Medical tourism is something that many nations encourage - usually for financial reasons. Americans are a large consumer of medical tourism because they cannot get - or afford - elective procedures in the US. Perhaps reframe as something positive?
Also - if Tuberville so wants the Space Center in Alabama, he must stop his toddler temper-tantrum , his repressive and disgusting campaign to block military promotions. Period. Once he stops the blockade, and ALL the backed up military promotions are dealt with (will take months, if not over a year), then - and ONLY then - will the location of the Space Center be reopened for discussion. Seems reasonable to me.
"The Heritage Foundation is a major organization who sets the conservative agenda. And what they’re arguing for is the expansion of ‘mandatory reporting’ to include abortion. That’s a big fucking deal."
This reminds me of the movie - Minority Report. From Facebook to pharmacies giving up patient information, this all sounds a lot like a police state scenario. and it's very scary.
One of the worst moments in the CRR suit representing the 15 women in Texas: Amanda Zurawski was told by a state attorney she didn’t have standing because the negative impact on her fertility means she wouldn’t get pregnant again because of the horrific damage done to her by these laws. Where’s the mandatory reporting of that assault?
Fun fact: Jonathan Mitchell doesn’t have a ‘law firm’ on Congress in Austin. He’s a virtual client of a shared workspace and his phone number is spoofed.
Given Kavanaugh's comment in Dobbs - that it doesn't interfere with interstate travel - I don't see how the Heritage Foundation can get what it wants, which is to punish women, (and not men). I just don't see this strategy working for Republicans, much like you can't be prosecuted as a Utah inhabitant (Utah outlaws gambling) if you go gamble in Vegas on vacation. Do we live in a country or not?
" 'But if there’s an imminent threat to an unborn person in a pro-life state, this rule would prohibit the provider from disclosing that information to save that life.' "
But I'm sorry -- NJ, for instance, doesn't see a 6-week pregnancy as an "unborn person" so, say, Florida can take a hike if it wants to impose its definitions on NJ and start telling NJ docs that they can't treat FL women. They are going insane with these attempts because I think they see that their bans have holes.
I think their goal is to use the Comstock Act to outlaw shipping necessary supplies. They can effectively make abortion illegal nationwide without restricting human movement. They’re throwing everything at the wall now, but I think this Supreme Court would side with them on Comstock.
I'm not sure it would, but it might make it the decision of the executive branch. So a Republican president could enforce it even if a Democratic president would not.
This SCOTUS won’t expand the powers of the executive branch - they’ve been doing everything they can to limit both the legislative and executive branch,mand expand the powers of the judiciary
I'm not sure I would agree with that interpretation, and I do think that judges often apply different reasoning to cases from how elected politicians might look at it. But to be sure if they have a desired outcome they can make it happen. I'm just not sure whether even Brett Kavanaugh wants to force Comstock on everyone.
This is where I'd like a Q and A with a constitutional lawyer or something (I suggested that to JV in the subscriber survey) to ask well then, what law can we sane people use to counteract that -- what can we use to allow freedom in red states at the local town/city level, and to thwart any effort to use an ancient act (Comstock was nuts) to subjugate us in blue states / nationwide ?
Either way, I’d think states could put laws in place that would stop it. There are states that make laws stating that XYZ law can’t be more/less strict than the state says.
We saw this during the pandemic, where it was often just an executive order issued by the governor stating that no counties/cities/towns could impose stricter mask mandates than the state had in place.
So a state could pass a law saying that that municipalities can’t have stricter/more permissive abortion laws. They would hang that legally on the Dobbs decision, which said that the question of abortion regulations was explicitly an issue for the states.
I’m sure it would end up in court. What I don’t know is whether, by invoking Dobbs, a lawsuit would stay in the individual state, and thus the state’s Supreme Court, or whether it would eventually be referred to the federal courts.
That would pose an interesting question for SCOTUS. If they allowed a forced birth state to override a pro-choice city’s decision to allow abortion, what legal justification would they invent to disallow a pro-choice state imposing legal abortion on its municipalities?
Yeah. But people leaving those states wouldn't want to bother until Texas was already blue because otherwise it's just more of the same. And many are too poor to have the option.
There is some inconsistency on the Republican position on military base in Alabama. On the one hand, they are saying that you can't use federal funds to help people travel to another state to get an abortion, and on the other they want people to move to Alabama. Can't have it both ways. If you cut off federal funds for people travelling out of state for medical care, don't expect people to jump to move to Alabama.
