Why Abortion Won't Win Elections for Democrats

There has been a recent uprising in abortion diaries lately, as there seems to be about once every month or so.  I don't usually write diaries about the hot topic of the hour, but then, I don't usually write diaries.  Anyway, I'm going to put in my two cents, though the opinion is probably worth less than two cents.

Emphasizing abortion will not win elections for Democrats (in general.)  I am not suggesting that Democrats should change there stance.  I am not suggesting that Democrats should stop fighting against the pro-life agenda.  They should simply not make it a campaign issue.  And here's why.

Roe v. Wade is status quo (federally)

People get excited about a politician when that politician wants to make a change.  They don't get excited about a candidate that wants to keep things status quo.  There are occasional backlashes against the issue of the moment, like gay marriage, but abortion as an issue has outlived most issues of the moment.  Abortions are legal on the federal level.  They've been that way since the 1970s.  It's status quo.

A politician who says that he or she is fighting for abortion won't really excite new voters.  It will help with the base, sure, but so long as the candidate is pro-choice, the base will not be turned off.  Emphasizing abortion will not excite swing voters and new voters.  In fact, emphasizing it will possibly excite the opponent's base.  Are you not going to vote for a pro-choice candidate, because that candidate did not talk about abortion rights extensively in his or her campaign?

The candidate will be better off talking about solutions that he or she has for some other problems, which are myriad.  Excite people with change.  (Again, note that I am not suggesting that the candidate not have pro-choice on his or her platform.  I am simply suggesting that basing a campaign on it is wasteful if not counterproductive.)

Pro-life Democrats and independents exist

And they'll vote for a pro-choice Democratic candidate, because, guess what!  Not everyone bases their vote on one issue.  In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that a lot of people base their voting decisions on a range of issues and positions.

A candidate loses these people's votes by insulting them.  I suggest that a pro-choice candidate not refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choice."  It doesn't get the candidate any new votes, and it will get him or her fewer votes.  Saying that pro-lifers are intrinsically out to "hurt" or "control" women is both counter to the goal of getting elected and generally dishonest.  Most pro-lifers, as misguided as they are, do not generally want to hurt or control women.  (Some do, of course, but Democrats won't be winning their votes anyway.)  They have deeply held moral beliefs about what constitutes human life.  Insulting that belief will not win their affection and votes.  Reasoning with them and telling them civilly why they're wrong is fine, of course.  I draw the line at insults.

What to Talk About Instead

Remember whose votes a candidate is trying to attain.  I believe that Democratic candidates need to emphasize the bread and butter economic issues.  They need to talk about helping out the little guy, that same little guy who abandoned the Democratic Party when it started becoming too pro-corporate without the conservative "family values" that the little guy had.  

A Democratic candidate should talk about health care.  It hasn't worked for us yet, because every time Democrats talk about health care, they have a solution that is too complicated for the average person to begin to understand.  Democrats should frame it and probably change their policy proposals to be more direct.

Democrats should talk about the environment and corporate greed.  Emphasizing the income gap and why we need a higher minimum wage would be very helpful.  Talking about lowering the cost of higher education is good.

The list of possible changes that appeal to the majority of the American people will win more votes than talking about something that is already in place.

But then, I may be wrong.

•  Guess what?

  We're NOT the ones making it a campaign issue.

  It's been a campaign issue ever since Roe v. Wade.

  And it will probably remain one. Neither side is moving -- and they both have excellent reasons (to THEIR thinking, anyway) for not moving.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

  •  I would like to see

    the day when we can re-direct this constant harping on abortion during election times back to all of the issues that concern Americans.  You are right Maryscott, we are not the ones puting this out as our main issue or as our "one" issue.  It is the opposition, read that Karl Rove, and the RWC media that insist on making this the only issue to talk about.

    Sombody has to be strong enough to say, "you know our position on rights for All Americans to have privacy in their lives, now let's talk about something that is really hurting us right now:  Low Minimum Wage, lack of jobs, Medicare, Iraq war, etc. . ."

    by shirlstars on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:49:21 PM PDT

•  I've been scathed by pro-choicers

  Which is amazing because I too am pro-choice.  I just don't put it up on a pedestal above all else and for some reason I get attacked every time I even think of criticizing them.

