This may be unpopular, but I'm ok with running anti-choice Dems if it will win elections.

[DanTex]

Obviously, this only goes for red states/districts where making concessions may be the only way to win, and a person who shares all my progressive views won't stand a chance.

And, this isn't particular to the issue of choice. Dems that want to repeal Obamacare? Fine. Deregulate Wall Street? No problem. Climate denial? Bring it on. Obviously somewhere there's a limit, but none of the major issues are litmus tests for red state Dems in my mind.

Before I get flamed, let me say that I find the anti-choice position morally abhorrent. I am not just pro-choice, I am pro-abortion, in the same way that I am pro-knee-surgery. It's a medical procedure, should be available to anyone without stigma or red tape or anything. And insurance plans should be required to cover it, as should Medicare and Medicaid.

BUT, if I were given the choice between running an anti-choice Dem who wins or a pro-choice Dem who loses, I would pick the former. Why? Because on the rest of the issues, the Dem will be better than the Rep. In fact, even on the very issue of choice, it's better to have an anti-choice Dem than a Republican, because it helps the Dems reach a majority, which means they can control the agenda, which means less anti-choice and more pro-choice legislation will even reach the floor.

Moreover, if a state/district is so red that only an anti-choice (or anti-environment or whatever) Dem can win it, the other option is not just going to be an average Republican, it's going to be a three headed monster.

Having said all that, I disagree strongly with singling out the issue of choice as one where we are willing to make concessions in order to win seats. All issues should be on the chopping block.

I also disagree with weakening the commitment the Democratic Party as a whole was made to reproductive rights in an attempt to win votes. The party should continue to stand strongly in favor of choice, and anti-choice Dems should not be elevated to leadership positions.

But at the end of the day, I'll take the D.

[joeybee12]

1. Harry Reid was an anti choice Dem

Never brought anti choice legislation to t he floor. Big difference between personal beliefs and how one votes

[boston bean]

2. NO he was NOT. He was pro choice!!!

[Docreed2003]

9. He actually was/is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Harry_Reid

Reid just never pushed his own personal agenda.

[uppityperson]

22. Not forcing his views, not voting to take away rights, makes him pro choice

He allows people theI'd own choice, whatever his personal choice might be.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

105. That what I was thinking as well

Though, when a Democrat proclaims themselves to be "Pro-Life", I suppose we would have to figure out what that actually means for them because they could technically be "Pro-Choice" but still defines themselves as "Pro-Life". There's obviously a difference between a candidate whom says that they are "personally opposed" to abortion but isn't going to actively push or vote for anti-choice measures and one who is. I *think* that my Democratic Senator (Donnelly-IN) describes himself as "Pro-Life" but he has voted against Republican efforts defunding Planned Parenthood and hasn't cast any anti-choice votes AFAIK. And the Harry Reid example. We need to defeat Democrats whom actively vote for anti-choice measures.

[GoCubsGo]

12. IIRC, this is also the case with Joe Biden.

He personally opposes it, but won't push his beliefs on others.

[DanTex]

13. Personally opposing abortion but not pushing his beliefs on others makes him pro-choice.

[obamanut2012]

54. Wrong, both Reid and Biden are pro choice

[Weekend Warrior]

3. If an anti-choice Democrat wins a primary....

I will give them consideration when comparing them to their opponent.

That primary part seems to be forgotten in many of the absolute acceptance arguments. The Democrat would have to win a primary first. If the primary voters determine the anti-choice Democrat is their preferred candidate then that's that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. Agree, the only caveat to that is what about W VA and other places, where a pro choice person

cant win, wont win, period, end of discussion? Where running a pro choice democrat against an anti choice democrat in the primary gives the nomination to the PRO choice candidate who cant win, the party knows she or he cant win. In 4 years maybe, not now, assuming that is known, and often it is.



I hate that this is what we have to think about, but the alternative is the end of America, for sure, and possibly the human race, so I want to discuss prioritizing.

[Me.]

83. Can't Win

so you pick a conservadem and then, in the end, they become a Con again after using the DEm party for their own devices. It's becoming a familiar story.

[awesomerwb1]

4. Same here.

The country's better off with Dems.

At the end of the day for me, with the current "GOP", any Dem is better than a rep.

[delisen]

32. How many Jim Justice democrats can we put resources into?

How many Republicans ever become Democrats?

Party switchers see to mostly start out Democrats and then are easily recruited by Republicans.

[SharonClark]

40. I would say none to as little as possible for people like Jim Justice.

He wasn't a Dem until he figured out he couldn't win the Repug primary, he could have self-funded his campaign, and he is loyal only to himself.

[Me.]

100. Exactly

We, DEms, usually end up being betrayed one way or the other. So it ends up that we sell our selves out and lose anyway.

[alarimer]

35. With the possible exception of folks like Jim Justice, who were only Dems out of convenience

When it suited them, then back to Republican when it didn't.

[awesomerwb1]

45. Justice played the Dems.

Shame on them that they fell for his BS. Dummies.

[WinkyDink]

5. Once again, from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM, which begs to differ from your stance:

We believe the United States must continue to be a strong advocate for the rights and opportunities of women and girls around the world.

Elevating their status is not just the right thing to do—it is also a strategic imperative that advances American interests in prosperity and stability. When women and girls are healthy, educated, and able to participate economically, their families and communities prosper, poverty decreases, and economies grow. And when women participate in conflict resolution and post-conflict processes, it improves the likelihood of securing sustainable peace. Democrats are committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of women and girls as a central focus of American diplomacy, development, and defense efforts and will continue to support the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. We will work to end the epidemic of gender-based violence around the world.

We will urge ratification of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming.

