I know of several people who voted for Trump on the single issue of Supreme Court/pro-life. Well, they got their Supreme Court. I'm just curious, how many of those people who have made some determination that their single issue was "worth it" in order to ignore Trump's failings nonetheless voted for Trump in 2020?

I've heard comments along the lines of "Oh yes, we know he's horrible and we don't condone anything he says, but he has been good for [insert issue here], so I'm voting for him because of that."

So he did deliver tax cuts and a conservative, pro-life SCOTUS. He has removed as many regulations as he possibly can. He didn't deliver on the wall, but many of his immigration rules, achieved via executive order, will likely be unwound. He obviously didn't build the wall, much less have Mexico pay for it.

So, I'm curious how many single issue voters, who claimed to support him only because of that single issue, still voted for him in 2020, and how many of them may be regretting that vote in light of the past week?

This is a serious question. It's too easy to say "Trump voters are all alike, and they supported the insurrection last week." I'm not sure I believe that.

That being said, the early polling shows a depressingly high number of GOP supported and still support the insurrection.

Something I wrote on FB that might relate to this:

Republicans are like piano owners that bought a rebuilt Steinway from the one guy in town that badmouths all of the other technicians around with lies. He insists that he has superior knowledge and the piano has been "tune-locked, so never needs tuning or adjusting. When it is pointed out that the piano is actually a tired old no-name grand spruced up with spray paint and a sticker proclaiming Steinway, many cling to the con, refusing to believe that they were duped. Some feel bad they were conned, but as bad as the con man was, they still believe the lies that the other techs must be worse than the con man.
So yes, I get why people cling to the Republican party and believe what they believe. Just don't be surprised when you repeat the lies outside your bubble to those of us that haven't bought into the con that we scoff at those lies for what they are: ways to control large numbers of citizens.

quote:

refusing to believe that they were duped

But the single issue voters weren't duped. Many surely knew exactly what they were buying, and got value for their purchase price. The desecration of the capitol (and all that that means) is a price worth paying to achieve X, Y, or Z.

Thinking about the abortion debate in America - The discussion often is framed as binary, but is that really the best way to approach the issue?

Could we all agree that it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed? How to reduce the demand? There is actually data on policies that work!

https://www.theguardian.com/co...-pro-choice-policies

I'm thinking if the Democrats came out with a stated goal to "reduce the need for abortions" it might pull some of the single-issue anti-abortion voters away...

Yes, no?

I have my doubts, rt, though I agree with your thinking. Remember the phrase that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare"? That didn't sway anyone, because it could barely be heard among the "YOU MURDER BABIES" screaming.

It's not an issue of personal choice or responsibility for the pro-life group, as far as I can tell. It's a black and white view that keeping abortions safe, legal and rare is just ignoring or window dressing the fact that you are murdering a baby.

What Nina said.

quote:

Thinking about the abortion debate in America - The discussion often is framed as binary, but is that really the best way to approach the issue?

The Democrats have phrased it as non-binary for years. That's Biden's position as well. Safe, legal, and rare. Reduce the demand. That position hasn't changed minds. To most voters on the right it IS binary, no matter what you say.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Thinking about the abortion debate in America - The discussion often is framed as binary, but is that really the best way to approach the issue?

The Democrats have phrased it as non-binary for years. That's Biden's position as well. Safe, legal, and rare. Reduce the demand. That position hasn't changed minds. To most voters on the right it IS binary, no matter what you say.

Until they know someone who needs one.

Kind of like Covid is not a big deal. Until someone in the family dies.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Thinking about the abortion debate in America - The discussion often is framed as binary, but is that really the best way to approach the issue?

The Democrats have phrased it as non-binary for years. That's Biden's position as well. Safe, legal, and rare. Reduce the demand. That position hasn't changed minds. To most voters on the right it IS binary, no matter what you say.

Well, you and I know that - but just consider:

pro-abortion - - - - anti-abortion
pro-choice - - - - - pro-life

Even the more nuanced "safe, legal and rare" starts off with "we want abortion"... That's really not going to reach across any lines!

Instead, something like "we make a commitment to reduce the numbers of abortions performed every year in the US."

That would be news. If that catches the attention of single-issue voters, then the selling of the proven methods to achieve that goal could begin.

A) I don't think that will change any minds on the right. If you don't BAN it, you're immoral!!!!!!

B) Why should Democrats become Republicans? The decision is the woman's in consultation with her family and her physician(s). Committing to reducing abortions injects the Democratic party into that process in ways that I think most Democrats would reject. Democrats want to say that they'll provide this or that service (better child care, smoother adoption, etc) and happily append that this will (statistically) reduce abortions below what they would have been otherwise. Going further and committing to target numbers suggests that we know better than women what to choose. I reject that.

quote:

Why should Democrats become Republicans? The decision is the woman's in consultation with her family and her physician(s). Committing to reducing abortions injects the Democratic party into that process in ways that I think most Democrats would reject. Democrats want to say that they'll provide this or that service (better child care, smoother adoption, etc) and happily append that this will (statistically) reduce abortions below what they would have been otherwise. Going further and committing to target numbers suggests that we know better than women what to choose. I reject that.

All of this!

And part of reducing the numbers of abortions required would involve health services for women to start early with education and prevention strategies.

I don't see any sort of prevention of unwanted pregnancies as "becoming Republican"... in fact, just the opposite!

I understand what you are saying. I just think that Democrats need to re-brand the effort to preserve the legality of letting doctors and patients make choices to blur the lines that have hardened between people.

As usual, I'm probably guilty of expecting too much from people...

Have begun to ask them for the Bible verse condemning abortion.
When they have no answer I say it is political issue, not a religious or moral one.
Doubt I have changed any minds, but I enjoy it.

quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
Have begun to ask them for the Bible verse condemning abortion.
When they have no answer I say it is political issue, not a religious or moral one.
Doubt I have changed any minds, but I enjoy it.

And I'm to the point that I tell them that I am not a bit interested in what they think.

Not a bit.