All three positions have been within a relatively small margin with any of them changing positions only a couple of times, and only very briefly. In 40 years!
I guess that if it’s not a flat line since 1975 then that constitutes massive changes? Gallup disagrees. So I’ll just say that you suck at reading charts and leave it at that.
In general, sure. I don’t think many expect the GOP to suddenly become pro-choice (although allowing a few pro-choice members might help the parties image in the NE, for example). And they have plenty of restriction law positions that have support (parental notification, for example).
But in the context of this election the particular position that caused so much trouble was the one on abortion in cases of rape and incest. And on this position the GOP needs to moderate (like Romney tried to do by disavowing his party platform and VP’s position on the issue).
No, but forcing raped women to bear their rapists’ babies is just never gonna fly, dude. It’s fricking medieval.
I can’t agree with this, because everybody agrees there should be severe criminal penalties for rape. But someone with a moral/religious belief that abortion is murder might well consider abortion after rape to be a misdirected revenge killing. Just because we prohibit revenge killings doesn’t mean we are OK with the murder that happened in the first place.
Yeah, somehow I knew when I first responded to you it wouldn’t matter because you’d fall back on your “impression” being what we were debating here.
I dunno, I don’t see a huge amount of “trending” in how public opinion has responded to the question about abortion being legal in some, all, or no circumstances. Considering it is almost exactly the same as it was in 2002. But again, we’re not arguing facts here…we’re arguing your “impression” which by definition, is never wrong.
:rolleyes:
Do really think that “trended higher” means “massive change”? Or is this just the best you could come up with under the circumstances?
I tend to think the latter, but you never know …
Or, as you suggested earlier, “to come up with a palatable rhetorical device that obscures their opposition to abortion of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest (and the Mourdock answer is decidedly not the right device).”
They fell victim to a gotcha tactic. They need to ensure that they have a good response. (Until they do, expect this to be a regular ploy.)
[ISTM that Mourdock’s response is theologically unavoidable, for a religious person. What religious person would deny that God decides whether a given sex act results in a pregnancy? But it comes off very very bad, no doubt about that.]
To make an analogy to another issue which seems to also be a wedge issue: Let’s look at Guns.
The Democratic response the past four years has to not do much with gun control. Obama specifically has been seen to actually get bad grades from the Brady folks and his record includes expanding gun access - you can take them into National Parks and Amtrak now.
Even in the face of some mass shootings - including an attack that took out a sitting US Representative… even when the Right tried to create conspiracy theories that Fast & Furious was an attempt to gain public support for gun control when Mexican drug dealers went all trigger happy… Hell, the NRA even used scare tactics that literally said “Obama will be taking your guns in his second term and our evidence is that he *didn’t *take your guns in his first term!”
So Obama (and other Democrats) have done a good job of simply avoiding this wedge issue. While this has pissed off some anti-Gun Progressives, it also gave the contingency that “clings to their guns and religion” one less reason to vote against their economic self-interests.
If only Republicans could be the same way… But no. They got into power and suddenly started passing legislation left and right. And they are shocked that people actually remember this?!?
I think I got it.
You knew I would fall back on my “impression” as what’s being debated here, and even when I actually did nothing of the sort, you just decided to pretend that I had.
Whatever floats your boat.
Or you could click on the damn link and see that your impression is wrong.
Or you could just read my damn post (#40) in which I discussed the very Gallup numbers in your damn link.
But I can see where you’re coming from. You “somehow knew” in advance that I would fall back on my “impression” being what we were discussing. So there’s no point in reading the actual posts.
Look, ladyfoxfyre. He obviously knows more about the poll Gallup has been doing for four decades than Gallup does themselves. Just let him keep his “impressions.”
The problem is that the GOP can’t do that. Not “doesn’t want to” – can’t. By threatening to cut off Todd Akin if he refused to step aside, and then caving and funneling money to him anyway, the party leadership left itself with zero, zip, nil, and nada in the way of leverage over the whack-a-doodle Talibornagains. As a result, the worst of the whack-a-doodles become the de facto voice of the party.