  Pro-choice might be the wrong term.  It's about the rights of an individual, whether it be a man or woman.  Choosing whether to abort is a wrighty matter, "choice" to too many people makes it seem like picking between mandarine oranges and florida oranges at the grocery store.

  We stand up for the individual - their rights to privacy, right to health care and right to opportunity versus the right of the government to regulate our lives and the rights of corporations to trample on our lives.

  by PaulVA on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:29:13 PM PDT

  •  you are right

    that term "pro-choice" is highly outdated...the same as being "pro-life" is just incredibly stupid. I think our term should be "pro-privacy" or something along those lines. It takes away the point that choice may mean to someone that this is something one can choose in the same way they choose to buy apples or bananas. (of course as a proi-choicer that sounds ridiculous, but this is about framing it the right way) If we say pro-privacy, it says this is a provate decision, and reinforces what Roe's argument was, that abortion is legal because of the right to privacy. It simply tells voters that abortion is not a lightweight decision, and it is a private manner. Pro-lifers would become anti-privacy by default, and nobody likes to be known as prying into people's private lives and decisions. Of course I think we should start calling them the "pro-criminalization" party aswell, insted of pro-life.

    by michael1104 on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:47:04 PM PDT

  •  me too

    Even diaried about it as well.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/24/16159/4561

    And I'm tired of this topic.  I have more important things to deal with like the rats that have eaten through my foundation and got into the garage!!!  So, I think I'll go off line now and deal with the rat instead.

    by Bendygirl on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:02:38 PM PDT

•  Abortion doesn't win elections for Dems,

  but it does lose them.  See 2004.

  by eastsidedemocrat on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:30:58 PM PDT

  •  I call bull on that one

    Right after the 2004 election, Pew Research did a poll and found that close to 70% of the American Public thought that overturning Roe v. Wade was a 'bad idea'.  

    In the media, it's often called 'not the numbers, but the passion' of the voices.  The anti-abortion crowd has an incredibly high-pitched voice because of their unity...see Dobson, Falwell, et al.  

    In fact, if abortion was such a loser for us why was Kerry's MOST forceful political plank about maintaining Roe v. Wade.  In fact, think 'LITMUS TEST'.  Was there a single other issue that Kerry was more resolute on?  

    I don't think so.

    Virtually ALL pro-lifers on this board think that abortion is a loser for us, when in fact it is not.  If the pro-lifers could distance themselves from their positions and view things from a more objective basis, they would realize that abortion is certainly NOT a loser for us.  

    WE STAND IN THE MAJORITY ON ABORTION.  IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

    Yes, the anti-abortion people have more fervor and give more $$$ on a per capita basis, but the 'silent majority' is overwhelmingly on the side of pro-choice.

    The original poster is correct.  Most people in this country view abortion on a very, very lukewarm basis: they don't like it and hope they don't have to have one, but realize that it's going to happen and it's a private matter.

    We have some vehemently pro-choice people on this board and, although I am not one of them (I would label myself a 'common sense' pro-choicer as in what would be gained by criminalizing abortion => virtually nothing but maimed women) I recognize the need to maintain our pro-choice stance for two reasons:

    1.  It is a political winner for us.  Just properly frame it like the poster said.  "safe, legal and rare" is such a perfect phrase.  Safe for the pro-choice crowd.  Legal for the 'common sense' pro-choicers like me and 'rare' for the lukewarm people/religiously inclined.  The rabid right - who make the most noise on cable - are clearly not satisfied with this but who the hell cares about them within the Democratic Party?  

    2.  WE CANNOT ABANDON CORE PRINCIPLES.  The Democratic Party has suffered from both an image (read: 'flip flopper') and real basis (see: DLCC) in terms of trying to move to the center.  Stick to our guns on our core principles and we'll be fine on abortion.

    by yankeeinmemphis on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:04:23 PM PDT

    •  Majorities don't win elections

      Voter priorities do.  It just so happens that white, working class people -- those for whom Democrats create their entire economic policy platform around -- are more motivated by the abortion issue than they are by their own pocketbooks, and they are pro-life.  Pro-choice people, who tend to be higher educated and wealthier, are more motivated by economic success, so they'll hold their nose and vote Republican, even if it's pro-life.  This was Reagan's secret to success in his presidential years.