I live in Colorado Springs. The original decision to move Space Command was made by Trump, against the advice of the people in charge. He wouldn’t make the decision until after the election. He said he wanted to see how Colorado voted. When they went for Biden, he decided to move it to Alabama.
Unfortunately, people in the military don’t have a choice about where they’re stationed. It doesn’t matter if they want to move there or not.
It’s not just the funding for travel; Republicans are opposed to people getting the time off for travel, and the time off allowed for recovery. They are allowed up to 21 days paid leave. I think it was DeSantis I saw bitching about that, saying bereavement leave is less time off. Why he’d compare medical recovery to a death in the family, I have no clue.
Yes, but they’re aware that in the majority of cases, military personnel using this benefit wouldn’t see it that way. Outside of medical issues with the pregnancy, those who get abortions are choosing to do so.
Yes, I just meant that Republicans can't ever concede that abortion is a medical procedure (have to keep their theocrats happy), so of course they would compare it to bereavement.
I looked up the Robert Aderholt, who is trying to force the Space Command to AL. It is crazy that he would criticize dems for putting abortion into unrelated legislation, as their side does that all the time. Per wikipedia, he takes money from the Fellowship Foundation (aka The Family). They have paid for trips to at least 18 countries on his behalf so that he can promote "traditional family values." In particular, he traveled to Romania in 2017, probably to learn first-hand some of Ceaușescu's techniques for raising the birth rate.
The stories that lead off today illustrate why what the law says is in all cases always of limited importance. It's the WHO that matters. Words can't enforce themselves; that takes people. And people who are determined to not follow the law will do so unless and until other people make them do otherwise. If we want to call that the failure or the end of the rule of law well then we probably should. That's where we are in America 2023 and pretending otherwise only helps the lawless.
I personally agreed with the TX progressives who wanted to ignore the abortion ban. The state could not possibly muster the police force or the legal structure to handle a tsunami of lawsuits. It would have collapsed, in my opinion.
However, Abysmal Abbott may take a page form DeSatan’s handbook and create a “State Militia,” independent of the National Guard and Federal control, that the state controls to oversee and enforce this requirement. Welcome to Gilead. “Under His Eye” takes on a new meaning. 😡
As that quote from Heritage reveals, their end goal is to have abortion treated as homicide, with everything that goes along with that. Note that goes even further than fetal personhood, which by itself would not be enough. The difference between the "two sides" on abortion is much greater than that on any other issue, by far. The closest comparison I can make is to slavery in the 19th century. One side said Black people were human beings; the other side said they were property. It's completely and totally irreconcilable. That's the reason I have to talk about war, in whatever form that word takes. There's just no other way out.
Somehow I’d like to have it clearly documented and - connect the dots - the women and children who are abused, neglected, and outright murdered and the initial intention of abortion. We are seeing dramatic increases in femicide and domestic abuse (NPR story) in states where abortions have been restrained, as women are more often forced to stay with their abuser for financial reasons.
Anytime I hear of a child beaten or neglected to death, I always wonder if the mother had thought to abort that pregnancy. But of course the GQP only cares about the unborn. Once your an infant or child, they could care less about your health or welfare until you reach military service age. Deplorable.
"Abortion Tourism". What a disgusting, despicable and utterly deceitful term. Like the people having to travel to get an abortion are on some kind of sightseeing excursion.
The correct description would be, as others have noted, "refugees".
I do have concern that what happens with the economy over the next 15 months may matter more than it should. The Republicans, and probably the media, will try to sell themselves as 'normal', which would mean they're a safe option for voters who are dissatisfied. They most certainly are not, on either count.
I think we could drive this home with well known examples from the media.
“This is what an abortion tourist looks like” and show a picture of a 10-year-old girl to represent the one who fled OH because she was raped.
Or show a woman being shown an image of a fetus with no head.
Or show a septic pregnant woman whose fetus is killing her.
Etc.
HOWEVER…
One of the biggest ways liberals help the right cement these terms is by using them this way. In my opinion, we should counter “abortion tourism” with our word or phrase every single time We have to come up with our own powerful term. Medical refugee is a start, but I think “refugees fleeing oppression” is more powerful. Because this is fascist theocratic oppression.
