What share of the white vote will the Democratic Party receive in 2016?

Politics & Elections
41

This always comes up. Anti abortion rights people are asking “is the fetus a person? Does the fetus deserve the right to live, like a person?” Whereas a shocking number of pro abortion rights people say that the question is “should a woman be able to control her body?” And they say that the antis claim “No! Women should not be able to control their own bodies!” when that isn’t the issue we’re concerned with at all. Now, that’s a damned good political tactic, but I can never guess if people are doing it on purpose, or if they’ve been misled themselves. All I want is for people to make an honest effort to understand the mindset of the people you’re arguing with, and the following is for people who haven’t done that.

People who are against abortion rights believe that any developing human fetus deserves the basic rights of a person. So when you say “my body, my choice” and “between a woman and her doctor” et cetera, it means nothing to your opponent. Because we believe that the rights of the person inside you trump some of your rights. We consider the right of the child to continue living to be more important than your ability to control your womb, even if you were a man! Even if men got pregnant, people would oppose abortion. Sex has nothing to do with it. It’s not that we just hate women, as popular as that viewpoint seems to be. And when you say “between a woman and her doctor” we hear “between a woman, her doctor, and the woman’s child who isn’t exactly able to defend him/herself”. And when you say “parasite”, we think “is a daughter that is seven months along not also a parasite, then?”

Now, don’t all jump on me at once. I don’t mean to derail the thread, and I’m not coming back.

42

Yeah, it’s a nonsense argument because virtually no one condones abortion of a viable baby, even though it’s in a woman’s body.

43

Plenty of pro choice people, though probably a minority among them, believe women and doctors should decide this, not the government, without condoning it.

The flip side argument is that relatively few anti abortion folks believe women should be forced to carry their rapist’s baby if they don’t want to.

44

Doesn’t need to be more appealing than President Obama. She just needs to be less repulsive than the Republican (which is certain to be the case ).

45

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a Sacrament. But since you care so little about your ideals, you won’t come back and defend them.

46

The biggest thing that the Democrats have going against them in 2016 is that they’re aiming to recapture the White House again; it is very, very difficult for the same party to control the presidency for more than two consecutive terms. I imagine that that will affect their percentage of the white vote, even if only tangentially.

That said, I think 36-40% is a good estimate. Hillary will pick up some white votes just by virtue of not being Obama; if the GOP nominee is somebody truly deplorable (i.e., Trump, Cruz, or Carson) then she might get a larger percentage.

47

She will also pick up white votes from women. Not all of them, but an increase from Obama.

48

Support for legalized abortion are basically equal among the sexes although interestingly enough women on both the pro- and anti-abortion legalization camps are the more vocal ones.

49

That would change if men could get pregnant.

50

You know if you were honestly willing to give up your own body autonomy to save lives there are hundreds of other much less invasive things than abortion you should be fighting for that would apply equally to both genders. The fact that not one single thing besides abortion ever gets brought up puts a lie to your claim that you would feel the same way if men could get pregnant. The rights of one person do not trump the rights of another, that is an utterly despicable way of thinking.

51

What an incentive for a false flag operation. Just like some claims about 9/11.

52

You are sounding like right-wingers who ask BLM activists why they are so concerned with unjustified killings of blacks by police when far more blacks are killed in gang-related incidents or why feminists complain so much about sexism in video games when female genital mutiliation is practiced in Middle Eastern countries. The simple answer is that if you actually think abortion is taking of human life, then you should speak about it-this doesn’t mean obviously you should neglect other issues.

This is why the socioeconomically liberal anti-abortion view, in my opinion, is the most consistent one.

Of course they do-at least unless you are some sort of an anarchist. The entire problem of government is to balance how much one’s rights can be violated to enhance the rights of others. A business owner’s “right” to pay his employee what he wants is trumped by the employee’s right to be entitled to a minimum level of compensation for his labour. A wealthy man’s right over his property is trumped by society’s interest that people not starve and that income inequality be minimized.

