the Religous Right are flexing their muscle on Republican Candidates.

[whiskeytown]

This is the most interesting story in politics to me right, even more so then the Democratic nomination, simply because for many years, I voted Republican basically out of Religious convictions and being told it was the Christian thing to do, as opposed to understanding the issues as they affect real Americans.

I saw Dobson's interview this week on Hannity and Colmes - the Focus on the Family guru was telling Hannity what a difficult decision it would be to vote for Guilani, Romney, or any frontrunner who hasn't been up to snuf in the pro-life category.

Bear in mind, the only way this has any bearing is in the appointment of judges as strict constructionists - Neither a Republican President nor controlled Congress did a thing to staunch the flow except the partial birth ban which really, was a ban in name only as the procedure was almost never done out of convenience but necessity.

Hannity spent basically 3-5 minutes going back to the same point - insisting if Dobson didn't support the Republican candidate, you'd have president Hillary and more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, with Dobson consistantly coming back and stating that he couldn't compromise his values by voting for a candidate that he thought wouldn't do the task of dealing with the Abortion and Gay Marriage issues.

I am of the personal opinion that Republicans will never do anything about Abortion because if it were to suddenly become illegal again out of the blue due to their influence that the population all over the country would take about 20 percentage point jump towards the Democrats. It's not really a majority held view anymore among voters, and can only be influenced/changed thru court decisions. So it's fairly clear to me you'll continue to have Pro-life in name only, while not changing abortion in any fundmental way on the Federal level - most of the changes/restrictions are being pounded thru at the state level.

Interesting enough, I too am Pro-Life - but I consider that to be a much broader definition then what Dobson and the Religious Right define it as [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] - but the question is, given that many of the Religious Right's leaders are voicing concern on the likely candidates, what do you think will be the likely outcome. I forsee a number of options

1. - They hate the candidate (Guiliani) and choose to stay home on election day, resulting in depressed Republican turnout - this is what I think will be the most likely option, BTW and I think Hillary has the same effect on many progressives in the Democratic Party.

2. - Repub's hate the candidate and turn to a 3rd party candidate - some might do this, but I think most will stay home to send a message - possible, though.

3. - Repub's hate the candidate but he pays enough lipservice to prolife values or the Dem's nominate a really hated candidate (Hillary) and it rallies the base to turn out and hold their nose - least likely option, IMHO.

4. - Either thru influence, primary luck, or whatever, someone with a staunch prolife record gets the nomination - at which point I predict decent turnout, maybe a new supreme court appointee, but no real progress

thoughts?

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
I am of the personal opinion that Republicans will never do anything about Abortion because if it were to suddenly become illegal again out of the blue due to their influence that the population all over the country would take about 20 percentage point jump towards the Democrats. It's not really a majority held view anymore among voters, and can only be influenced/changed thru court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. N=1,263 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%

-There is a majority that are against the current practice, so if a candidate finds a way to restrict abortion he or she might find a way to get a huge boost and not lose too many voters to the Democrats. Many of the Pro-Life supporters migh be so determined about their views that they demand total abolishment of abortions to give the candidate their vote, but wouldnt be surprising if many of those who believe that it should not be permitted at all will tolerate a smaller victory at first. In that case an advocate for tightening the current practice might get the votes needed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am of the personal opinion that Republicans will never do anything about Abortion because if it were to suddenly become illegal again out of the blue due to their influence that the population all over the country would take about 20 percentage point jump towards the Democrats. It's not really a majority held view anymore among voters, and can only be influenced/changed thru court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. N=1,263 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%

-There is a majority that are against the current practice, so if a candidate finds a way to restrict abortion he or she might find a way to get a huge boost and not lose too many voters to the Democrats. Many of the Pro-Life supporters migh be so determined about their views that they demand total abolishment of abortions to give the candidate their vote, but wouldnt be surprising if many of those who believe that it should not be permitted at all will tolerate a smaller victory at first. In that case an advocate for tightening the current practice might get the votes needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[MidGe]

whiskeytown,

I, very sincerely, hope you are right! And, in this instance, you probably are but, hopefully, for different reasons! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bobman0330]

I'm pretty sure the Republican coalition that elected Bush and controlled Congress since 1994 is done for. The neocons are hated, the religious people are blindly focused on Roe and gay marriage, immigration hawks are busy alienating Latino voters, and business Republicans hate the first three groups. Given demographic changes, I think it's not unlikely that the current incarnation of the Republican party NEVER regains national electability.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am of the personal opinion that Republicans will never do anything about Abortion because if it were to suddenly become illegal again out of the blue due to their influence that the population all over the country would take about 20 percentage point jump towards the Democrats. It's not really a majority held view anymore among voters, and can only be influenced/changed thru court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. N=1,263 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%

-There is a majority that are against the current practice, so if a candidate finds a way to restrict abortion he or she might find a way to get a huge boost and not lose too many voters to the Democrats. Many of the Pro-Life supporters migh be so determined about their views that they demand total abolishment of abortions to give the candidate their vote, but wouldnt be surprising if many of those who believe that it should not be permitted at all will tolerate a smaller victory at first. In that case an advocate for tightening the current practice might get the votes needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%


[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the status quo is not an option. Less strict limits is not an option.

The author of the poll might think General Availability is the status quo, but really the status quo is "some restrictions".

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
except the partial birth ban which really, was a ban in name only as the procedure was almost never done out of convenience but necessity.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculously far from the truth.

NYT article (in PDF format)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%


[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the status quo is not an option. Less strict limits is not an option.

The author of the poll might think General Availability is the status quo, but really the status quo is "some restrictions".

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of Roe v. Wade and Casey I don't think your reasons relegate the questions to being terrible FWIW.

[canis582]

Whiskey, is Dobson saying that he will tell his people not to vote if Guliani is the nominee?

How many people can Dobson keep from voting? (or vote for a 3rd candidate)