You’re cherrypicking one high point in the data and comparing the current numbers to that one high point, justifying your “impression” that the numbers are “trending upward”. If you look at, say, the past 10 years of data, even the past 12 years of data, the trend stops. Yes, the numbers are more in favor of abortion restrictions now than in 1993. But that’s just 1993 compared to 2012, not 2012 compared to all the years prior.
Just looking at the numbers in May for the past 12 years, these are the numbers on “Abortion should be legal under any circumstance”
25
27
24
22
28
26
30
23
24
23
25
26
28
Legal under certain circumstances:
52
50
54
53
54
55
53
53
56
57
51
58
51
And finally illegal under any circumstance:
20
22
19
23
17
18
15
22
19
19
22
15
19
I even created a handy graph for you to show that the trend has been to remain consistently the same.
I observed all this in my earlier post, and I’m not sure what you think you’re adding with all your numbers and handy graphs.
To reiterate, I agree that whether or not the numbers are trending upwards in recent years is ambiguous and depends on what is meant by “recent years”, i.e. what the starting point is.
To reiterate my other point, I would note that for purposes of this thread it’s not especially significant whether the numbers are actually going up or not. Even if they’re holding steady, it undercuts the premise of this OP which is that the results of this particular election should cause the Republicans to change their stance on abortion.
I think “the last 12 years” is a lot more reasonable of a definition of trend or recent years than “today compared to 1993”. YMMV. But I think my point being your impression of the popularity of abortion restrictions is unfounded.
The only way to undercut the premise that the Republicans should change their stance on abortion (which is “no, no way, no how, no exceptions”) is to show that there is widespread public support for that position. Cite?
If you were talking about marketing, no doubt. In political terms, regarding a major and fundamental issue of this sort and whether a political party should make a major change to their political platform, you frequently look at longer periods.
In any event, there are no comparable periods which you can cherry pick in order to conclude that support for abortion restrictions is declining. So it’s either trending higher or at best remaining constant. Which is what’s relevant, in the context of this discussion.
There is no uniform Republican position on abortion, as is the case on other issues, and as is the case for the Democratic party on this and other issues.
As a general rule, the Republican Party is, in aggregate, to the right of the public at large, in aggregate. The Democratic Party is similarly to the left. Generally, neither party is in complete alignment with the public on issues. Parties are prevented from getting too far out of line by the electorate. But this varies in individual situations, and “too far out of line” in Alabama is very different than “too far out of line” in Massachussetts.
I guess you haven’t checked the Republican party platform:
Now, not every Republican needs to adhere to the platform in every way. But if it wasn’t in the platform, it would certainly allow for more room to move and not be labeled a RINO. To be sure, it’s not hard to find pro-life Democrats on the national political stage, but finding a pro-choice Republican is exceedingly difficult.
Regardless, their own platform takes the most extreme position - one without exception for rape or incest - a position that is far to the right of the average American.
And the Democrats didn’t make them do this, you know.
I don’t pay attention to party platforms and very few other people do either. They tend to get dominated by hard core activists.
You’ve cited the Republican Party platform, but the Democrats also have a party platform, and you need to see if that conforms to your reasoning when it comes to Republicans’. (I don’t know, but I would assume it’s largely the same process in inverse.)
I’m not sure about “pro-life Democrats on the national political stage”. I remember when Harry Reid was elected as Majority Leader and people made a big deal about how he was pro-life, but I’ve not seen him use any of his influence as majority leader to promote any pro-life views. To the contrary, hearings on judicial confirmations under his leadership seem to invoke the same Roe vs. Wade litmus test as before he was elected. So I suspect that whatever his personal views are, he is constrained by Democratic Party orthodoxy on an issue of this importance. I also remember PA Governor Casey being snubbed at the Democratic convention because he was too aggresively pro-life.
(NJ Republican Governor Christy Whitman was liberal enough on abortion that she vetoed a ban on partial birth abortion passed by the legislature, and she was later appointed to a cabinet post. Although that goes a while back, and perhaps you’re saying that this has changed lately.)
So I think your contrast - highly subjective at best - is probably invalid.
Well, Whitman did kind of write a book about how the right was pushing her out of the Republican party.