I think medical refugees is better. The reason is the voters we're trying to reach. If we want to flip voters who've been open to Republicans in the past, we should avoid anything that sounds stereotypically left-wing, and a word like oppression would be a big one. You and I may know what's going on, but I'd worry about Democrats using the wrong messaging and having it fall on deaf ears. If they were fully enlightened they'd have already been voting Democrat.
Does the left even focus group terms like this? The right focus groups the shit out of every one of these terms. That’s why the terms stick. They choose the stickiest term for their target market, and they repeat repeat repeat.
I think we should focus group our messaging. We know Democrats suck at this. I don’t know how much focus group work they do, but I suspect that where it’s done matters greatly. A message tested in D.C., or NYC, or L.A. isn’t going to do us much good.
We not only need to do this in middle America, we need to specifically test our messaging with voters who are moderates, independents, and whatever rational republican voters are out there. We already know liberals will vote with us.
We don't need to focus group. We have truth and justice on our side.
Yes, we could do with a lot more humility. It doesn't do any good to be right if no one's listening to you or following your ideas. The electorate is what it is. People are flawed. You have to get 50%+1 to make policy, and you have to get it everywhere - White House, House, and Senate. Senate is the toughest because the median seats are Georgia and North Carolina, well to the right of the national popular vote. That's our target audience whether we like it or not. And as much as I like someone like AOC (she's probably actually well to the left of me, but politics is about more than policy), I don't think she sells with the median voter in those states. Not even close. So we either get a new constitution or do the tough work. And if we want to have a say in state-level policy, we have an even tougher job with the median voter in most of these states. Everywhere isn't California or New York. If we want everywhere to be like that we have to win elections first so we can make policy.
I thought a lot about this comment yesterday and started to reply. Then I went to the premiere of the Barbie movie, and I barely slept thinking up the ways Democrats could use imagery and music from that movie for messaging.
Anyway.
"We don't need to focus group. We have truth and justice on our side." I put quotes around your comment, Zach, but I mean them to represent scores of liberals who say this. I'm not attacking you, and I hope we've corresponded here often enough to make that clear. I use this comment as a springboard to make a greater point, because it's a huge problem on the left.
How did Republicans turn rust belt, blue collar workers into Mega extremists? Democrats used to count on those workers for votes. They reliably voted blue. What happened?
Several things contributed, but Republicans spent millions and a decade or more focusing grouping the hell out of them. They didn't say, "We have it all figured out." They went in there and converted many of those voters from solid blue to flaming red, and they did it in part by focus grouping. Many of the participants felt listened to. They felt seen and heard. Whereas Democrats, with their 'the truth is on our side' and 'we're smart and have all this data to back up our academic positions,' utterly failed them. Democrats didn't listen. They lectured. They took for granted. And they lost voters upon whom they once counted.
Republicans understand that focus groups are a tool to convince persuadable voters that they're listening. If Democrats would do more of it, I believe it would transform the party. Instead of talking at each other, which we often do on so many issues, we'd have facilitated discussions where solid liberal voters could find more consensus. We'd also gain new voters who feel seen and heard for the first time.
It is critical that liberals get over this notion of not needing to listen because we have the truth. It comes across as elitist and arrogant to people outside these circles. As a recovering Republican, I still struggle with this attitude sometimes, because I remember vividly how it made me feel. I don't want to make another persuadable blue voter feel that way.
Yes, the first two sentences of my comment were sarcastic :) I hoped by separating them into their own paragraph and then saying the opposite thing in the rest of my comment that would work. But I might have outsmarted myself, because that belief I expressed sarcastically might be so prominent on the left that one can't tell!
Anyway I absolutely agree with you. Political coalitions do change, and the current ones seem to be based on education (and race), so I'm not sure whether we can still pick up any of those former Democrats. But you always look to do the same two things: turn out new voters, and work on whichever voters are least attached to the other side, whichever group(s) will be least hard to pull away (because they're all hard). And then identifying the median voter in the jurisdiction you're trying to win sort of tells you where your goal is.
The Senate is hardest to win but you need it to be able to govern, so that's the median I look at. And we're not there yet. We'd have to get lucky and hold the Ohio and Montana seats to make up for the ones we lost in Wisconsin and Maine (while holding everything else except West Virginia). It's a very tall order.
Yes! No one undergoes an expensive, painful, and possibly legally prosecutable procedure like abortion for fun and recreation. This framing trivializes and deeply disrespects women.
The "logic" is: Women have abortions for fun. Therefore they are too wicked and flighty to be trusted with decisions about their own bodies. Because of this moral ineptitude, women must be condemned to motherhood, which is at the same time "the greatest job there is" and a curse from god (Genesis 3:16).