      Anyone, pro-life or pro-choice, who has run for office where these folks live, know this first hand from knocking on people's doors.  Why do working income folks vote Republican? It's abortion, stupid.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Wed May 25, 2005 at 08:01:15 AM PDT

  •  Also calling bull

    That "values voter" theory has been thoroughly debunked by even the mainstream media, but on our end, by Chris Bowers, Ruy Texiera, Armando, Atrios (see their December/January archives)...and the exit polls. In the November 2004 elections, 55% of voters said they supported abortion rights in all or most cases. That, plus everything Paul said, too.

    by jamfan on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:13:53 PM PDT

    •  Oops, I mean yankeeinmemphis

      Not Paul.

      by jamfan on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:14:18 PM PDT

  •  I also disagree

    I wrote this stupid diary, and I don't think that abortion lost John Kerry in his presidential bid.  I think that basically, John Kerry was a crappy candidate who turned off voters.  Kerry didn't even emphasize his pro-choice stance in 2004.

    No, abortion has probably lost other Democratic campaigns.  2004 wasn't the year that abortion in particular cost Democratic support.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:17:04 PM PDT

    •  Kerry did not emphasize his pro-choice stance

      but the Republicans did.  It was the major issue that cost a Catholic nominee a major segment of the Catholic vote.  Fewer Catholics voted for him than for other pro-choice Democrats.  That means abortion, which was a huge issue in Catholic Ohio, cost us the election.  Election tampering and voter supression has been an ugly part of American politics since the beginning.  Abortion has not.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Wed May 25, 2005 at 07:54:49 AM PDT

  •  Abortion doesn't win elections for Dems. . .

    No, Diebold wins them for Republicans.

    by shirlstars on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:55:00 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the abortion diary.

  I have felt the need to comment on abortion, but I have been unable to find an outlet for my comment and I didn't want to write my own diary on the subject.  So I am very -- no, extremely -- grateful to you for giving me this rare opportunity to comment on a subject which needs further discussion both here at daily kos, within the Democratic Party, and even on a regional and national basis  among thinking (and non-thinking) people of every political stripe and religious persuasion.

  With that said, I...

  I...

  I...

  Shit!  I forgot what I was going to say!

  Damn it....

  by Bob Johnson on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:36:12 PM PDT

  •  I think they're a riot

    See.  They are so funny I'm crying.

    In fact, the whole damn jujuflop situation is so infuriating, I actually got off my ass and just wrote a diary about it.

    by Palladiate on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:40:47 PM PDT

  •  You're irony is so appreciated

    Look, what I had to say was bigger than a comment.  It is my opinion, and I wanted to share it on a site that people share their opinions on.  I didn't see anyone posting on this specific aspect of this issue.  I saw all sorts of other postings about abortion.  If you were tired of diaries about abortion, then note that the word "abortion" was in the title of this diary so that you could have dismissed it.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:09:59 PM PDT

    •  Please don't take it personally.

      I'm a snarky asshole.

      My comment wasn't directed at you, personally.  I was kidding about the plethora of abortion diaries, in general.

      It's a fine diary.

      by Bob Johnson on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:26:54 PM PDT

      •  Now see,

        I was hoping that I could get to hating you without remorse, and now you've gone and screwed that up.  I like an asshole who knows he's an asshole.

        Nah, I was hoping that the first few lines of my diary would be sufficient defense against the "not another abortion diary" comment.

        by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:33:20 PM PDT

        •  Look Bob and nonoboy

          I understand that they aren't always attempting to take your bodily rights away right now.  Just mine, and we women are evil when we feel scorned!  If they manage to take my bodily rights away though they'll come for yours next.  As to how often this gets debated, how many women progressives are there and how often do women feel the need to discuss discourse and debate what bothers the hell out of them.  Embrace your women!  Love them as they love you!

          by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:41:06 PM PDT

•  It is possible to be more wrong,

  but you would have to work at it.

  Why?  Several reasons.

  First, as noted by others, it's not our issue, it's their issue.  Therefore, we must respond or be consumed.

  Second, when framed competently it's a big winner, not a loser.  Why do I say this?  Easy.  Combine abortion with privacy and birth control, and suddenly lots of women in Kansas, once in the privacy of the voting booth, decide maybe they don't want more kids.  The combination of abortion with the INSANITY about pharmacists' "choice" is an opportunity for us that should not be ignored.

