That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!
That's from the new Times/Siena poll, discussed in the NYT article "Republicans Gain Edge as Voters Worry About Economy, Times/Siena Poll Finds/With elections next month, independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights. Disapproval of President Biden seems to be hurting his party."
The NYT says that's "a striking swing given... how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights."
Obviously, one explanation is that the polls are massaged and the direction of the massage changes as we get closer to the election. That would mean the earlier poll was more about shaping opinion, and the new poll, so close to the election, needs to approximate what will actually happen in the election, so the pollsters won't lose credibility. We've all heard that explanation.
But a 32-point turnaround in one month — that's so huge!
Is it that "disapproval of President Biden" is "hurting his party"? Or is it that the stress on abortion rights isn't hitting independent women the way Democrats think it would?
When you look at independents as a whole — men and women — they favor Republicans by 10 percentage points, up from 3 last month, a 7 percentage point difference. What's going on with independent women? I myself am an independent woman, but I don't feel that I exemplify my group. In case I do, I'll just say that I feel distanced from all major-party politicians.
And, for the record, I hate abortion but support abortion rights. That is, I've supported abortion rights, as protected by the courts, but I expected the moderate politicians to propose legislation that would protect access to abortion, up to a certain point, which we would openly discuss, perhaps coming up with a reasonable time limit — subject to some exceptions — perhaps 15 weeks. I wanted to see a chart showing the development of the embryo/fetus week by week and polls asking what people think is the right line between letting the woman control her own body and protecting the unborn.
But that's not what we've seen. We've got Democrats resisting setting any limit. Instead of saying let's restore access to the point of viability — the Roe line — they're resisting setting any line. I say "they" but I'm not listening all the time to all of them. I did watch the Wisconsin gubernatorial debate in which the Republican Tim Michels accused the Democrat Tony Evers of supporting access to abortion up to the point of birth, and Tony Evers never corrected him — not right after the accusation was made and not later when the moderator asked each candidate to correct anything that has been said about him that's wrong.
So I've got to consider the possibility that the giant 32-point shift in opinion is not in spite of the Democrats' support for abortion rights but in part because of it.
But maybe it's in spite of the abortion issues. Economic matters dominate, and people may want change. But why are women — in the independent group — changing so much more than men?
पोस्ट्स
१५९ टिप्पण्या:
Stop trying to make sense of rigged polls. It's pointless tail-chasing.
"That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!"
Uh. Women! Duh.
(I know. Low hanging fruit etc.)
Soccer moms are starting to wake up to the fact that democrats aren't just incompetent, but industrial grade dumb as fuck and all their chardonnay money has disappeared via inflation.
Forget abortion for a moment: The hard left wants women to shower with penis-attached transgendered folks. The hard left wants cross-dressing men with huge fake boobs to teach small children and participate in all-ages drag shows. The hard left is actively cancelling JK Rowling and older generation "TERFs" for believing in biological differences.
Abortion...the key topic only for left wing child-bearing age single women who sleep around without birth control...? Small demographic slice?
Also see the mealy mouthed rationalizations of polling/betting discrepancies at 538:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/betting-markets-are-treating-the-midterm-elections-like-its-a-presidential-election/
The best rated polls ("A") have Biden deeply underwater:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?cid=rrpromo
I don't trust polls - but it would make sense considering the democrat party is a corrupt pile of crap. The democrat party is all lies/ all the time.
Now that the Cheney's are firmly in camp Democrat - perhaps some women are waking up?
The democrat party destroys education at every turn - and if you dare show up as a parent to complain - Crook Biden's DOJ will place you on the terrorist watch list.
I think a simpler explanation is that the margin of error for subgroups is huge since the sample size of subgroups tends to be tiny. That is, if you poll 1,000 people, how many of them are independent women? 180?
You suppose not every women is on board with the abortion obsession? I think plenty of moms think it's a bit ghoulish the way the left have embraced abortion on demand up until birth.
Tony Evers never corrected him
Which means Michels wasn't wrong. What's the evidence that Evers doesn't support no limits on abortion?
Fear of nuclear war.
My grandkids can feel it. Nobody has talked to them about it. But, they’re scared. Spooked in their sleep.
Our “science is real” betters sabotaged an election to install a dementia patient in the presidency. He’s blundered us to the precipice of nuclear war.
In general, women feel this emotionally better and in larger numbers than men do. Women with young children are getting a big dose of their childrens’ fear.
Obviously, the polls are erroneous in one or several ways, or have been "massaged," as you put it. There is no way public opinion could change so dramatically and so swiftly on a particular topic.
isn't it funny? isn't it strange? that whenever an election gets near,
polling companies switch from reporting what they WANT you to believe; to what they think is actually true?
