Why would you assume that? 30% of yesterday’s voters identified as moderates. 36% as conservative:
As counsel, Ginsberg was working towards getting women’s rights fully recognised under the equality principle in the 14th Amendment, which would presumably have included abortion as a specific instance of equal rights. That approach would have been much more constitutionally sound than privacy, in my opinion.
But as @hajario says:
It would have been overturned by the current SCOTUS regardless of how it was decided.
So, with 35% of voters identifying as liberal and the pro-abortion rights measure getting over 56% of the vote, then according to your calculation, the remainder of the proposition’s supporters were conservatives. 
You may want to revisit your assumption that there’s a strict liberal/conservative dichotomy among voters.
So, now the GOP spin starts-
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4299436-sean-hannity-abortion-democrats-trying-to-scare-women/
Fox News host Sean Hannity accused Democrats of trying to “scare” women voters into thinking Republicans want a nationwide ban on abortion, which he said contributed to GOP losses in Tuesday night’s elections.
*“Democrats are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don’t want abortion legal under any circumstances,” Hannity said on his nightly prime-time show after election results had come in Tuesday
16 states with GOP legislators have banned abortion. Two have strong limits.
He’s lying.
Oh, no. The Republican Party may need to revisit their assumption that their base is fully anti-abortion.
More than anything, I was pointing out that a 35% number was woefully short as is to prove the state wasn’t ruby red. Everything in the political discourse seems to be a liberal / conservative split. Period. Dot. End of sentence. I like @pulykamell 's numbers, showing 30% self-identified as “moderates”. Imagine that - there’s something between left and right!
Sean Hannity? No way.
Republicans have two ideas:
- Do anything necessary to grab all the power they can, up to and including violence.
- Do anything to make the wealthy even wealthier.
There’s nothing else they believe in.
Now, I don’t think mandating abortions help them with either, so I think this is very unlikely. But if they thought it would, they would certainly do it.
This is not true. “Republicans” are a weird mishmash of people. The idea that there aren’t Republicans who are sincere in their anti-choice beliefs is just nonsense. Same with many of their other beliefs.
It’s a lazy attempt to demonize the political opponents, and it distorts what they actually believe, and such distortion makes it harder to work against them. Being effective at opposing their awfulness means understanding them.
Are there Republicans who are cynical power-grabbers? 100%. But they depend on the true believers in order to gain power; and because they depend on the true believers, they’ll never in a million years mandate abortions.
Agreed.
Some Republicans genuinely love guns, and others genuinely hate abortion. Given that Issue 1 passed in several counties that aren’t Dem strongholds, however, I suspect some of its GOP supporters were more libertarian than MAGA.
Chatter on reddit is that Ohio Republicans will try to block or ignore this ballot measure. Is that something they can do, or was this vote the final word?
They can’t legally do either. But they can certainly illegally ignore it, like they’ve illegally ignored the anti-gerrymandering measures.
When it comes to abortion, Republicans would be wise to open their eyes as to the will of the people. And the willingness of the people to vote.
But that would be wise, and these would be Republicans.
“We think abortion should be left up to the states” is the lie that Republicans tell independents who are equally uncomfortable with abortion and with efforts to ban it. It’s a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position that lets them be all things to these voters.
But the truth is that the long-term Republican project is to ban abortion nationwide. It’s already explicitly a part of the Republican Party platform: “. . .we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth." There’s no “unless the fetus is in New York or California” exception.
Even conceding that party platforms have only a loose relation to policies that politicians pursue in office, the anti-abortion activists who provide the donations, campaign volunteers, and primary votes that get Republicans elected did not do so out of an esoteric concern over the proper role of federalism. They believe that abortion is a moral horror, and that it must be extirpated everywhere. And they will hold Republican officeholders’ feet to fire to ensure they are progressing toward that goal.
Some Republican officeholders have tried, and in some cases succeeded, in banning abortion. But none of them actually believe in or pursue the sanctity of life, or the right of a fetus to life. They consistently vote against health measures that would reduce death rates among both the born and the unborn.
16 states with GOP legislators have banned abortion. Two have strong limits.
Yep. So it’s a right to life until you are born…
Yep. Their position is consistently anti-choice, not pro-life. See also the large overlap with pro-death penalty advocates.
I haven’t heard anyone crying about election fraud in Ohio. Are we getting to the point where Republicans have decided not to bang that drum?
Not this time, anyway. Our sucky SecState has always assured voters that Ohio elections are safe and secure, while supporting ever-more-restrictive means to make it harder for people to vote, er, I mean, to fight voter fraud.
The Ohio Senate President promises not to give up the fight on this matter:
Well, he’s got to say something to get people to keep putting money in his coffer.
But if he wants to keep motivating people to the polls to legalize abortion and elect pro-choice candidates, that’s fine by me. By all means, Mr. Senate President, keep the abortion fight at the forefront.