  I wrote the following months ago in an abortion diary, and that was before the whole pharmacy mess ignited:

  Judicial Appointment Hearings- Right now, because Bush has renominated a bunch of his crazy judges, we have some wonderful opportunities.  Those hearings, and particularly hearings to replace Rehnquist, will garner a lot of press.  Most of what I'm writing here is with that in mind. I believe a national conversation could be started if Democrats on the committee asked, rather than 'do you believe in a woman's right to choose,' 'do you believe the Constitution protects individual privacy,' 'do you believe the Government has a Constitutional right to listen in on conversations between a patient and a doctor,' and the big one, 'do you support overturning decisions that made it legal for a woman to take the birth control pill?'

  Third, get over the last election.  Bush won by the tiniest margin in history for a President during a shooting war, and we won't be running against the incumbent next time.  2004 was not a seminal event.  It was a VERY close election during wartime.  If we jettison who we are, we lose the middle class that is NOT wealthy and is NOT religiously zealous, but merely voted "Bush" out of fear and a pretty normal feeling you don't change horses during wartime.

  Just my two cents.

  by dhonig on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:42:58 PM PDT

  •  I think that you missed my point.

    First off, prolife women voters in Kansas aren't going to suddenly change their minds about abortion in the voting booth.  Ain't happening.  If they don't want more kids, they'll take birth control.  They're typically married and not so pro-life that they're opposed to birth control.  The ones that are...  Well, they're pretty much beyond hope.

    Is it their issue?  Yes, and that's why Democrats bringing it up is stupid.  I would certainly agree that Democrats could do a better job of framing it, but that's not the point either.  They should frame it properly.  I was talking about what they emphasize.

    The crazy pharmacist issue is one of those hot-button issues of the day.  I don't really include it with abortion, even if it's part of the "culture of life" bullshit.  Abortion is old.  This phenomenon is new.  We should definitely call the crazies on it.  Even most pro-lifers probably find the practice unproffesional and moronic.

    Regarding the judges, I think that the Democrats could have gotten a lot more traction by emphasizing the pro-corporate stances that these judges have.  After all, while the far right was talking about how "anti-Christian" the Democrats were being, the really big problems with these judges were around issues like labor rights, the environment, and so on.  Their views on these issues are way out of the mainstream, and Democrats should have been talking about these views in particular rather than saying that the judges themselves were "out of the mainstream."

    Also note that saying the phrase "right to choose" is old hat.  It is not framing.  It is just rhetoric now.  Don't get me wrong.  Whoever first uttered it was a genius and did good things for the women's rights movement, but anymore, when someone hears it, they simply attach it to their pre-existing abortion rhetoric circuit.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

    •  Church vs. non-church battles

      I think i know what you mean.  I think it kind of can be summed up as this.  

      Battles with republicans where the church is telling people what to do (such as abortion) are uphill battles for democrats.  Its kind of attacking a value system of people that is enforced over and over again by the church.  

      Battles with repulcians where the church is not involved such as those against corporations are downhill battles.  No one wants to be taken advantage of by a corrupt corporation.  

      Its not that abortion is an unimportant issues, it just is an issue that won't win votes (which ultimately impacts who sits on the supreme court).  

      by tri on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

  •  But why?

    First, as noted by others, it's not our issue, it's their issue.  Therefore, we must respond or be consumed.

    Why? They keep winning not by responding to our issues but by ducking them and redirecting to their issues. Why are we obligated to take the other side of issues they've chosen for us?

    by cdicely on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:26 PM PDT

•  I agree

  ...and the best part of your diary was talking about emphazing corporate greed and fighting for consumer's rights, especially as the government allows for more and more corruption among corporations.  In particular I think we need to go after the big banks.  I think democrats running for office really need to make consumer friendy legislation an issue.  To often democrats in recent elections have not picked their issues to emphasize to the general public and I think when this happens issues such as abortion get picked by the media.  Additionally with the exceptions of coporate terrorits such as those at Citibank (had to mention them) no one really opposes consumer friendly legislation that helps them.  