But now the more I think about it, it is kind of a catchy term. Maybe we should get some "Abortion Tourist!" merch made up, and start wearing it around. Maybe a hashtag?
This might be too much to do but I'm thinking what if the words say 'ABORTION TOURIST' but the accompanying visual is something which is obvious to people is a representation of a refugee? The problem is finding the right image.
Agree. I think maybe text only would be the way to go. I could also see some tacky palm trees and a sunset - something generically touristy. Maybe not a practical idea at all. Really just needed something to lift my mood a bit.
This might cheer you up a tiny bit. It has nothing to do with abortion, it’s about Focus on Your Own Damned Family.
I moved to Colorado Springs in 2005, and I needed a handy person to do a few things around the house. A friend of mine knew someone out here, and gave me his contact info. He arrived, looking very much the “counter-culture” person he was. He saw some of the stuff in my house, and decided it was safe to tell me he is pagan.
Turned out, he’d worked on the FotF center when it was built, with a whole crew of pagan folks. They painted a nine foot diameter pentacle on the subfloor underneath James Dobson’s desk, and laid the flooring over it. 🙂
Medical tourism is something that many nations encourage - usually for financial reasons. Americans are a large consumer of medical tourism because they cannot get - or afford - elective procedures in the US. Perhaps reframe as something positive?
Also - if Tuberville so wants the Space Center in Alabama, he must stop his toddler temper-tantrum , his repressive and disgusting campaign to block military promotions. Period. Once he stops the blockade, and ALL the backed up military promotions are dealt with (will take months, if not over a year), then - and ONLY then - will the location of the Space Center be reopened for discussion. Seems reasonable to me.
"The Heritage Foundation is a major organization who sets the conservative agenda. And what they’re arguing for is the expansion of ‘mandatory reporting’ to include abortion. That’s a big fucking deal."
This reminds me of the movie - Minority Report. From Facebook to pharmacies giving up patient information, this all sounds a lot like a police state scenario. and it's very scary.
Yeah, that's what the theocrats want.
One of the worst moments in the CRR suit representing the 15 women in Texas: Amanda Zurawski was told by a state attorney she didn’t have standing because the negative impact on her fertility means she wouldn’t get pregnant again because of the horrific damage done to her by these laws. Where’s the mandatory reporting of that assault?
OMG Just stunning! They have no shame. None!
Fun fact: Jonathan Mitchell doesn’t have a ‘law firm’ on Congress in Austin. He’s a virtual client of a shared workspace and his phone number is spoofed.
Given Kavanaugh's comment in Dobbs - that it doesn't interfere with interstate travel - I don't see how the Heritage Foundation can get what it wants, which is to punish women, (and not men). I just don't see this strategy working for Republicans, much like you can't be prosecuted as a Utah inhabitant (Utah outlaws gambling) if you go gamble in Vegas on vacation. Do we live in a country or not?
" 'But if there’s an imminent threat to an unborn person in a pro-life state, this rule would prohibit the provider from disclosing that information to save that life.' "
But I'm sorry -- NJ, for instance, doesn't see a 6-week pregnancy as an "unborn person" so, say, Florida can take a hike if it wants to impose its definitions on NJ and start telling NJ docs that they can't treat FL women. They are going insane with these attempts because I think they see that their bans have holes.
I think their goal is to use the Comstock Act to outlaw shipping necessary supplies. They can effectively make abortion illegal nationwide without restricting human movement. They’re throwing everything at the wall now, but I think this Supreme Court would side with them on Comstock.
I'm not sure it would, but it might make it the decision of the executive branch. So a Republican president could enforce it even if a Democratic president would not.
This SCOTUS won’t expand the powers of the executive branch - they’ve been doing everything they can to limit both the legislative and executive branch,mand expand the powers of the judiciary
I'm not sure I would agree with that interpretation, and I do think that judges often apply different reasoning to cases from how elected politicians might look at it. But to be sure if they have a desired outcome they can make it happen. I'm just not sure whether even Brett Kavanaugh wants to force Comstock on everyone.
Zach,
I’m a cynical old broad. I don’t put anything past these people.
Yes, we have to be prepared for all possible outcomes.