My district, KS-3,, has a Demmocrat incumbent who's in some trouble. Her ads have been viciously negative and 90 percent focused on abortion. Since thhe Republican won her primary in August, I've received more than 20 mailers, not one of them even mentioning Biden, althoughh she voted with him 100 percent of the time. One mailing on gun control. one on the need for the feds to takr over electons. and one on the need to "fully fund our schools".
Big outside money pouring into her campaign, and she's been a nothing in Congress.
Ann, I promise you this isn't a facetious question but one I've been curious your thoughts on....
I see an enormous issue with the federal government - either Judicial or Legislative branches - ruling on Abortion. Ultimately abortion is a medical procedure, and I don't really believe the government should be involved in banning/allowing procedures.
I see it as absolutely within their power and standards to define when life begins according to the government - thus allowing a wide range of laws, social services, etc. to be applied based upon a common definition.
How do you feel about what I just outlined? Do you see a problem with the 1st or 2nd stance?
Thanks,
Joe
Rusty said...
Soccer moms are starting to wake up
maybe (just Maybe), the dogs don't like the dogfood*?
the dogfood* being an upcoming Thermonuclear War, that was started by US
It’s like a sudden change of mind by European Jews as the train of cattle cars pulls out headed to Auschwitz’s labor camp. A real WOKE UP to reality moment.
In the UK, abortion is basically at viability (24wks, which will likely go to 20 in time).
In much of the rest of Europe it's around 1st trimester
So why won't Democrats give us a date?
Why do they all appear to be OK with 41 weeks?
If those two pols are correct, and the overall polling is not showing a big shift, there must not be very many independent women.
The next shoe to drop??,,,,,,,,,,No one really cares about abortion, but my 401k is hemorrhaging.
"I did watch the Wisconsin gubernatorial debate in which the Republican Tim Michels accused the Democrat Tony Evers of supporting access to abortion up to the point of birth, and Tony Evers never corrected him"
Why do you believe there's something to "correct"? Simple explanation is that either Evers does support access to abortion up to the point of birth or he knows democrats will abandon him if he says otherwise.
I agree with our hostess that abortion is horrible, but sometimes necessary. Ideally, a national consensus on 12 or 15 week no questions asked policy could be enacted, with very rare exception for the physical health of the mother after that. I could live with that.
The current TX law is, I believe, in effect no abortion for anyone ever. Go to NM or LA to kill your baby.
Extreme? Yes, but may be effective in keeping the lefties out. Maybe even encourage a few of our many native lefties (Beto!) to relocate to friendlier states.
Worth it.
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
a bit ghoulish the way the left have embraced abortion on demand up until birth.
Christopher B said...
What's the evidence that Evers doesn't support no limits on abortion?
A couple of days ago i asked the liberals Here, what limits (if Any) they supported on abortion?
Not ONE answered.
One did respond, saying that he
a) wasn't a liberal
b) didn't "approve" of abortion
but, without answering The Question: What limits (if Any) he supported on abortion?
so, i asked him AGAIN: what limits (if Any) he supported on abortion?
and i received SILENCE.
I'll ask the liberals Here, what limits (if Any) do you support on abortion?
14 weeks?
28 weeks
56 weeks?
6 months?
ten years?
It took me a while to find abortion on Tony Evers's campaign website. There's a heading about healthcare, then, on the healthcare page:
"Protect Reproductive Care: With the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to do everything in our power to protect access to reproductive care. Gov. Evers continues to fight Wisconsin’s 1849-era criminal abortion ban, which was passed before women had the right to vote and contains no exception for rape or incest. Governor Evers has also promised to provide clemency to physicians prosecuted and found guilty under this law. As the legal battle over this law continues, Gov. Evers will continue to take any action necessary to protect access to reproductive services, including abortion and contraceptive services."
Nothing about the law he would favor, nothing about where he would draw the line, just opposition to the extreme law that is currently on the books and being challenged in court.
What idiot wrote the phrase "any action necessary"?!
Althouse said: That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!
The independent women who flipped in the polling must not have college degrees.
"Obviously, the polls are erroneous in one or several ways, or have been "massaged," as you put it. There is no way public opinion could change so dramatically and so swiftly on a particular topic."
But 32 points is such a huge swing that it must represent *something.*
I agree with Althouse’s correction theory and saw other evidence of the Big Poll Correction of ‘22 last week before RCP said they would start rating polls or weighting them for accuracy. Stand by for more of this as polling firms try and save what credibility they can at this point. The heavy lifting was attempted and is failing laughably. We the middle majority were right and the dead enders will hang onto their Tank Abrams dreams.
"But why are women — in the independent group — changing so much more than men?"
They buy the groceries for most households. Most readers of this blog are out of touch with buying groceries for a family with less than a two-lawyer-income household budget. Everyone who shops at Walmart or Aldi for groceries is currently paying much more for lower quality food (the food on the shelf is lower quality than it was pre-pandemic, plus substitution effects).