Therefore, we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#women-girls

[DanTex]

7. I don't see how that differs from my stance. I agree with that completely.

[Lil Missy]

119. The 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive. You can be a Democrat that doesn't believe

in abortion. It's a personal decision.

[loyalsister]

136. This language can be so muddy

Would we let anyone who supports abortion rights get away with calling themselves prochoice claim that mantle if they also support eliminating food assistance? It's an extreme example, but that is what a consistent Libertarian might look like. This is really convoluted when the nuance is exposed.

[Johonny]

6. Any Dem candidate that's fallen for anti-choice propaganda is likely

to suck on most other major issues or will turn their back on them once in office. Safe, rare, legal are the red district safe words-anti-choice is code word for I'm switching parties mid-term suckers.

It doesn't really matter though because when Dems give voters a choice between Republican-like candidates and Republicans they typically choose the Republican.

[DanTex]

10. That thing about the choice between Republican and Republican-lite is silly.

I guess it has a catchy ring to it, but it's obviously totally false, otherwise Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp wouldn't be in the senate. Red districts require more conservative candidates, it's political reality.

[delisen]

29. Human Rights are not silly. Manchin gets to be pro-coal and

Heitcamp gets to be pro-pipeline.

Human rights are different. If we do not, as individuals, control our bodies, we are not free.

In the past the Democratic Party and people who claim to be progressive did reject human rights for certain people.

Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal workforce, denying opportunity and equal rights to African Americans.

While FDR might have been sympathetic, he was not a champion of equal rights for African-Americans. He assumed he needed the all-white solid south Dixiecrats to win elections and tailored his agenda to keep those votes.

I don't want to compromise the rights of 15% of our population or 52% in order to make winning elections easier.

I'd rather see leadership lead on human rights or pass the torch.

The fact that people are using terms like pro or anti-abortion represents a failure of leadership in framing a human rights issue.

Politically the issue is pro or anti-legal abortion; pro-choice or anti-choice.

Democratic office holders who are anti-legal abortion will be heavily recruited by Republican leaders to switch parties. I don't see the point of over-investing in them.

[Johonny]

96. It's not silly- multiple election cycles have proven this out

[DanTex]

120. No they haven't. Like I said, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp actually won seats in

very red states. They did it by being centrists. When was the last time a lefty won in a state or district that red? It doesn't happen. Sure, in Massachussets liberals can win, but not in West Virginia.

When the Dems won the majority in 2006, it required a coalition between liberals in safe districts/states and centrists in purple or red ones.

[Sgent]

69. I beg to differ

My Governor (LA) is anti-choice and pro-gun.

He also:

Extended Medicaid to 400,000 people in my state -- with no conditions like you are seeing the R state governor's no proposing.
Is actually regulating Oil & Gas companies
Refuses to renew a sales tax, requiring instead a progressive income tax
In a tight budget year, refused to make dramatic cuts to the public hospital system
Done a hundred other things that the R wouldn't have done

I voted for Jon Bel Edwards, and will happily vote for him again at re-election time (we don't have D primaries), and he might actually win. Our other option was David Vitter.

A pro choice D has no chance of winning a statewide election in this heavily Catholic state.

Edited to add: Also has been a champion of Gay rights, instituting a no fire because your gay rule in state governments and for any state contractors, and in a bunch of other ways.

[oegthe]

112. Abortion restrictions in LA

Are you please with the abortion restriction in LA?

[Sgent]

145. NO

I'm not.

[Squinch]

8. I'm in no way OK with it, but for the moment I'm not going to do more than vote against them

in a primary if they are presented to me. I'm not going to engage in or give air to the more public fights about this. If an anti-choice candidates wins a primary in my district, I will have a hard choice to make. Thankfully, I don't think that's likely.

This is possibly the hardest political position I have ever had to take, because this issue is so important to me. But I think we need to present a united front and not confuse the average voter. We've just been given a lesson in how very easily confused they are, and we have to get back into power.

BUT once we get ANY control back and we can move to safeguard women's health, I'll be back to marching and fighting very, very loudly.

[DK504]

11. Pro-choice is and always has been a major plank in the Democratic platform.

To let that go is a sign we have lost all our values, our morals and ideals. I remember when Roe v Wade went into became law. In New Orleans, they went insane because it was the downfall of civilization, obviously it hasn't been. I have personally watched women that were the most unfit candidates to be mothers be able to terminate the pregnancies while they were still zygotes.

Leaving that moral high ground, to rebuke women their rights to health care is non-negotiable principle.

[greymattermom]

14. Steve Driehaus won the west side of Cincinnati once

In that part of the world, a pro choice candidate has no chance.

[LanternWaste]

15. Pyrrhic victories are short-sighted.

Pyrrhic victories, which by its very definition is voting for an anti-choice candidate, are short-sighted.

The battles of Malplaquet, Bunker Hill and Borodino were each immediate victories that directly resulted in the loss of the war for those same victors.

[randr]

16. Yeah, lets just turn our backs on the majority of people who have kept the Democratic Party alive

for the past 50 years. We can wave a white flag to let all fake Christians and wingers know they have won.

[DanTex]

18. I'd argue that women's rights are better protected by having a Democratic majority

with a handful of anti-choice Democrats, rather than a Republican majority.

[obamanut2012]

57. Nope, not if any of those people are anti choice

[dsc]

114. that is absurd

To take one example. Marrick Garland isn't on the Supreme Court because the GOP majority, including at least two pro choice women, refused to so much as hold a hearing. If we had a Democratic majority, even with a few anti choice Democrats, we would have him and not Neil Gorsech. If Roe goes under, that difference will be a huge part of the reason why.