This is where I'd like a Q and A with a constitutional lawyer or something (I suggested that to JV in the subscriber survey) to ask well then, what law can we sane people use to counteract that -- what can we use to allow freedom in red states at the local town/city level, and to thwart any effort to use an ancient act (Comstock was nuts) to subjugate us in blue states / nationwide ?
The answer isn't so much what the law is as what would persuade Brett Kavanaugh (almost certain to be the median and thus deciding vote in any case).
I’d love to hear from an expert, too. Great suggestion.
The idea of doctors having to be mandated reporters of abortion truly sent shivers down my spine.
And doctors are also the ones who are blamed for “not understanding exceptions.” Who the fuck would want to be a doctor in these places?!
omfg - abortion tourism? Sick sick sick. there needs to be an all out media push to call these people forced-birthers - they’re not “pro-life”
Also, if West Wendover can make abortion illegal in a state where it is legal, couldn't cities in red states make it legal?
Either way, I’d think states could put laws in place that would stop it. There are states that make laws stating that XYZ law can’t be more/less strict than the state says.
We saw this during the pandemic, where it was often just an executive order issued by the governor stating that no counties/cities/towns could impose stricter mask mandates than the state had in place.
So a state could pass a law saying that that municipalities can’t have stricter/more permissive abortion laws. They would hang that legally on the Dobbs decision, which said that the question of abortion regulations was explicitly an issue for the states.
I’m sure it would end up in court. What I don’t know is whether, by invoking Dobbs, a lawsuit would stay in the individual state, and thus the state’s Supreme Court, or whether it would eventually be referred to the federal courts.
That would pose an interesting question for SCOTUS. If they allowed a forced birth state to override a pro-choice city’s decision to allow abortion, what legal justification would they invent to disallow a pro-choice state imposing legal abortion on its municipalities?
Yes, what about that?
If enough democrats moved out of Florida/Mississippi/Louisiana and went to Texas, we could likely turn the state blue.
Yeah. But people leaving those states wouldn't want to bother until Texas was already blue because otherwise it's just more of the same. And many are too poor to have the option.
There is some inconsistency on the Republican position on military base in Alabama. On the one hand, they are saying that you can't use federal funds to help people travel to another state to get an abortion, and on the other they want people to move to Alabama. Can't have it both ways. If you cut off federal funds for people travelling out of state for medical care, don't expect people to jump to move to Alabama.
I live in Colorado Springs. The original decision to move Space Command was made by Trump, against the advice of the people in charge. He wouldn’t make the decision until after the election. He said he wanted to see how Colorado voted. When they went for Biden, he decided to move it to Alabama.
Unfortunately, people in the military don’t have a choice about where they’re stationed. It doesn’t matter if they want to move there or not.
It’s not just the funding for travel; Republicans are opposed to people getting the time off for travel, and the time off allowed for recovery. They are allowed up to 21 days paid leave. I think it was DeSantis I saw bitching about that, saying bereavement leave is less time off. Why he’d compare medical recovery to a death in the family, I have no clue.
To them it's not a medical procedure, it's a "death in the family".
Yes, but they’re aware that in the majority of cases, military personnel using this benefit wouldn’t see it that way. Outside of medical issues with the pregnancy, those who get abortions are choosing to do so.
Yes, I just meant that Republicans can't ever concede that abortion is a medical procedure (have to keep their theocrats happy), so of course they would compare it to bereavement.
“Why he’d compare medical recovery to a death in the family, I have no clue.” Because he is an asshole with no empathy.
I looked up the Robert Aderholt, who is trying to force the Space Command to AL. It is crazy that he would criticize dems for putting abortion into unrelated legislation, as their side does that all the time. Per wikipedia, he takes money from the Fellowship Foundation (aka The Family). They have paid for trips to at least 18 countries on his behalf so that he can promote "traditional family values." In particular, he traveled to Romania in 2017, probably to learn first-hand some of Ceaușescu's techniques for raising the birth rate.
The stories that lead off today illustrate why what the law says is in all cases always of limited importance. It's the WHO that matters. Words can't enforce themselves; that takes people. And people who are determined to not follow the law will do so unless and until other people make them do otherwise. If we want to call that the failure or the end of the rule of law well then we probably should. That's where we are in America 2023 and pretending otherwise only helps the lawless.
I personally agreed with the TX progressives who wanted to ignore the abortion ban. The state could not possibly muster the police force or the legal structure to handle a tsunami of lawsuits. It would have collapsed, in my opinion.
