Maybe 'no purity test' for abortion is a strategy

[Fresh_Start]

aimed less at candidates and more at voters.

It it were only for the candidates is could be quiet discussions at party meetings.
But it is being broadcast widely by a number of national democrats.

[beachbum bob]

1. democratic party is a big tent party and NO purity tests are needed

[Fresh_Start]

4. +1 nt

nt

[all american girl]

29. OK Bob, you put what rights you don't mind losing and leave women's rights out of it.

Women are't going back because some don't see us as full humans, with rights over our own bodies

[H2O Man]

2. Well, it may be

a strategy. But it sounds, smells, and feels like a very republican strategy, while simultaneously not resembling a democratic strategy in any meaningful way.

[Fresh_Start]

3. It is a big tent strategy

saying that you can be a democrat and anti-abortion....
As long as the party platform for reproductive rights is intact....its messaging only and not strategy.

[H2O Man]

10. The tent is

already big. Numerous democrats are personally anti-abortion. They are, however, pro-choice. Thus, they should feel ethically obligated to support making serious sex education available in public schools, and free birth control available to the general public

There is no advantage to attempting a shortcut to rational thought by tearing the very fabric of the big tent, to allow anti-choice people in.

[bettyellen]

16. Dems have an ethical obligation to politically support women's rights.

And to not try and legislate against them. Period.

[Orrex]

18. That

[leftstreet]

22. +1

[suffragette]

26. THIS + 1,000

[all american girl]

30. Bettyellen, you are AWESOME!!!! I bow to you!!!!

[bettyellen]

31. Aww thanks. It's so simple isn't it? We are the majority of Dems and if the resistance- anything

Less is not good enough. I don't care what their personal views are- but to legislate against us is wrong. Men gotta learn that.

[cyclonefence]

34. Yep

[still_one]

7. I am not sure why the threads now seem to be popping up that either a "candidate supports choice, or

I will not vote for that candidate", when we are facing one of the most critical midterm elections in 2018. It sure makes me wonder, because the issue has always been there, and the timing seems so convenient now

[H2O Man]

11. I's speculate

that the OP/threads advocating a pro-choice position are the direct result of earlier OP/threads advocating the party seek to attract anti-choice people. I do not believe it's a coincidence.

[still_one]

17. There are not that many Democrats who have federal political aspirations who are anti-choice anymore

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345231-anti-abortion-democrats-fading-from-the-scene

[H2O Man]

20. Oh, I agree.

I'm glad that they are a dying breed. And there's no good reason to try to attract more.

[leftstreet]

24. Because the DCCC chair threw it out there!

Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion
By Ben Kamisar and Reid Wilson - 07/31/17 09:57 AM EDT

Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

In taking the position, Luján and Democrats risk alienating liberals, as well as groups dedicated to promoting access to abortion and reproductive health services that represent the core of the party’s base.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion

He seems to be the only one attempting to 'divide' things. 3 weeks ago, 3 months ago, 3 years ago - the base was NOT discussing the issue!

[still_one]

25. you are right, I misstated when it came to the forefront. It has been going on for a while

It was during the Mello campaign in Nebraska. When Bernie Sanders expressed support for the anti-choice Democrat Mello. It was when Nancy Pelosi stated a similar view.

Now DCCC chair Lujan gives his two cents, which contradicts what Tom Perez said that the DNC will unequivocally only support pro-choice Democrats

The reality is that there are really not that many anti-choice Democrats in elected federal offices, and sooner than later this will be a non-issue, because there will only be prochoice Democrats. I believe there are only two anti-choice Democrats in the Senate right now, Casey, and Donnelly, and Casey has evolved somewhat on that issue

[cyclonefence]

35. Didn't you hear?

it's one of the cyclical invasions of trolls here at DU; it's why DU seems so different now

[still_one]

37. I think there is still tension from 2016, and some of that tension is reflected in some of the posts

[cyclonefence]

38. I guess

but it hurt a little to be called a troll for participating in a thread on a subject so important to me (and to others), especially since the name-calling was so gratuitous. I had a higher opinion of democrats and our tolerance for differing opinions. This felt like fourth-graders with a slam book.

[still_one]

39. Calling someone a "troll" could be viewed as a "personal attack", which is a TOS violation. The DU

rules are meant to try and encourage civility, but being a political forum there is going to be strong feelings generated, because people feel strongly about these issues.

In regard to this thread, the OP is approaching it a little differently than other threads on this topic. He or she is suggesting convincing the voters, which ultimately is the solution of for obtaining prochoice candidates.