[randr]

17. The problem is not running in red districts

The problem is how the districts are drawn.
Fix the real problem before you compromise your values, works every time.

[moose65]

151. Senate seats don't have districts

They are statewide races.

[Coventina]

19. So which of YOUR rights are you willing to give up? n/t

[Coventina]

85. Nope. Saying that you don't think half of humanity get to decide about their lives and bodies

is a non-starter.

[Egnever]

162. The op was pretty clear

In saying any of them.

Because the reality is you are protecting your rights. By getting the party that believes in protecting those rights into the majority.

[Coventina]

167. Well, it's pretty easy for a man to elect an anti-choice Dem.

I'm asking which one of his rights he'd be willing to vote away?

[Egnever]

171. And again the OP said any rights

The idea only men are anti abortion is complete nonsense by the way.

If that were true this wouldn't be an issue.

[Coventina]

173. I didn't say only men were anti-choice.

I'm saying men who vote for anti-choice candidates are not making a decision that affects their body, their life-or-death decisions.

It's like white people voting for anti-civil rights for POC.

[TBA]

20. For what it's worth - I agree.

[LeftInTX]

21. In Texas anyone who is anti-oil will have a very tough time

In a state that has a constitutional ban on income tax, the oil industry is an important source of revenue for the state. In other words, we tax it. In 1982, I paid only $100/semester for tuition and fees at the UTHC (UT-Health Science Center) This was because of the oil tax.

Also the big oil companies are against the Texas anti-trans bathroom bill. They were at the capitol a few days ago testifying against the bathroom bill.

Sure Democrats can hold oil industry responsible for clean water and air, but if a candidate is "anti-fracking", they are going up against a technology which they better have a good grasp on.

https://www.txoga.org/texas-oil-and-natural-gas-industry-paid-13-8-billion-in-taxes-and-royalties-in-2015-second-most-in-texas-history/

[dembotoz]

23. Sure the gop would welcome u

[LovesPNW]

24. If the vote is between a pro-choice Democrat versus an anti-choice Democrat

I would vote for the pro-choice Democrat ...

If the vote is between a pro-choice OR anti-choice Democrat versus an anti-choice OR pro-choice republican?

I'm voting for the Democrat ...

Pretty simple algorithm there ...

[Oubaas]

25. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately, I worry that this might be opening door that we wouldn't be able to pushed closed again. Women ought to be able to make their own choices about their own bodies. We men have been trying to tell them what to do about everything for too long.

In the course of my military career, I managed to pitch up on every continent but Antarctica. I tried to get there but there were no billets for me. One of the things that I learned in all that traveling is that no matter where you go, the world routinely treats women like crap. Women need to be able to make their own decisions about things, and I'm concerned that once out, we wouldn't be able to put that genie back in the bottle. I'd rather we didn't go there.

[DLevine]

26. If you find the anti-choice position morally abhorrent,

wouldn't that make the candidate morally abhorrent? Why support such a person?

I think compromising our values on such a vital issue is a mistake. I just don't think the ends justify the means.

[MoonRiver]

27. I'm not, and I don't think abortion has much to do with our losing elections.

IMO, it's more about voter suppression and electronic voting machine tampering.

[G_j]

73. absolutely

[jmg257]

81. I think you are wrong. I know a LOT of people who staunchly use that to make decisions around here.

Anyway, with 46% who think themselves 'pro-life', & 22% who are catholic, it can not be ignored as an important voting issue.

[TacoD]

159. My religious mother is liberal in most ways but always voted R because abortion.

In recent years she has voted D though.

[MoonRiver]

160. Good for your mom!

[Egnever]

163. That is silly

It has been a wedge issue forever. God guns and gays.

[leftstreet]

28. Is there any evidence the anti-choice position sweeps elections?

I don't live in the areas under discussion, but do candidates in those areas just pop on the tv and say 'I'm against abortion' and win the district?

[leftstreet]

39. But your link says abortion isn't even a voter priority issue

[LexVegas]

30. I'm ok with running pro-segregation Dems if it wins elections.

Sounds crazy, huh?

[johnp3907]

33. Yep!

Long live the Dixicrats!

[LexVegas]

38. Your marginalizing of women's civil rights is gross.

[obamanut2012]

63. lulz

[LexVegas]

64. Thanks for the mansplanation.

[LexVegas]

75. ....

[H2O Man]

78. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair.

[DLevine]

43. Actually, the comparison is spot on. nt

[DLevine]

48. You obviously haven't seen what happens to women

forced into having back-alley abortions.

[DLevine]

55. I would never support a candidate who was anti-civil rights,

just because I thought it would win an election. We need to have each other's backs.

ETA: Pregnancy is not always preventable.

[obamanut2012]

62. Same argument those against LGBT rights use

*yawn*

[H2O Man]

80. If you happen

to be old enough to have lived in the pre-civil rights era, you would certainly remember the back-alley abortion days.

[RandomAccess]

125. Right. All the way up to 1972

[obamanut2012]

60. Just stahppppp, you are wrong

And obvious.

Shoo.

[LexVegas]

92. You sound like a dude trying to tell a woman they're not being a misogynist

which is probably exactly what is happening.

[obamanut2012]

59. You are 100% wrong -- it is exactly the same

It is noted how okay you are with throwing away the civil rights of women and girls.

[MoonRiver]

82. Before abortion was legal, an aunt, who I never met, died because of an illegal abortion.

She and her husband had 3 kids already, and could not afford another one. This should NEVER have happened. IMO, she suffered the equivalent of a lynching by holier than thou right wing fascists.

[DoodAbides]

89. No, they are just dying in other manners. Might want to check out death rates of pregnant

women in Texas, as they take away health care for women.

