Would Bob Casey Have Won Re-Election if he stayed Pro-Life?

[E-Dawg]

Bob Casey used to sell himself as being pro-life and used to advocate for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. However, he shifted more and more pro-choice over his years in the senate, as the below post I'm quoting from 2021 talks about. When Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Bob Casey completely abandoned his pro-life views that had already become questionable. He strongly denounced the overturning of Roe vs. Wade despite his previous support for doing just that. He also voted for the Women's Health Protection Act and has campaigned on his newfound pro-choice stance. Most are in agreement that Casey never has done a good job explaining his change of heart on this, and that it appears to be more political than anything else. Is it possible that this shameless moving with the winds doomed his re-election? On one hand, Pennsylvanians are mostly pro-choice and agree more with Casey's current position than his old one. But this change also makes him look quite insincere.

My scenario here is that Bob Casey's Senate career is exactly the same as OTL, but with the sole change of him being consistently pro-life throughout his Senate career. He supports the Dobbs decision, he votes against the Women's Health Protection Act, and he advocates to this day for something like a 20 week ban. With how important this issue has become for Democrats, this makes it possible that would have been primaried this year. Assuming he makes it to the general, he likely loses a certain amount of pro-choice voters that he got OTL. But I'm skeptical of how many voters this would be, considering that he was not at the top of the ticket. While I'm sure there are a sizable amount of otherwise moderate pro-life voters who would be willing to vote for a pro-life Democrat but not a pro-choice Democrat. Would he have peeled off enough pro-life voters to overcome the amount of pro-choice voters he loses? If so, is it enough to win the election (note that he lost OTL by 15 thousand votes)? I'll be interested to hear thoughts on this from those who know Pennsylvania politics well, as well as thoughts on if he would have been primaried this year.

Sen. Bob Casey says he's "pro-life" but he's not.

Abortion

While Casey identifies as pro-life[88] and has publicly expressed support for overturning Roe v. Wade,[89] a 2018 Politico article indicated that "[a]fter a decade in the Senate, Casey has become an increasingly reliable vote in support of abortion rights — scoring as high as 100 percent on NARAL Pro-Choice America's vote tally in 2016 and 2017 ... although his 2018 rating is sure to be lower." Politico acknowledged that scorecards "are an imperfect calculation of a lawmaker's position", adding that Casey asserted that he had voted anti-abortion on 13 of the 15 abortion-related measures during his career.[88]

In 2005, Casey opposed the funding of embryonic stem cell research.[90] In 2006, Casey supported the DFLA's Pregnant Women Support Act,[91] which sought to reduce abortion by providing support to women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. However, Casey has voted against barring HHS grants to organizations that provide abortion services, where such services may often not be central to the organization's chief purpose.[92] Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.[93]

In January 2010, during a debate on the Affordable Care Act, Casey was heckled for his handling of the abortion provisions in the health-care bill and for not taking an uncompromising pro-life stance. Casey was the primary sponsor of an amendment to prevent government funds from being used for abortion services, but when he tried to organize a compromise that appealed to both Democrats and the party's lone holdout (Sen. Ben Nelson), he angered some religious groups.[94][95] According to Politico, "Like conservative anti-abortion groups, [Casey] opposes the Roe decision and opposes the taxpayer funding of the [abortion] procedure. But like progressive abortion rights organizations, he supports Obamacare, access to contraception through programs such as Title X and funding for Planned Parenthood."[88]

In 2011, Casey was categorized by NARAL Pro-Choice America as "anti-choice" and was not endorsed in their election guide. That year, he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, against H.R.1 and for cloture for the nomination of Goodwin Liu, earning him a 100% rating from NARAL.[96]

In 2017, Casey voted for legislation that would have overturned the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits foreign aid for organizations that provide or promote abortion[97][98] Casey's vote for overturning that policy prompted pro-life activists to question his commitment to the pro-life cause.[98][99] Casey was criticized by National Right to Life for his 2017 vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.[100][88]

In 2015 and 2018, Casey joined two other Democrats (Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly) by voting for bills that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.[101][102]

I was the youngest member of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee ion its history when I was appointed back in 1975 (while I was still in High School).  Did I leave the Democratic Party, or did it leave me?  I guess that really doesn't matter.  But someone tell me how I can look at someone like Bob Casey and say that his motivation comes from principled conviction and not political expediency.  The idea that BOB CASEY got a 100% from NARAL in ANY year is tragic.