However, Abysmal Abbott may take a page form DeSatan’s handbook and create a “State Militia,” independent of the National Guard and Federal control, that the state controls to oversee and enforce this requirement. Welcome to Gilead. “Under His Eye” takes on a new meaning. 😡
He might today, but a year ago? It would've been chaos.
As that quote from Heritage reveals, their end goal is to have abortion treated as homicide, with everything that goes along with that. Note that goes even further than fetal personhood, which by itself would not be enough. The difference between the "two sides" on abortion is much greater than that on any other issue, by far. The closest comparison I can make is to slavery in the 19th century. One side said Black people were human beings; the other side said they were property. It's completely and totally irreconcilable. That's the reason I have to talk about war, in whatever form that word takes. There's just no other way out.
Somehow I’d like to have it clearly documented and - connect the dots - the women and children who are abused, neglected, and outright murdered and the initial intention of abortion. We are seeing dramatic increases in femicide and domestic abuse (NPR story) in states where abortions have been restrained, as women are more often forced to stay with their abuser for financial reasons.
Anytime I hear of a child beaten or neglected to death, I always wonder if the mother had thought to abort that pregnancy. But of course the GQP only cares about the unborn. Once your an infant or child, they could care less about your health or welfare until you reach military service age. Deplorable.
"Abortion Tourism". What a disgusting, despicable and utterly deceitful term. Like the people having to travel to get an abortion are on some kind of sightseeing excursion.
The correct description would be, as others have noted, "refugees".
Everything rides on 2024. I hope we get it left. (Because I don’t want to say ‘right’ in relation to an election.)
I do have concern that what happens with the economy over the next 15 months may matter more than it should. The Republicans, and probably the media, will try to sell themselves as 'normal', which would mean they're a safe option for voters who are dissatisfied. They most certainly are not, on either count.
And that’s exactly why messaging is so important
That Focus on the Family webpage on "abortion tourism" made me want to 🤮
I think we could drive this home with well known examples from the media.
“This is what an abortion tourist looks like” and show a picture of a 10-year-old girl to represent the one who fled OH because she was raped.
Or show a woman being shown an image of a fetus with no head.
Or show a septic pregnant woman whose fetus is killing her.
Etc.
HOWEVER…
One of the biggest ways liberals help the right cement these terms is by using them this way. In my opinion, we should counter “abortion tourism” with our word or phrase every single time We have to come up with our own powerful term. Medical refugee is a start, but I think “refugees fleeing oppression” is more powerful. Because this is fascist theocratic oppression.
I think medical refugees is better. The reason is the voters we're trying to reach. If we want to flip voters who've been open to Republicans in the past, we should avoid anything that sounds stereotypically left-wing, and a word like oppression would be a big one. You and I may know what's going on, but I'd worry about Democrats using the wrong messaging and having it fall on deaf ears. If they were fully enlightened they'd have already been voting Democrat.
Does the left even focus group terms like this? The right focus groups the shit out of every one of these terms. That’s why the terms stick. They choose the stickiest term for their target market, and they repeat repeat repeat.
I think we should focus group our messaging. We know Democrats suck at this. I don’t know how much focus group work they do, but I suspect that where it’s done matters greatly. A message tested in D.C., or NYC, or L.A. isn’t going to do us much good.
We not only need to do this in middle America, we need to specifically test our messaging with voters who are moderates, independents, and whatever rational republican voters are out there. We already know liberals will vote with us.
We don't need to focus group. We have truth and justice on our side.
Yes, we could do with a lot more humility. It doesn't do any good to be right if no one's listening to you or following your ideas. The electorate is what it is. People are flawed. You have to get 50%+1 to make policy, and you have to get it everywhere - White House, House, and Senate. Senate is the toughest because the median seats are Georgia and North Carolina, well to the right of the national popular vote. That's our target audience whether we like it or not. And as much as I like someone like AOC (she's probably actually well to the left of me, but politics is about more than policy), I don't think she sells with the median voter in those states. Not even close. So we either get a new constitution or do the tough work. And if we want to have a say in state-level policy, we have an even tougher job with the median voter in most of these states. Everywhere isn't California or New York. If we want everywhere to be like that we have to win elections first so we can make policy.
I thought a lot about this comment yesterday and started to reply. Then I went to the premiere of the Barbie movie, and I barely slept thinking up the ways Democrats could use imagery and music from that movie for messaging.
Anyway.