[mercuryblues]

91. Women are killed different ways

I guess you don't remember what it was like for women before abortion was made legal. Especially poor women. Women of color had a higher mortality rate from illegal abortions.

In 1930 abortion was listed as the COD for 2,700 women. By 1940 that had decreased to 1700 deaths per year. By 1950 just 300 deaths per year, largely due to antibiotics.

Since Roe v Wade just over 400 women have died as a result of abortion, despite more abortions being performed yearly. A woman is more likely to die from pregnancy in the US than an abortion.


So yes having abortion remain legal is a life or death issue.

[yardwork]

106. Many women have died because they were denied access to legal abortions.

[H2O Man]

37. Outstanding!

Well done!

[leftstreet]

41. +1

You should make this an OP

[obamanut2012]

65. Cosign

[FreepFryer]

50. +100. (n/t)

[obamanut2012]

56. Exactly -- this is literally no different

It's just soooo easy to piss on women and their rights.

[DanTex]

98. That was basically the way FDR and Truman felt. Were they wrong?

[JoeStuckInOH]

103. And if they won... it would be GOOD for the Democratic majority.

if something helps dems take majority, then a mainstream democrat will become majority leader and a normal mainstream dem will never bring a segregation bill to the floor. so the fact that one or two assholes in the majority want segregation never ever matters.

now if purity-tests cause funding to be withheld from dems in red districts able to be stolen and repubs end up with the majority... well then you get the inmates in charge of the asylum and all sorts of terrible legislations come to the floor.

[treestar]

165. Is there a district somewhere that is so red

that they would argue this? No Democrat would win there anyway.

[mercuryblues]

44. Please tell me what

civil right you are willing to sacrifice in order to get Democrats elected?

Maybe after we get enough Anti-choice Dems, we can allow those opposed the to Pregnancy Discrimination into the party.

[DanTex]

49. You have it backwards. Failure to elect Democrats is what causes civil rights to be lost.

I'm willing to make concessions regarding issue positions of red district/state Democrats precisely so that more Dems can be elected, and therefore civil rights (and healthcare, and the environment, etc.) will be protected.

[obamanut2012]

67. Yeah, the German Parliament thought the same

[DanTex]

90. Actually they didn't, and that was the problem.

Instead of focusing on defeating the Nazis, the other parties squabbled among themselves. If the Communists, Social Democrats, and the rest of the non-Nazis had made a few ideological concessions to each other and joined together against the Nazis, the whole thing could have been avoided.

[mercuryblues]

93. so YOU aren't willing to give up anything

to elect Dems, but expect women too give up their very basic right to control their own body. Without that right no other right matters. A woman has no freedom if she has no say over what happens to her body.

[DanTex]

94. I'm not willing to have women give up anything, particularly not the right to control

their own bodies.

But like I said, you have it backwards. When the Democrats lose elections, basic rights are lost. In order to prevent that, Democrats need to win elections. Running candidates in red districts that have no chance of winning does nothing to protect the rights of women.

[mercuryblues]

97. No. just stop

anti-choice is anti-choice. say there are 48 republican senators and 52 democratic senators, but 6 of them are anti-choice. Women still fucking lose their rights.

What right are you willing to give up? Equal opportunity employment? How about age discrimination? How about sexual orientation discrimination?

[DanTex]

101. Actually, with 52 Dems, and 6 of them anti-choice, women's rights are much

better protected than if you replace those 6 anti-choice Dems with Republicans. In the first scenario, the Democratic Party, which is strongly pro-choice, will be running the Senate. That means that the Senate Majority Leader will be pro-choice, and the chairs of most committees will be pro-choice, particularly the committees that have anything to do with women's rights. With 54 Republicans, it will anti-choice people in all those posts. On top of that, anti-choice Democrats can be pressured and bargained with by the leadership of the party, something that is impossible with Republicans, because their whole party is anti-choice.

So, again, I'm not willing to give up any rights. Losing rights is what happens when Republicans win elections. I'm willing to sacrifice ideological purity in red districts in order to protect not only rights, but the environment, labor, and everything else.

[mercuryblues]

104. As long as you get to keep your rights.

[Egnever]

172. Purposefully obtuse?

Or do you just not understand how legislation is brought to the floor?

[mercuryblues]

177. I understand

What rights of yours do you want to put on the table?

[Egnever]

179. Clearly not

The point is without a Dem controlled legislature all of our rights are on the table.

To ensure that majority I am willing to put any right you chose on the table in districts where that will make the difference between a nutjob Republican or a conservative Dem.

Which has been repeated now 3 times to you.

No one is suggesting a change to the party platform. Choice is and should remain a pillar of the Dem party but individual representatives can deviate on that or any right you chose if that is what is necessary in their district as far as I and I think the OP are concerned.

[mercuryblues]

182. so you aren't willing to

put any of your rights on the table.

[Egnever]

183. .

[treestar]

168. Your last sentence says it

Losing on principle does not help anyone. People refuse to acknowledge how much power red states and voters have.

[treestar]

166. What red state Republican agrees with that?

As that is the person that ends up in office, and opposes the ACA too, and many other things.

[RandomAccess]

123. So electing MORE people who won't stand up for civil rights

will help us KEEP civil rights, like right to bodily integrity and sovereignty?

I think there's a step -- or twenty -- missing in your logic there.

Edit: and I've read your other responses on this issue. Don't hold water.

[DanTex]

126. Huh? Where do you get "MORE" from?

If an anti-choice Dem replaces an anti-choice Republican, that's not "MORE" people who don't support reproductive rights, it's the same number. This really isn't complicated.