This is a good natural experiment though. Middle class women prefer "women's rights," but not so much that they'd vote for them at the expense of having to feed their kids store-brand products.
"...despite Democrats' focus on abortion rights"
Is that you, Fox Butterfield?
Evers is an evil creature he proved it during the lockdowns
Rusty said...Soccer moms are starting to wake up to the fact that democrats aren't just incompetent, but industrial grade dumb as fuck and all their chardonnay money has disappeared via inflation.
Are we sure the women who flipped are Soccer moms? I picture those to be college educated, SUV or minivan driving suburban women who live pretty good lives, but vote for Democrats.
My guess is it's lower middle class to poor women who can't afford food, gas, daycare, and live closer to the increased crime than the woke suburban women. They are also the ones who's sons can't get into a university...and will be sent to fight waste of time wars.
Rasmussen's Biden Approval Index went from -23 Friday to +23 today. This is obviously the digital equivalent of a typo and will be fixed. But presumably the NYT wouldn't write a whole article without catching something of that nature.
Soccer moms shop for the food and soccer moms are the ones that put 200-300 miles on their SUVs in a week driving the kids to lessons and games. They are folks who are most affected by inflation and energy policies.
Assuming that women, especially mothers, will be motivated to vote D by abortion is the same mistake as assuming Hispanics are only motivated by immigration.
I don't know what independent woman means, but it doesn't mean a woman who thinks like a man.
Or, they said what they were supposed to say until they just couldn't say it anymore.
Six weeks to viability where baby meets granny in state, if not in process. Progressive prices, availability, DIE (Diversity [dogma], Inequity, and Exclusion) doctrine, political congruence ("=", including transgender conversion therapy), Mengele mandates, coups without borders, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, affirmative discrimination of women by sex and gender, etc.
Keep women, and girls, affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burdens" of evidence aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered at the twilight fringe?
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. The Pro-Choice ethical religion of Progressive Churches, Clinics, Corporations, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, etc. denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities.
Demos-cracy dies in darkness. #HateLovesAbortion
And Dem Senate candidate in WI campaigning in Russian TV.
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/mandela-barnes-joins-russian-state-tv-alongside-white-nationalist-richard-spencer/
Remind everyone of the Democrat's compassion as crime returns to 1970 levels, illiteracy has resurfaced, elderly getting knocked out on the streets, teens assaulted and killed on the subway.
Mayor DeBlasio pushed an experimental injection that Pfizer never gave any proof it would stop transmission or actually work. Fauci & CDC changed the definition of a Vaccine to a "therapy" - that there is still no proof actually works. And on his way out said : "if parents want to feed their kids, they'll do what we tell them to do"
What we do know - DRs & Nurses were discouraged from reporting VAERS and there are still >1.4Million injured in the US.
Dems keep repeating RED STATES crime. Google worst crime cities in the US. 19 of the top 20 are DEMOCRAT run.
Families were getting ahead after the Obama Presidency. 11 Million people lifted out of poverty. Even with a historic pandemic and nonsensical lockdowns, families had money in their pockets, could travel to see family or vacation, put $2K/yr into a fund, everything was affordable, and we had 1.4% and $1.69 gas.
Democrats attacked and destroyed US Energy Independence causing costs on everything to skyrocket. Then instead of lifting lockdowns, they printed money and caused historic inflation and the Biden Recession. And while bragging low unemployment - we are back to Obamanomics where people are working 2 jobs again to meet bills and 5.5 Million have already been shoved back into poverty. (reminder, Obama grew poverty from 39M to 47M while bragging about the stock market. Just before the 2016 election he had left 45.3 Million in poverty) Trump lifted 11M out, with 35,302,250 Dec 2020. Biden is already up to 40.8 Million.
As everything, when the pain hits your wallet - AND you can't feed your children - people wake up to lousy leadership.
Abortion is all the Dems have. I would say the Dems and their funders have ran 75% of the ads I have seen here in Minnesota. And of those ads, probably 75% have been about abortion. Our governor is a buffoon, but a lot of people think he means well so he is probably going to survive, but the suburban folks are restive, which could doom a lot of the other politicians who dominate this state. We could have a DFL governor and two DFL senators (neither are up this cycle), with a Republican legislature and 5 or even 6 of 8 congressmen on the Republican side. The suburban vote here is significantly more liberal than it is in Wisconsin, but the riots and general criminal nastiness in Minneapolis are not soon forgotten.
Glad to see Ann note the numbers swings may be from changing from polling for narrative purpose early on to polling to actually reflect the truth as Election Day nears. This has been my view for years which implies polling is a corrupt enterprise.
But the good news is that, as these changes occur a new narrative, also false, emerges showing momentum when there really is none. That’s encouraging because it means the old “Cheaters never prosper” adage is true. Sometimes I’m disheartened because it seems all the Democrat smearing never gets punished, that cheaters always proper and with impunity. But houses of cards do fall, tangled webs do collapse, landmine planters do sometimes step on their own mines.