"We don't need to focus group. We have truth and justice on our side." I put quotes around your comment, Zach, but I mean them to represent scores of liberals who say this. I'm not attacking you, and I hope we've corresponded here often enough to make that clear. I use this comment as a springboard to make a greater point, because it's a huge problem on the left.
How did Republicans turn rust belt, blue collar workers into Mega extremists? Democrats used to count on those workers for votes. They reliably voted blue. What happened?
Several things contributed, but Republicans spent millions and a decade or more focusing grouping the hell out of them. They didn't say, "We have it all figured out." They went in there and converted many of those voters from solid blue to flaming red, and they did it in part by focus grouping. Many of the participants felt listened to. They felt seen and heard. Whereas Democrats, with their 'the truth is on our side' and 'we're smart and have all this data to back up our academic positions,' utterly failed them. Democrats didn't listen. They lectured. They took for granted. And they lost voters upon whom they once counted.
Republicans understand that focus groups are a tool to convince persuadable voters that they're listening. If Democrats would do more of it, I believe it would transform the party. Instead of talking at each other, which we often do on so many issues, we'd have facilitated discussions where solid liberal voters could find more consensus. We'd also gain new voters who feel seen and heard for the first time.
It is critical that liberals get over this notion of not needing to listen because we have the truth. It comes across as elitist and arrogant to people outside these circles. As a recovering Republican, I still struggle with this attitude sometimes, because I remember vividly how it made me feel. I don't want to make another persuadable blue voter feel that way.
Yes, the first two sentences of my comment were sarcastic :) I hoped by separating them into their own paragraph and then saying the opposite thing in the rest of my comment that would work. But I might have outsmarted myself, because that belief I expressed sarcastically might be so prominent on the left that one can't tell!
Anyway I absolutely agree with you. Political coalitions do change, and the current ones seem to be based on education (and race), so I'm not sure whether we can still pick up any of those former Democrats. But you always look to do the same two things: turn out new voters, and work on whichever voters are least attached to the other side, whichever group(s) will be least hard to pull away (because they're all hard). And then identifying the median voter in the jurisdiction you're trying to win sort of tells you where your goal is.
The Senate is hardest to win but you need it to be able to govern, so that's the median I look at. And we're not there yet. We'd have to get lucky and hold the Ohio and Montana seats to make up for the ones we lost in Wisconsin and Maine (while holding everything else except West Virginia). It's a very tall order.
Yes! No one undergoes an expensive, painful, and possibly legally prosecutable procedure like abortion for fun and recreation. This framing trivializes and deeply disrespects women.
The "logic" is: Women have abortions for fun. Therefore they are too wicked and flighty to be trusted with decisions about their own bodies. Because of this moral ineptitude, women must be condemned to motherhood, which is at the same time "the greatest job there is" and a curse from god (Genesis 3:16).
But now the more I think about it, it is kind of a catchy term. Maybe we should get some "Abortion Tourist!" merch made up, and start wearing it around. Maybe a hashtag?
“This framing trivializes and deeply disrespects women.” -YES!! 👏👏👏
This might be too much to do but I'm thinking what if the words say 'ABORTION TOURIST' but the accompanying visual is something which is obvious to people is a representation of a refugee? The problem is finding the right image.
I'd wear it. Might even design it myself.
Agree. I think maybe text only would be the way to go. I could also see some tacky palm trees and a sunset - something generically touristy. Maybe not a practical idea at all. Really just needed something to lift my mood a bit.
Well I very much like the idea of owning the term. Just wouldn't want anyone to think it was an anti-abortion statement :)
Yep, and people can be very literal.
Everything about FotF makes me ill. And we need to call these women what they are: refugees fleeing oppressive regimes.
Andra
This might cheer you up a tiny bit. It has nothing to do with abortion, it’s about Focus on Your Own Damned Family.
I moved to Colorado Springs in 2005, and I needed a handy person to do a few things around the house. A friend of mine knew someone out here, and gave me his contact info. He arrived, looking very much the “counter-culture” person he was. He saw some of the stuff in my house, and decided it was safe to tell me he is pagan.
Turned out, he’d worked on the FotF center when it was built, with a whole crew of pagan folks. They painted a nine foot diameter pentacle on the subfloor underneath James Dobson’s desk, and laid the flooring over it. 🙂
😂😂😂 Thank you. This made me LOL first thing in the morning, and I’m not a morning person.
I’m so glad! These days we need every laugh we can get.
Hence why I put it in quotes. Yes they are refugees. Can't believe we are here.