But the thing is, that Democrat is going to be better on other issues that the Republican (and is likely not to be as extreme on choice either). That Democrat will caucus with the Dems. Will help get Dems into the majority, which gives the Dems the leadership, and the committee chairs, and all that. And that Dem can be bargained with and pressured by the party leadership, whereas the Republican will vote straight right-wing on everything.

[RandomAccess]

137. Really?

If an anti-choice Dem replaces an anti-choice Republican,

And if they don't?

When I said "more," I meant more than we have now, completely irrespective of Republicans, because don't imagine that opening the floodgates won't result in anti-choice so-called Dems ultimately replacing real Dems. It will. It goddamned absolutely will. It can easily happen in primaries in those areas where YOU'RE worried a Republican would otherwise win. Hell, we could easily have stalking horse candidates run as Dems.

Don't imagine that weakening on the subject now will result in more strength on it. It will NOT. It's an impossibility.

But the semantics of the word MORE doesn't matter. What matters is the degradation of women you're willing to entertain and even promote.

What you don't seem to understand -- and believe me, I know my words aren't going to get through to the self-serving attitude of anyone who's as sanguine about abortion rights as you are -- is that women are simply not full citizens YET in this country, and frankly abortion is at the very bedrock of the problem.

Men, yourself included, are willing to let women die rather than let them have control over their own bodies, and their own sexuality.

Remember Sandra Fluke? One of Limbaugh's rants was especially revealing -- and I've heard other conservatives since echo the same sentiment. Limbaugh was against birth control being covered under ACA, blubbering at one point it could mean "sex without consequences." (Oh, the horrors!)

Think about that for a bit. Sex without consequences.

What would some "consequences" for being a sexual FEMALE human include? Pregnancy, of course. The abortion debate, no matter what any of them say otherwise, is at the depths of their collective and individual subconsciousnesses about punishing women -- mostly for being sexual, but also just for being.

YOU want to promote the attitudes and beliefs that harm women.

YOU want women to have less agency in their own lives when they don't really have enough to start with.

YOU, ultimately, aren't willing to support or even acknowledge the full citizenship of women. It's truly a shameful thing you're proposing.


Oh, and here's something you really ought to pay attention to, because it's eternal truth, with the part most often quoted in bold:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. - Harry S. Truman, 1952 speaking to a National Convention banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action.

[DanTex]

138. Yes, really. And, sorry the real world is not "irrespective of Republicans."

Don't get me wrong, I wish it were. I wish we could just pretend there was no such thing as the GOP, and they couldn't vote to take away rights and healthcare and everything else. But that's not reality. Playing in a fantasy world "irrespective of Republicans" is just lunacy.

Also, I don't need a lecture on the importance of abortion rights, like I said in the OP I am totally pro-choice. And I'm not talking about primarying incumbent pro-choice Democrats with anti-choice candidates (obviously). I'm talking about running anti-choice Democrats against anti-choice Republicans. And, as I have explained many times, an anti-choice D is better than an anti-choice R. This is true even for abortion rights.

So spare me the nonsense about how I'm spreading attitudes that harm women. I'm talking about a political strategy that, in my opinion, will help Dems get more people elected to congress, which in turn will improve women's rights and also every other issue under the sun.

And, sure I could be wrong about the strategy, maybe it won't work. This isn't a science. But being mistaken about the efficacy of a strategy doesn't make me some kind of misogynist.

[RandomAccess]

139. Apparently you DO need a lecture about abortion rights

Because you have NO allegiance to Choice, and no real good understanding of it either.

Further, your niggling fault-finding with my choice of words is distraction -- a sideways leap into a different discussion than the one I'm having. I'm ignoring that derailment.

I'm talking about a political strategy that, in my opinion, will help Dems get more people elected to congress, which in turn will improve women's rights and also every other issue under the sun.

You're talking about a strategy that WILL harm women. Period.

And I'm not talking about primarying incumbent pro-choice Democrats with anti-choice candidates (obviously). I'm talking about running anti-choice Democrats against anti-choice Republicans.

You'd have no control over this. Once you're willing to accept -- and FUND -- anti-abortion Dems, you WILL have them primarying pro-choice Dems. OR inviting non-Dems to pretend to be Dems. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

But being mistaken about the efficacy of a strategy doesn't make me some kind of misogynist.

No, being willing to float the idea seriously at all does that, AFAIC.

[DanTex]

142. No, I really don't, and yes, I fully support reproductive choice.

Nancy Pelosi is also against a choice litmus test, so go ahead and lump her in with me as a misogynist with no allegiance to choice, and no understanding of it either. If you're going to be resorting to personal attacks, at least be consistent about it.

You're talking about a strategy that WILL harm women. Period.

Well, there's our disagreement. I actually don't think it will harm women, I think it will help win seats, and thereby help not just women but other issues also. Because like I have said many times, I'm not in favor of the Democratic Party weakening its commitment to women's rights (or anything else).

But I am against litmus tests, on abortion or on anything else, in districts where those litmus tests will ensure that the Democrats will lose. In culturally Christian districts, let anti-choicers run. In coal districts, let anti-environmentalists run. In upscale suburbs, let pro-business people run. Etc. Having a congressional majority that includes some deviation from the party platform is much better than having a minority.

You'd have no control over this. Once you're willing to accept -- and FUND -- anti-abortion Dems, you WILL have them primarying pro-choice Dems. OR inviting non-Dems to pretend to be Dems. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

Obviously, I can decide for myself who I support and who I vote for in primaries, and who I contribute to, and all that. And given that the Democratic electorate is something like 80% pro-choice, I really don't see anti-abortion primary challenges to pro-choice incumbents as being much of a problem.

Sure, it's possible that running some anti-abortion candidates in red districts will open the floodgates to the Democratic Party abandoning women's rights, but to believe that would happen, as you put it, is delusional.