And why, honestly, should any devout Catholic vote for a Democrat if this is what happens to even pro-life Democrats when they get into office?  Yes, I know, Casey's right on the Catholic positions on "immigration" and any number of foreign policy issues, but the Catholic Church's position on abortion is a far more central tenet of the faith; it goes to Human Life, itself:

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person.  This is the foundation for the Church's social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration.  Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as "persons" (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights.  Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholic-view-of-abortion-12146

Some academics still argue about when the embryo first has a human soul- and the Church does not purport to referee that dispute.( But precisely because of this controversy the only prudent course is to treat the unborn as an actual human person from conception. Just as a farmer seeing something moving in the distance which might be a kangaroo or might be a child cannot responsibly take the risk of shooting it until he knows for sure, so there is no stage of development during which the unborn can be `safely' destroyed without risking killing a human person. The most recent Vatican statement on this matter concludes:

"The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence (i.e. the moment the zygote has formed), demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to human beings in their bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment her/his rights as a person must be recognized, among which the first is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."(9)

These aren't political positions from which one can "evolve" toward or away from; these are foundational principles of the Church whose doctrine Bob Casey says he agrees with.  This is what he's walking away from for the sake of politics.  Think about that.  What could possibly bring about such an evolution of thought?

[Progressive Pessimist]

He would have done worse.

[MT Treasurer]

Good question to ask on a forum that’s like 90% pro-choice without exceptions

[Spectator]

Probably, not like the pro-choicers had another option.

[Compuzled_One]

Honestly, yes, I think just how ingenuine his shift sounds and how close it was makes me think he would peel of enough Republicans.

That being said, I'm happy he changed his (public) position. I am unhappy he didn't campaign harder and still think that's the main cause.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think he very narrowly wins re-election, assuming he doesn't lose a Democratic primary (I think he'd still probably survive that due to his name).

[Crane]

Probably not. It was certainly not a very salient issue this year except in the other direction, and the type of moron to vote based on abortion was gonna go for the party that killed Roe anyway.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think the issue is less that he was pro-life but more so that he switched to being pro-choice when the Dem party essentially forced him to. It showed that he could cave to Schumer when needed on an issue as significant as abortion and was a very bad look especially considering he was Catholic. Faith aside, I think if he was always pro-choice throughout his political career it wouldn't have harmed him the same.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

I don't think Casey lose was do to him switching side it was Walz in survey after survey voters felt that Walz was too liberal and he reminded voters of Biden.  Do you really think if Shapiro was on the ticket we would have lost PA, no

[He's turned to dust now, one of the chosen few]

I imagine it would've gone down a bit like Wyche Fowler voting to confirm Clarence Thomas as ~triangulation~.

[CheapDollarEra?]

He would had lost some Main Line votes.

[Don't Tread on Me]

I'm not sure if 15,000 pro-lifers made the difference. It's possible that the 66,000+ Green party members played a larger role in his defeat. While I doubt that every Green Party voter would've showed up if they weren't on the ballot, I can anticipate that enough of them could've made the difference.

[Pericles]

He would have been primaried if he took the Republican position on one of the most important issues for Harris voters.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Probably not. It was certainly not a very salient issue this year except in the other direction, and the type of moron to vote based on abortion was gonna go for the party that killed Roe anyway.

Like with most things in this election, I would say that it was salient to the voters who ended up voting for Harris. However, those were the only voters she clearly was ever going to get while everyone else voted based on spite, misinformation, and "vibes."

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Probably not. It was certainly not a very salient issue this year except in the other direction, and the type of moron to vote based on abortion was gonna go for the party that killed Roe anyway.

Like with most things in this election, I would say that it was salient to the voters who ended up voting for Harris. However, those were the only voters she clearly was ever going to get while everyone else voted based on spite, misinformation, and "vibes."

Rs beat Harris and Walz it should of been Shapiro I knew instantly when the votes were going on the wrong direction it should of been Shapiro

[Dwarven Dragon]

He would have had a hell of a primary, but if he makes it to the General, I think a lot of Republicans' drive to oppose him is taken away, and he wins by a few points, but either Baldwin or Slotkin loses due to funding being redirected there.

