GOP rationale for Rispone loss: “He was, uh, down by 27 points so actually Trump did amazing!”
From The Hill:
Far be it from me to imply that Scalise is being intentionally disingenious or misleading so I guess Scalise is just woefully ignorant of how the jungle primary works?
I wouldn’t assume that. In a previous thread I (as a Trump-hating, pro-life conservative) was discussing my dilemma on who to vote for. I was trying to have an honest discussion and **Chronos **said something along the lines that the Democrats were the true pro-life party and that if I wanted to honor my convictions, I would vote Democrat.
That’s pretty insulting, so I disengaged from that discussion. It would be like if a person who was very concerned about environmental protection entered into a discussion and I told her that if she was truly concerned about the environment she should vote for Republicans because they were the *real *supporters of environmental protection. That would be disingenuous at best.
Also, I do see Democrats using pro-choice as a litmus test. Everywhere? Of course not (see this Louisiana situation for example). But I see a LOT of shouting from Democrats across the board if a candidate is not sufficiently pro-choice. Backing the Hyde amendment, for example.
I never said that all Democrats were pro-life: Obviously, they are not. I said that all pro-life politicians were Democrats. And I stand by that statement. In 2009, the Senate had a choice between voting against abortion, or voting to tell Obama “screw you”. And the Senate republicans unanimously, 40 out of 40, chose the latter.
Any party that unanimously decides that insulting the other party is more important than opposing abortion cannot in any meaningful sense be said to oppose abortion.
I suspect non-idiotic GOP pols fearfully reading numbers will be reluctant to have this POTUS campaign for them, even after he resigns for health reasons and moves to Riyadh.
Democrats are the pro life party because they support policies that lead to less abortion, there is nothing insulting about that.
https://twitter.com/aj_kendrick/status/1195913480571891712?s=21
A couple of quick ones on Twitter.
A random Twitter account followed by one twentieth the number of people as the visitors bureau in Minot, North Dakota?
so a conservative state elected a conservative democrat Louisiana is still 70 percent catholic so of course, the abortion thing is gonna be big news and Only thing that makes this real news is trump is involved
You paint with one hell of a broad brush there, friend.
As a general rule, progressives would like to see as candidates the most progressive politician who can consistently win in that district/state/whatever. That’s what Markos Moulitsas would have told you in 2005, and would tell you now. Rumor has it he’s got pretty good progressive cred.
In Louisiana, John Bel Edwards is that politician. I’m certainly well to his left, but I’m quite happy with his victory, and wouldn’t have wanted a different Dem candidate.
But then you get to, say, a D+6 district like IL-03 which is represented by barely-a-Democrat Dan Lipinski. If he was representing an R+6 district, I’d say what the hell, he’s about as good as we can win this district with, and far better than the Republican who’d be his likely replacement if we ran a bona fide progressive. But we can win IL-03 with a more progressive candidate like Marie Newman who can hopefully beat Lipinski in the primary.