[treestar]

164. It depends on the district

the problem is red districts in red states. Get someone who agrees more of the time than the Republican would.

[herding cats]

52. I'm not OK with it in the least

They can be anti abortion in their personal beliefs, that's their business. However, an anti choice stance implies they're politically against my right to choose, which isn't acceptable.

[obamanut2012]

53. "Dan" not your reproductive right you are giving away

[BainsBane]

58. How exactly do you think you'll win elections without the votes of women?

There isn't a Democrat who holds office in the country today who didn't get there because of women's votes.
We can change that right quick, and we will too.

There is no Democratic Party without us.

[SharonClark]

84. I couldn't agree more.

[JoeStuckInOH]

110. Thats' the policical calculation at hand, though.

There ARE red districts out there where an anti-choice dem will potentially GAIN more votes from anti-choice centrist than they lose from staunch liberals. I have women family members that I'm sure would vote for a democrat that didn't support abortion... I've literally SEEN these family members (male & female) protesting outside clinics. And this in not terribly uncommon In the deep south or bible belt.

No ones talking about changing the Democrat core principles. They're just saying in these very particular instances where a district can be flipped that they're not going to withhold funding from republicans' opponents in order to defeat those republicans... just in those couple districts.

[BainsBane]

116. anecdote is not data

You say you're sure they would vote Democrat? Why? If they are truly committed to banning abortion, they would be foolish to do so. Someone who cares enough to protest at a clinic is not going to suddenly forget that the Democratic Party is pro-choice because a candidate in their local district isn't.

Democrats have always accommodated anti-choice candidates. Some are serving in the Senate and House today. That didn't help them win the majority, did it?

This isn't about tolerating a few anti-choice candidates. It's a public statement meant to placate a faction of critics, many of whom refused to vote for our nominee and said they don't intend to vote Dem. in upcoming elections.

These are people who said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton because she wasn't "progressive enough" (though they remain to this day willfully uninformed about her policy proposals). They insisted the party wasn't "left" enough for them, that they needed a reason to vote for Democrats, not just against Trump. Since the November defeat they contributed to through their votes against Clinton, they have continued to attack the party and made demands that we "bend the knee." Yet despite their rhetoric, they focus their efforts not on banks or corporations but on undermining abortion rights and civil rights, claiming--without any evidence--that it's a necessary compromise to win. If they really cared about the Democrats' wining, why not vote Democratic? It turns out all this time when there were talking about wanting a reason to vote for Democrats, that reason they wanted was to relegate the majority of Americans to second-class citizenship, increased poverty, and higher death rates.

[DanTex]

124. On a district-by-district and state-by-state basis.

There are plenty of red districts or states that are pretty anti-choice, where even women are frequently anti-choice, and where pro-choice candidates (or liberal candidates in general) have no chance. I'm not saying to run centrist anti-choice candidates in Massachussets. I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party as a whole should weaken its strong support of reproductive rights.

I am saying that if we can put some more Ds in congress from states or districts that would otherwise go Republican, then that is certainly worth it even if it means running candidates that are anti-choice, or anti-environment, or whatever.

[BainsBane]

133. I think a program of mandatory castration

For all men under 60. There are plenty of red districts that are anti-testicular, where even men are pro-castration. I'm not saying we have the run a pro-castration candidate in every district, just the ones where men live. I'm not saying that the Democratic Party as a whole should weaken its support of testicles, just where we need to win.

If we can put some more Ds in seats, then certainly it's worth it.
I'm glad you agree sacrifices are necessary and you're willing do do your part. We wouldn't want purity to stand in the way of winning.

[DanTex]

134. I'm pretty sure there are no districts where mandatory castration is a winning issue.

And I think its telling that people resort to absurdity rather than actually challenge the logic. And the reason is obvious: because the logic is sound.

But, sure, in your hypothetical world where the GOP is unanimously in favor of mandatory castration, and the only way to prevent mandatory castration was to elect more Democrats to congress, and there were some districts so heavily pro-castration that anti-castration candidates could never win, then I would absolutely be in favor of electing pro-castration Democrats over pro-castration Republicans, for all the reasons I have stated.

[Egnever]

170. Wait there are no women that are anti abortion?

If that was the case we would having this discussion.

[BainsBane]

174. I vote in the Democratic Party

If you haven't figured out that way men are overwhelmingly pro-choice and Democratic women even more so, you should not pretend to have insight into winning elections. .

I am not having this discussion with you or anyone else who treats my rights and my life as expendable. From now on I fight, and I take threats to my rights, to my life, extremely seriously.

[CrispyQ]

68. "All issues should be on the chopping block."

Let's just adopt the republican platform & be done with it, then.

At the end of the day, the D better stand for something.

[politicat]

71. Here's my take: other CDs are not my circus, not my monkeys.

I don't have a say in CO6 because I don't live there. It's in my 'hood, so to speak (I live on the NW side of Denver Metro, CO6 is the E and SE side) but I trust the party and the constituents to choose their own representation. They don't interfere in my choice, I extend the same respect. CO6 is always going to be a tough district, because it's big, it has complex competing interests (the eastern extreme is still plains ag and oil/gas; the central is end-stage, declining suburbia with a heavy concentration of immigrants and first generation working class) but it's winnable. Morgan Carroll was a great D candidate for it. She just got outspent, and came very close.

Would being personally against abortion but supporting pro-choice policies have helped her? Not here, not that much. (Colorado already went through a lot of these wars, long before others did, and we have laws that reflect this, like deep, impervious bubbles around all medical facilities -- so if you want to protest a dentist, you still have to obey the bubble law -- and we don't do the TRAP and surgical restrictions. Those have been shot down whenever ALEC tries.)