  And anyway its the corporations who are funding the wingnuts because they all support the Republican party.  

  by tri on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:47:30 PM PDT

•  Nonsense

  Can you name one significant pro-choice bill passed in the last century?

  Women are left pleading for their own bodies to nine black robes, some nearly lifeless.

  Legislate Roe!

  Legislate legal contraception!

  Pass the Equal Rights Amendment for pete's sake!

  For free abortion on demand!

  Hal C.

  by Hal C on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

•  Religious Democrats Be Heard!!!

  Religious Democrats should write to their bishops, write to Catholic/Religious  newspapers, media, blogs etc that Churches should stop obsessing on overturning Roe V Wade to fight abortion but instead focus on DECREASING THE RATE OF ABORTION.

  Overturning Roe v Wade will not decrease the Abortion Rate nor recriminalize it.  Pro-Life People should be wary on being used by Republicans on a non winnable goal (Roe v Wade) at the expense of working against other teachings of Jesus on Social Justice for Poor and Disenfranchised.

  Instead Let us focus on electing politicians who will decrease the Rate of Abortion.  And Historically, Democrats are best in this area.

  by timber on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:05:11 PM PDT

•  Dems *should* make abortion an issue

  And point out the hypocrisy, among both the Repugs and the Catholic church.

  "Abortion on demand," is a sin, and sermons were preached and Communion refused.

  But corporately forced abortions (and forced prostitution) on Saipan, that's just fine.

  Clinton tried to get legislation to stop it, but DeLay and the Repugs refused to allow even an "up or down" vote.

  And who supported DeLay? Apparently forced abortion is a "traditional value," winked at even by the Rev. Lou Sheldon.

  And can anyone tell me...did the Pope refuse Communion to anyone in the DeLay gang?  ("Do you want caviar with that wafer, sir?")

  Abortion is a sin only when no Republican gets his cut.

  Which reminds me--did anyone mention Frist's hospital chain does abortions?

  And, BTW, mercury, lead, arsenic, pesticides, and other Bush yummies, cause not only
  birth defects and low birth weight and lifelong health problems, but also (GASP) spontaneous abortions! But apparently God ain't swift enough to make the connection.

  Sheesh.

  by daulton on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:07:14 PM PDT

•  2 things come to mind

  I agree with the general idea in this diary but let me mention two things that came to mind:

  1. while people may not get excited about politicians defending the status quo, it is not something we should discard out of hand. Remember just recently the push for SS reform? People spoke up and it was pretty much DOA, Bush and the others hocking it looked pretty silly.

  2. Because of politically motivated redistricting many house seats make poor choice vs. life battlegrounds. The red seats get redder and the blue ones bluer. That means statewide races are the ones where abortion comes into play, and still then, there are very few instances where the electorate is bitterly divided on the issue. Chafee is a pro choice republican in new england, and Breuax was a pro life Democrat in Louisiana, neither of which is surprising.

  by dre2k5 on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

  •  Response to point 1

    No arguments with point 2, but I want to respond to point 1.  SS came up in an off-year.  The Democrats understandably remained mostly silent and wisely let the Republicans hurt themselves on it.  Some Democrats felt the need to embrace the issue, but I doubt that they'll campaign on it.  Republican congressmen with half a brain are staying away from it.

    When the Republicans want to overturn a popular or simply good government program, Democrats have to play jui jitsu with it and not come out aggressively.  It certainly served them well with social security.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:31:32 PM PDT

•  Women don't live at the federal level

  where, as you say, abortion is legal -- all abortion, birth control, too, no "safe and rare" about it.

  But women live at the local level, where abortion is not accessible to most of us, and where birth control increasingly is less available, too.

  So you can bet that I and a lot of women ARE waiting to hear a candidate address that, and at more than the local level.  Addressing the campaign that has brought back states' rights -- which started a civil war before -- under both Dem and GOP administrations in recent decades.
  

  by Cream City on Tue May 24, 2005 at 03:50:10 PM PDT

  •  That's why I said federal level

    On the local level, it is different, but I think that is best left to local politics.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:04:44 PM PDT

    •  It has to be stopped at the federal level

      in Congress, the courts, etc., to stop states -- or you're asking for fifty state-level campaigns, at least.  Women have been that route before, and it took a century.

      by Cream City on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:30:43 PM PDT