Perhaps the way to finesse the primary would be a hybrid position: Oppose Dobbs and a National Ban, but say the WHPA goes too far. Essentially what Manchin ended up doing.

[#LANK]

You're drawlin PA has never been an anti-abortion state 64% of voters want abortion at least mostly legal this cycle same as the 62% that Clinton won off in '92. If anything Casey/Harris lost because Trump convinced people who say they want abortion mostly legal he's gonna leave it up to the states not anything ab Casey losing the Pittsburgh metro/NEPA over dropping his 20-week ban. He lost them over immigration which yark the national Dems are chomping at the bit for the Oracle of Frank Burns's wisdom. PA only seemed anti-abortion because for the longest time the only pro-choice Ds were from Philly so the closed D-primaries were almost always Philly vs. Everybody the pro-choice Delaware Valley were all Rs they got Tom Ridge after Casey bc of the sh!t he pulled. Casey ran on 20-week ban for the longest time bc he actually believes in that jawn not bc it helps him. He coulda crushed his first election vs Santorum running on Roe Santorum was somewhat popular his 1st term for pro-gun/gutting welfare and downright unpopular his 2nd term for all of his religious views. Go ask him he got high off Dubya's crap and thought the Christian Right was the power base that could keep him in office you can also ask Mastriano how we feel ab being the Florida of the north

[UncleSam]

His flip looked fake, that was his problem. His stance on the issue didn’t matter much either way.

[Crane]

His flip looked fake, that was his problem. His stance on the issue didn’t matter much either way.

His problem was that he was on the same ballot as Trump. All there is to it, really. Trump voters aren't nearly lucid enough to think his "flip" "wasn't sincere." The vast majority of MAGA think all Democrats are hiding kids in their basements. They aren't engaged with actual policy.

[CentristRepublican]

A pro-Dobbs Democrat would not have won renomination.

And if Casey did pull through, he would have lost by a lot more than irl, maybe like 3-4 points. He would win over less pro-lifers than many ppl here seem to think, while a lot of the hardcore pro-choicers in the base would guaranteed vote third-party or write-in or something.

Casey would end up a lot like Sinema, basically.

I think he very narrowly wins re-election, assuming he doesn't lose a Democratic primary (I think he'd still probably survive that due to his name).

The Casey name is definitely overstated atp. The Caseys are hardly Pennsylvania's Kennedys and probably get a very thin bump in support, if any, because of their name.

This is especially true as the older voters that might remember and identify with Sr have passed away, and as Casey Jr has gone from emulating his father on issues like abortion to just being a standard Democrat.

[CentristRepublican]

His flip looked fake, that was his problem. His stance on the issue didn’t matter much either way.

Imho, being anti-abortion (especially post-Dobbs when it's such a salient issue) would absolutely hurt Casey as a Democrat, and it'd be a real question as to whether he'd even win renomination.

Pretty much the only pro-life Democrat in either house of Congress atp is Cuellar, and he's barely survived primary challenges 2 times in a row (and that, of course, is with his unique brand well-tailored to his constituency in the RGV).

[UncleSam]

His flip looked fake, that was his problem. His stance on the issue didn’t matter much either way.

Imho, being anti-abortion (especially post-Dobbs when it's such a salient issue) would absolutely hurt Casey as a Democrat, and it'd be a real question as to whether he'd even win renomination.

Pretty much the only pro-life Democrat in either house of Congress atp is Cuellar, and he's barely survived primary challenges 2 times in a row (and that, of course, is with his unique brand well-tailored to his constituency in the RGV).

The thing is he wasn’t anti-abortion previously. He was just personally opposed to it without having that impact any of his policy stances.

That position would’ve still been ok, but flipping also was fine. It was just the way he flipped that made him look like a politician.

On the whole it didn’t matter much either way.

[Averroës]

There was no way for him to square the circle. The smart move would have been retirement. Democrats would have had a great candidate on deck if they had not blackballed Joe Sestak for standing up to the big guy years ago.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

This thread doesn't make sense how did Casey win by 18 pts and win a 3rd term in 2018. He lost because Harris lost the state

[freepcrusher]

Harris should have nominated Shapiro and that would have saved casey