murder children". Me being the pragmatic centrist I am can see the merits of both sides, hence why my stance on this hot button issue is quite nuanced.

...

He's not engaging in hypotheticals or "extreme examples". He's citing real cases that the elected governments and Ohio, Alabama, and Texas have done. Maybe that's not what every voter who considers himself "pro-life" had in mind, but it's what they're getting, and it's not like national Republicans are stepping in to fix these issues nationally.

In 15 states, abortion is totally unavailable even when the mother's life is in danger, even when the mother is 11 years old. It's 100% fair game to point out that Republican policy has brought that on, and that voting Republicans in the other 35 states will bring add more to that list, and if we send enough Republicans to Congress, we could get that nationwide.