53

No, actually you don’t. You don’t believe a fetus should vote. You don’t believe that a fetus should be free to make a will, or inherit property. You don’t believe that fetus can get married, go to school, start a business, pay taxes. You don’t believe that fetuses should earn paychecks. You don’t believe a fetus should serve jury duty.

You don’t believe a fetus needs to give consent for medical decisions. You don’t believe doctors need to get a fetus’ permission to do neo-natal surgery. You don’t believe a fetus can refuse even simple things like an ultrasound.

The reason for all this is obvious: you don’t believe that the fetus deserves the basic rights of a person.

But even if we humor you, and say, ok, sure, a fetus deserves the basic human rights we give to actual humans: abortion would still be legal because actual humans aren’t required to allow their bodies to be used as incubators for the life of another.

I mean - can you imagine? Can you imagine a world where everyone is required to donate a kidney to a desperate person who would die without a transplant? Can you image a world where everyone is forced to be bone marrow donors, in order to save the lives of people with cancer?

Or livers - hell your liver grows back. People could donate liver material 3-4 times, probably. Why aren’t we all being forced to do that - imagine how many lives we could save?

Except - somehow, those examples are ludicrous. No one is ever forced to donate a liver, even though they could spare it, it’s just a minor inconvenience. Somehow, it’s only pregnant women - what a shocker, I know! - that anyone trots out this bullshit, “oh, your bodily autonomy isn’t important - it’s for a human life!” line.

Keep telling yourself that, if you want. No one believes you, not even the other people in line with you.

54

Okay, so…you’re working at a fertility clinic which provides a daycare for employees. A fire breaks out. You can only save either a container with multiple vials of frozen embryos or one of the toddlers in the daycare.

Which do you pick?

55

Killing good paying jobs in the energy industry? Simply not the case. Rural America has overall not gained much from the decreases in unemployment but the exception has been strong growth in rural energy sector jobs.

That said your prediction may still be correct depending on who runs. The angry White rural base doesn’t particularly want to deal with the actual facts and they might indeed get fired up with someone who beats those drums hard and bluntly. If they turn out to vote in numbers similar to college educated Whites, and college educated Whites don’t change too much in response to the ploy, then getting White vote up there for the GOP (or down there for the Democratic candidate) is possible, facts be damned.

See the thing is that those of us who post here who are White are overwhelmingly not of that angry non-college educated White base and don’t discuss politics with too many of them.

Now the odds are that it would get some establishment Republicans to stay home and provoke a backlash among some who are not excited about Hillary and might of stayed home but now have something to vote against … so maybe (thinking White share only) a wash in the end. But you could be right.

56

So completely unscientific anecdotal polling here … but I’ve been asking a biased sample of educated suburban White have always voted GOP and generally detest Obama voters what they would do in certain cases.

Most are stating that they would stay home if it is Trump, a few that they would cross and vote Clinton. None that they would vote Trump. Cruz gets none to cross to Clinton but still a few who would stay home and a couple who would vote for him, and most would come out to vote for Rubio.

Again unscientific, but it seems to me that firing up the no-college educated angry rural White vote enough to come out in numbers comes with unavoidably losing some of the college educated White group to sitting out or even crossing over.

57

Wait a second. White kids go to college, where we lie in wait with our lefty professors and sex, drugs, rock 'n roll…and some of them get four years of that and become Republicans? Where did we go wrong?!

Does the Central Committee know about this?

58

Had a cabbie today who hates Obama but loves Clinton. White guy. Sigh. There just might be something to this idea that a lot of white folks who wouldn’t support Obama will support Clinton.

59

Possibly, but I wouldn’t rely on a single anecdotal experience to sway your opinion. :slight_smile:

60

Of course not, but I’ve heard it said that you can learn a lot about how things are going by talking to cabbies.