What about WV1? I don't know. Since WV is so gerrymandered (no compact nor contiguous anywhere near those districts) it's going to be messy. Being personally against abortion but pro-choice on policy is a nuanced statement. When a constituency is enraged, nuance is not necessarily the best option, so it's probably not in a WV1 candidate's best interest to be trying to engage in complex thought on human rights when that constituency is sharpening pitch forks and winding torches.

In my district, an anti-choice Dem wouldn't make it to exploratory committee. In my senate races, there's a potential, and depending on other positions, they could make that argument, but they'd have a tough race. I'm willing to listen at the exploratory/primary level -- as a woman, as a reproductive rights advocate, as a fundraiser -- but they're going to have to talk about deep policy with intelligence and nuance, and they'll have to talk hard about how they can square my human rights with their personal moral stance. And that will be tough.

So I can see how the DCCC can make their argument. But they're not getting my money. I have local circuses and local monkeys who need bananas and peanuts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. Bargaining away women's reproductive rights is not OK.

Not ever. It's not just about abortion; it's about the basic principle that women are entitled to agency over their own bodies; that we are fully human and not, in respect of our personal lives and choices, to be controlled by men or by the state in ways that don't apply to men. To say it's OK for someone purporting to be a Democrat to run a campaign that includes an anti-choice position is to say that it's OK for Democrats to negate the civil rights of an entire group of people. Obviously we wouldn't ever support a Democrat who would advocate for "separate-but-equal" facilities for POC, so why can't we draw a similar line in the sand for civil rights for women?

If an individual personally believes for moral or religious reasons that abortion is wrong, that's their business. But if they want to impose that belief, using the power of the state, on women who do not share it and who are entitled to control their own bodies and lives, that is not acceptable.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

77. How about pro-segregation Democratic candidates? I mean, as long as we're talking hypotheticals.

[geek tragedy]

86. I'm not okay with it, but I'm much less okay with letting the Republicans control Congress nt

[SDJay]

87. Why Do Democrats

always seem to be the ones who are 'willing to revisit' core values as a party? As much as I loathe the Repukes, they don't back off of what they supposedly believe, whether they actually believe some of the loony shit they espouse in private or not. When challenged, they don't just refuse to back off, they double down.

The proverbial 'soft middle' sees Democrats doing this and ask, "What do they stand for?" No one asks that question regarding the Pukes. Their rubes march in lockstep with them, even if it's through the gates of horrible suffering.

I respect your perspective and the practicality behind it, but bigger picture, I think this is a mistake.

[DoodAbides]

88. Is that different then allowing a KKK member to represent our people? nt

[Binkie The Clown]

95. I agree. We have too many primadona my-way-or-the-highway types who want their way on everything. nt

[boston bean]

99. So nice of you Dan. Dan the man!

[Gothmog]

102. The Democrats have retake the House in 2018

[Progressive dog]

107. I'm not OK with that

[Laffy Kat]

108. Going out on a limb here but guessing you're a male? nt

[BannonsLiver]

122. And?

[Laffy Kat]

130. Nothing. That covers it. nt

[BannonsLiver]

132. Yeah, I'd say it does.

But probably not in the way you think it does.

[ck4829]

109. Then we *ALL* need to work outside the (tainted) election process as much as in it

If you're willing to support a Democratic candidate who is not on board with one or more progressive issues and if you're not, then that still means you need to be willing to create change from the bottom-up as much as from the top-down.

Either way, it's time to get out there... crack that bully pulpit of the cult of personality around the executive branch, stand with the groups that are potential targets, discredit the tropes and cliches which fuel the right, and more.

[Lars39]

111. You came out of the gate as a conservative Dem, so what's new.

[DanTex]

121. I'm a liberal Dem, no idea where you got the idea that I was conservative.

My views are well to the left of most Dems in congress.

The thing is, in addition to being a liberal Dem, I'm also a Dem that wants to see the Dems win more elections.

[niyad]

113. so, women's rights are not important? only winning is? got it.

[DanTex]

127. Winning is required in order to protect women's rights. And also to protect

everything else.

[niyad]

128. as I said, got it.

[musette_sf]

141. "Winning is required in order to protect women's rights."

News flash - these alleged "Ds" have the specific intent of infiltrating the Party to DESTROY those sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights.

I recommend that anyone on this thread who has the idea that "running anti-choice Dems" is any kind of acceptable idea for the party go look at the so-called "Democrats For Life" website.

The below is from the so-called "Whole Life Blog" on the above hate speech website. This vile, inflammatory hate speech rhetoric has NO PLACE in the Democratic Party.

As a pro-life feminist, I believe that abortion hurts women. It demeans women. It exploits women. As a pro-life feminist, I oppose all violence and instead uphold a consistent life ethic with respect for all life. Abortion is an act of extreme violence. Abortion advocates tell women they have the right to kill their child in order to be free, to not have an unwanted child ‘ruin’ their life, that their bodies belong to themselves and therefore it is OK to destroy a human life if it is in the way.

RESIST!!

[KitSileya]

115. Only if they also believe in mandatory blood, bone marrow donations and organ transplants for men

They have to go full throat support for requiring men to do mandatory blood and bone marrow donations whenever needed, as well as kidney and liver transplant donations regardless of health and living situation

[ecstatic]

117. I don't care about their personal opinions. How do they vote?

That's my red line.

[Lil Missy]

118. I absolutely would. But again, there would be the same purists refusal to vote for the Democratic

Candidate because of this.

[MFM008]

129. They typically

Don't vote pro choice.
So we STILL lose.

[tenderfoot]

131. Those kinds of Dems are still conservatives.

Fuck that shit.

