Yes, yes, Mr. Mello. Help us win something in Nebraska. But just remember we will totally abandon you the moment we think we can.
Kind of like how the Right turned viciously on Tomi Lahren when she said ‘small government means you don’t get to tell me what to do with my body’, right?
As I already said in another thread, it’s suicidally stupid for a party to require sine qua non litmus tests before supporting a candidate. This is an example. There’s no way anyone’s going to get elected in Nebraska without being pro-life, so if you want to win in Nebraska, you run a pro-life candidate.
There are similarities, yes. But Ms Lauren is a social media commentator, and her fortunes rise and fall with her audience’s reactions. Mr. Mello is a Democratic politician running for mayor and being either groomed or ostracized for higher office based on decisions from the DNC.
I mean, it hasn’t hurt the Republicans any to have a litmus test on abortion. Sure, maybe they lose California, but they can obviously live with out it. The Republicans actually have several such litmus tests: tax cuts for the wealthy, climate change denial, supply side economics, school vouchers, anti-sex education, anti-anti-segregation efforts, and so on. Repulsive, first to last, but on the up side - everyone knows what Republicans want.
I just don’t see how it will hurt the Democrats to take a similar strong stand on supporting abortion rights and access to sex education and birth control, as well as support for new mothers and infants, even if we have to write off Nebraska, god-help-us.
When John McCain qualifies as a RINO, I don’t think Republicans have much room to be criticizing Democrats for not having a large enough tent.
We have a gibbering baboon for a President, and the mayoral race in Omaha, Nebraska is a big hairy ass deal.
Counselor, I’m trying to stay sane and sober. Why must you make it more difficult?
Sorry, I wouldn’t vote for him. I don’t vote for the allegedly Democratic Congressman who represents me because he votes far too often with the Republicans. Vote for the policies, not the party label.
Maybe it will hurt them to the point that they lose control of both houses of Congress, the White House, and a clear majority of state legislatures and governorships.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the Democrats are being stupid about Mello, but the Republicans have abandoned dozens of their own for not being sufficiently ideologically pure in recent years. I suppose Mello’s case warrants flagging for the novelty value, if nothing else.
Wow. Two Quoque.
But we’re already having this debate here.
It’s relevant if Bricker is posting this in order to do his usual “Lookit the stupid liberals” shtick again as appears to be the case from his choice of title. Stupid Democrats doing something that stupid Republicans are far better known for falls flat as a specific criticism of the left.
The other thread is far more constructive in approach.
My “wow”, wasn’t so much for the to quoque. That’s expected on this MB against a poster on the right. The wow was that it happened in post #2. Hence the pun.
There was a time when a large minority of Democrats were pro-life. This included folks like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy. Patrick Moynihan once famously said: “you women are ruining the Democratic Party with your insistence on abortion.”
I think there are few Democratic voters who would switch parties if the Republicans backed off of their adamant pro-life stance. I think there is a larger population of Republicans that would be attracted to the Democratic party if they backed off of their adamant pro-choice stance. BOTH parties would lose turnout at elections by the single issue voters if they moderated their stance too much.
I can think of a few pro-choice Republicans off the top of my head (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski). I can’t think of many pro-life Democrats.
What’s better for Democrats - win X number of elections with all candidates being ideologically pure, or win X+100 seats while having “only” 90% of candidates who are ideologically pure?
The Dems, and the left generally, are not very good at realpolitik. Luckily, we have a bountiful supply of hard-nosed realists, who help by holding us back from the sins of empathy.
In my time of walking to and fro across the world, I’ve met very few real cynics. Never met one yet who didn’t think of himself as a no-nonsense, hard-headed realist.
I have a feeling that should he win, Mr. Mello will fare better in the Democratic Party than Trump will in the Republican Party. It’s going to be Republican rats fleeing a sinking White House ship in the 2018 elections.
Because they don’t. It doesn’t hurt a Republican at all to be pro-abortion, as evidenced by the current President.
Apparently his abortion record is mixed, but all people are willing to see is “pro-life,” whether they think that’s a good or a bad thing. He appears to accept that it is performed and not seek an outright ban while encouraging policy that limits unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Sometimes the DNC (not to mention the RNC) need to butt out of local elections.
His name sounds like a candy bar. Mmm… + Caramello
I don’t know if that’s a joke or not, but if Trump isn’t pro-Life, he acts exactly like someone who is pro-Life would act, so what’s the difference? People might just think his views have “evolved” over time. (Or devolved, depending on your perspective.)