[mercuryblues]

5. It is a

strategy that tells women their rights are negotiable. Women are their largest base of support, so it sounds like a losing strategy to me. Lose women, lose races.

It is really that simple.

[yallerdawg]

8. We need a strategy to keep Republicans out of the White House.

They're a couple lifetime appointments from taking away "women's rights" - period - and women voted last year, didn't they?

[Orrex]

13. Yeah, we might as well assume that they'll always vote Democrat

That worked well with the working class, whom the Democratic party abandoned. How did they vote last year?

It also worked well with black voters, who turned out in smaller numbers in 2016.


But sure, why not? Let's assume that women will keep coming to the polls while their rights are being eroded.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Of course it is

It's a stupid strategy. There are many single issue voters--but I don't know how many. Abortion is very emotional for people trying to deny women their rights. It's a tenant of many "mega-churches, as well as established churches. These people include many women-and they pretend that gives it's some sort of moral authority. Taking away a women's medical decision in the case of pregnancy is inhumane and completely unethical.

I understand the red states and voting for the best bad candidate. I also understand being personally "against" abortion while being politically pro-choice. What I don't understand is the Democratic leadership tossing women under the bus, with these kind of statements.

[Rustyeye77]

9. Ok

So no purity test on abortion

Death penalty?
Gun control?
Death penalty?
Single payer health care ?
Pro preventative war?
Affirmative action?


I'm very confused.

[Fresh_Start]

14. none of this messaging is changing the democratic party platform

you are confusing an invitation to join to a change in policy
The democratic party already allows people who are anti-abortion to be democrats.

[Rustyeye77]

19. The Rules

The rules state don't peddle RW talking points.
I guess anti-choice is no longer a RW talking point.

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.
Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

[Fresh_Start]

27. Looks more like you are trying to smear national democratic leaders than I am

since I am trying to support those national democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Gov Brown.

[LeftInTX]

12. Voters who are personally opposed to abortion, need to feel they are part of the tent

Messaging needs to focus on the spectrum of women's health issues, contraception, prenatal and post-natal care, family maternity leave, early childhood health care. They also need to focus on child care for working women. Contrast this to Republicans who offer very little or no support for women. Abortion is only a small part of women's healthcare.

[Fresh_Start]

28. yes that nt

nt

[loyalsister]

15. I had that thought to

Maybe the idea is to hash it out early so that elections are not consumed with one issue. Abortion should not be a partisan issue. It is simply a medical procedure. I can't think of any other medical procedure that has been so politicized. Except maybe when it comes to situations where voters have objected to health coverage that would provide funding that might cover necessary surgery.

I think it is not okay to object to either. And maybe it has not been clear to some voters that objection to one may prevent others from receiving healthcare that may save their lives. Suppose that were to finally sink in?
Maybe ending the argument could bring both sides around to not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Would giving up the objective of being recognized as correct and still not losing be acceptable even if the trade off is having some people we vehemently disagree with show up at our house parties and fundraisers?

[yallerdawg]

21. In 2018, we need to flip 24 Republican Congressional districts.

We need to flip at least 3 Republican Senate races.

We have two strategies duking it out - again.

Do we appeal to more voters with purity and ideology, digging deeper into the progressive, liberal core who stay home or vote 3rd party?

Or do we appeal to the independents and the moderate Republicans, peel off a few voters, lower the volume on the rhetoric and ideology which drives Republican voters to the polls?

Or can we use both strategies based on the "local" constituency?

Where elections are close - dig deep for more Democrats?

Where running in Deep Red districts - lower the volume, peel off a few?

[bettyellen]

23. I think we can find good loca candidates and strategy AND let them know their support is continegent

On supporting women's rights. I'm not insisting they go out and make a big deal of it, but to actually argue against our right? nope.

[PoliticAverse]

32. For those that haven't seen Nancy Pelosi's comments on this issue...

you can see them here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-democratic-candidates-should-not-be-forced-to-toe-party-line-on-abortion/2017/05/02/9cbc9bc6-2f68-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.91ebbc48c7ed

[guillaumeb]

33. Taking this to its conclusion, should the Party abandon any platform? eom

[cyclonefence]

36. Calling it a "purity test" is not helpful

I think abortion rights is an excellent litmus test to decide whether a candidate supports women's rights in general because abortion rights are about a hell of a lot more than abortions. What the voter does with what she learns is up to her.