[rock]

135. Or you can vote for republicans

And achieve the same thing.

[musette_sf]

140. This may be unpopular to "some", but I will NEVER align with gestational slavery advocates

and their vile hate speech propaganda attacking innocent female US citizens and threatening to destroy our sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights - whether they call themselves Rs or (alleged) "Ds".

I recommend that anyone on this thread who has the idea that "running anti-choice Dems" is any kind of acceptable idea for the party go look at the so-called "Democrats For Life" website.

These vicious enemies of innocent citizens' rights are perpetuating the SAME violent, lying hate speech propaganda as the rest of the gestational slavery syndicate - the SAME violent, lying hate speech that is directly responsible for the domestic terrorist massacre at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

From so-called "Democrats For Life" website:

Democrats For Life of American fully supports reallocating Planned Parenthood's Title X funding to the 13,000 community health centers and rural health care clinics.

“Planned Parenthood has duped the American public into believing it provides comprehensive healthcare for women,” said [Kristen] Day [executive director of so-called "Democrats For Life"]. “Once people know the truth, that Planned Parenthood will continue to harvest body parts from aborted babies and taxpayer dollars will continue to subsidize the nations largest abortion business, support declines.”

RESIST!!

[johhnydrama]

143. Compromise seems to be out of the question on this issue?

I mean I thought that is what Conservative and moderate Dems did....COMPROMISE. Litmus tests are suppose to be the fringe members of BOTH parties.

[uppityperson]

148. what other rights beyond women's right to autonomy and health care do you wish more

compromise on?

[PoliticAverse]

152. "Compromise" seems to have worked well for women's health in 2009...

if you believe the ACA is good for women's health. The ACA passed without a single vote to spare
in the Senate, and anti-choice Democrat Bob Casey (Pa) was a necessary vote. Would you rather
he had lost to his Republican Senate opponent?

[uppityperson]

153. what other rights beyond women's right to autonomy and health care do you wish more compromise on?

[PoliticAverse]

154. You didn't answer the question. Did you support anti-choice Casey winning...

or would you rather he had lost? Do you think the ACA is good for women's healthcare?

[uppityperson]

156. You are ccorrect, I didn't answer the question in your non-answer to my question.

If you can reply to a question with only a different question, I can reply with the original question.

[PoliticAverse]

157. You want to avoid reality with a hypothetical. This is about actual candidates with actual positions

and actual women's health bills (like the ACA). You've indicated that you wouldn't "compromise" on the
abortion issue so you've effectively answered my question. You would have opposed Casey and the ACA
would have had insufficient votes and failed. Would that have been better than women's health?

You want to know what issue I'd compromise. I don't know - give me an actual race with 2 candidates and I'll
tell you what I'm apparently willing to compromise on.

[uppityperson]

158. You give a non answer again, show no indication you will answer.

Moving on.

[PoliticAverse]

161. I think most anyone reading this thread can see who is avoiding the real issue. n/t

[Egnever]

180. It's very clear.

and it isn't you.

[liquid diamond]

144. I agree with you Dan.

Women would be in greater danger with an anti-choice republican versus an anti-choice democrat. I would take the latter any day.

Christ. Would you rather lose one right or 5? This is the danger of being a single issue voter.

Some people haven't learned from our 2016 loss.

[ck4829]

147. Fight It, not each other

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029417391

[Ninsianna]

149. Anti-choice refers to a political idealogy that seeks to enact laws that deny

women basic human rights and are shown to endanger their lives by driving up maternal mortality.

It's not about morality, it's about legislation.

An anti-choicer period who wins will be a vote against women's rights and women's lives. They won't be any better than a Rep and when you're willing to give on something as basic a woman's basic right to autonomy and bodily integrity, you're not to be trusted on anything else.

The issue here is that once again women are being treated as if they don't matter. If the point of contention was a Democrat who was anti-gay or pro-segregation or pro-slavery, people would be up in arms, even if the rest of the argument holds. This is the same thing, except to a more offensive degree since this is something that LITERALLY kills women. It could be said to be pro-slavery as well, since it denies human beings ownership of their own bodies.

At the end of the day anyone who can or would compromise on the human rights of women is not a D, is not to be trusted and will not receive the support of the people who make up this party and do the hard work. We're tired of being sacrificed and told we don't matter.

As a woman, I don't care what the letter is, if they're willing to vote to kill me and deny me basic human rights, they won't get my support or my vote.

[JHan]

150. Great post, and I'll add, no matter how you frame it..

the message received is that women's rights are negotiable.

It is not comparable to the minimum wage or any other economic decision where compromise or "pragmatism" can mitigate harm.

The baseline here is "No Litmus Test" . An anti-choice view is against the very concept that a woman has a right to make her own decisions regarding her health. There is no way to get around that or frame it in any other way.

[PoliticAverse]

155. "An anti-choicer period who wins will be a vote against women's rights and women's lives" - really?

Bob Casey (Pa) is "anti-choice". Do you know how he's voted on women's health issues like
Planned Parenthood and the ACA?

[Egnever]

181. Of course not.

it's all ideology and zero reality.

[WillowTree]

169. It's perfectly OK for you to hold that opinion. Apparently not OK to voice it, however.

Just sayin'.

[LisaL]

175. What makes them Dems if they are anti-choice?

[ffr]

176. Agree.

No flaming here. I've been saying much the same. Let's fill congress with Dems. THEN, let's squabble over which ones don't live up to our expectations.

NO MORE REPUBLICANS!

[JNelson6563]

178. I'm ok with not letting GOP set debate.

Abortion litmus test? Goose that lays a daily golden egg for GOP if we were so stupid. "Gotta be a baby killer to be a Dem!!1!"