He’s playing with fire. If I were Schumer I’d bring that bill up for a vote in the Senate. I’m not sure if Pelosi can do the same in the House, but if it’s possible I’d do so. Getting all the Republicans on the record for where they stand is the minor benefit. The major benefit is that this puts Republicans on record as abortion being a federal matter. Then if the Democrats eventually manage to pass a federal law re-establishing Roe vs. Wade the Republicans won’t be able to cry states rights.
I’m pretty sure they’ll be able.
This is correct, according to this article from 2020:
Wow, the GOP has learned something!!! They learned from Kansas-
“Bad idea,” said Chris Mottola, a GOP strategist and ad maker. “It rips open a political sore. The political environment was moving back to economic issues. It further nationalizes an issue that works against Republicans generically.”
…John Sellek, a top Republican strategist in Michigan, pointed out that the state’s Republican nominee for governor, Tudor Dixon, has been trying to downplay the issue of abortion, which is widely seen as benefiting Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
In other words, “Ban Abortion, Ban Abortion, Ban Abortion! Oops, umm, err that doesn’t actually play well, it is losing us elections. Shut up Graham!”
Hypocrite, thy name is Republican.
Of course, Herschel Walker had the most idiotic response. When asked about Graham’s bill he said, "I believe the issue should be decided at the state level, but I would support this policy.”
Does he even understand what this bill does? Never mind, don’t answer that.
Herschel is a terrible choice for Senator, but it doesn’t take any effort to read that statement as “this is a state issue, but the policy described is one I would support for Georgia”.
Georgia’s already got a six-week ban, and I doubt he was trying to say that he would support a more liberal abortion policy than what’s already on the books.
fivethirtyeight now has Johnson/Barnes at 50/50
(No new polls, must be based on other factors)
Brian
Oh, he undoubtedly has no idea what the current Georgia abortion restrictions are, or that Graham’s law would loosen them (assuming it preempted more restrictive state laws (which I’m certain it doesn’t)). I was just saying that there is no problem with him saying that abortion should be handled at the state level and that a proposed Federal law would implement an abortion regime that he could support.
No problem for a stupid person, maybe. But saying that you’re in favor of states deciding and also in favor of the federal government imposing on the states is just not a sensical position. Unless, again, you’re an idiot. Which of course he is.
Graham’s law is written in such a way so that States with more restrictive abortion bans would be able to keep them. If your state bans abortion outright, for example, this law does NOT override that ban.
It’s only States that have looser abortion restrictions that would be affected. So if your state allows 6 weeks, that will be overridden to just 15 days.
He undoubtedly didn’t realize that he was suggesting two things in opposition to each other, but reading his statement to include the bolded clause above as implied would not be unreasonable if the statement were not being made by an idiot, which of course it was.
I thought it was 15 weeks.
Okay, now I see where you’re going with that. Weasling out with willful misinterpretation.
Sorry, yes, weeks. Ugh.
And in the final Senate primary of the cycle, Republicans decided (once again) that their best candidate in a purple state was the right-wing nutjob election denier. It’s a bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off.
Bolduc got a boost from Democrats.
“Some Democrats, meanwhile, sought to undercut Morse, seemingly in the belief that elevating Bolduc would net them a more beatable foe. Senate Majority PAC, which has ties to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., released an ad tying Morse to McConnell, who has drawn the ire of Trump and his diehard supporters in the grassroots.”
I think this is because as the election draws near the weight of polls in the model increases and the weight of other factors (fundraising, voting patterns, etc.) decreases.
Barnes leads in most polls so is ahead in polling average (caveat: the most recent poll from Marquette University Law School [538 A/B] has RonAnon up by one point). Thus, ceteris paribus, as the election draws nearer things will creep in Barnes’ direction.
Speaking of polls, two pretty promising senate polls were published recently…
Quinnipiac (538 A-) polled the Georgia senate race from 9/8-12 and 1278 likely voters preferred Warnock (52%) to Walker (46%) by six points.
YouGov (538 B+) polled the Pennsylvania senate race from 9/6-12 and 118 likely voters preferred
Fetterman (52%) to Oz (47%) by five points.
There are two reasons I bring these up. One, both pollsters applied a likely voter screen. Second, and more importantly, the democrat polled over 50% in both polls.
Not all five or six point leads are the same. 52-47 +5 is much stronger evidence of a real lead than say 44-39 +5.
These are a day old, but here’s some dataviz.
Here’s the PredictIt derived senate thermometer. One of NV, GA, or WI will probably allow the Dems to keep the senate. Win all three and 52 blue seats will result in a lot less newspaper ink spent on the words Manchin and Sinema.
Finally, here’s a visualization that compares the PredictIt derived model to 538’s senate model.
They are mostly aligned. Nate, in general, seems under confident in many cases, but in one of the key races I care about 538 is much more confident assigning a 63.3% chance to Cortez Masto in Nevada where the PredictIt model has her at 53.8%.
FWIW the most recent Nevada poll (Emerson College, 538 A-, 1000 likely voters) has Laxalt (42%) just ahead of Cortez Masto (41%). A slim lead like that is almost meaningless when the two party vote share sums to only 83%.
New Marquette University polls (One registered voters, one likely voters) – they have Johnson up +1, so 538 now shifts to 54/46
Brian