And I rejoice.
If there was a discrete "something" that occurred in the last 30 days to explain this dramatic shift in Independent women voters, I would have to point to Joe Biden's loose talk about nuclear Armageddon. Having a clueless lout who still needs his 3 three day beach time in the midst of the biggest face-off since the 1962 missile crisis might have done the trick.
---But 32 points is such a huge swing that it must represent *something.*
The logjam is breaking.
Wouldn't Biden's "red" speech have occurred between those two polls?
I think folks are underestimating just how disastrous the optics of that speech were.
@TreeJoe
You need to clarify what you are talking about.
Are you saying Congress lacks constitutional power to legislate about the scope of access to abortion? Under current Commerce Clause doctrine, it clearly does. Providing medical procedures is a commercial activity — it is a service customers buy — and there's a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Are you saying the Court was wrong in Dobbs, and there "should" be an individual right to have an abortion? I agree that Roe shouldn't have been overruled, but the reasoning in Roe (and Casey) was weak.
I understand your point about drawing a line about destroying the unborn entity — though I wouldn't say "when life begins." There's no point when there is a pregnancy but the entity is not alive. You could say when is the entity "a person." But it's clearer to just set lines about when Congress (or state govt) has determined abortion is acceptable.
I don't like the idea of articulating a definition in one place and saying it must be used in an all sorts of contexts. That assumes there really is a point when the unborn becomes the equivalent of a born person. This is a position that only works for people who are very intent on an absolute view that an overwhelmingly important life comes into being at the point of conception.
But you asked whether that approach would be "within their power"? Who are "they"? If Congress, yes, of course Congress can define terms that are applicable to whatever statutes they may be passing. If the federal judiciary, then they can only decide real cases, not announce a definition to be applied everywhere. They only say what the law is where it is necessary to resolving a concrete dispute between adverse parties.
Dark MAGA speech and rambling about nuclear war hasn’t worked for Joe.
I had to delete and repost that long comment of mine because there were various confusing things about it.
Sorry to anyone who is in the middle of trying to respond (and perhaps arguing with something I've already changed).
Good, if true. I’m skeptical of anything published in the Times.
Things that might make the shift more or less real: Joe Biden’s casual reference to nuclear Armageddon, school boards doubling down on gay porn on the elementary schools’ reading lists, a growing realization that Dobbs does not really bar abortion after all, inflation in food prices worsening, gas prices going back up, and Democrats’ focus on Trump becoming tiresome.
Things suggest the shift is more or less phony: The New York Times in the 21st century
In September, the pollsters are trying to create the appearance of a blue wave, in order to create an actual blue wave. As the election gets closer, pollsters fear that their reputations will suffer if they are seen as having pro-Dem bias, so the pollsters are trying to have the "last poll before the election" be more accurate.
Most women I know are more worried about their live children than the ones someone else wants to abort. That's why issues like education, inflation, and the economy resonate with them while abortion is well down the list in every poll I've seen.
The Democrats picked the wrong horse in this race, but it's all they got.
Women, men, and our Posterity are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.
The democrat party has PURPOSEFULLY doubled gasoline prices which cause a huge ripple effect throughout the economy. The inflation is a direct result of their policies. Independent women see that the democrat party is the party of high inflation, racist educational policies, open borders and support grooming their children. They also see that the democrat party is aligned with social media, main stream media and because of that they are never called on these issues.
What is not to like. If you want to eat dog food when you are old vote democrat.
"Gov. Evers continues to fight Wisconsin’s 1849-era criminal abortion ban, which was passed before women had the right to vote and contains no exception for rape or incest."
The progs have been hyping this "before women had the right to vote" bullshit in their commercials for months. Sure they couldn't vote in 1849, but they could from the 19th amendment in 1920 to Roe v Wade in 1973. Five decades to change the abortion laws of the state. Nothing.
The Democrats can sleep tight in knowing they will never lose Inga.
Abortion is a tough issue as exemplified by your statement, "I hate abortion but support abortion rights."
The one thing we are not having is a reasonable political or public discussion about reasonable limits on abortion. In Illinois, the Democratic message is all about abortion, even though Illinois will always be a haven--and perhaps a tourist destination--for abortion seekers. There is no substantial support for eliminating abortion, although the Dem position here is that abortion should always be legal--and maybe they are OK with postbirth infanticide. No "safe, legal, and rare" here. Abortion appears to be the ultimate strawman issue here, and Dem ads flood the airwaves.
The GOP is going with, "Have you had enough of Pritzker and Biden yet?" Not a strong message, is it? And the candidates put forward are weak. If you want to see the end of our republic, look at Illinois.
"But 32 points is such a huge swing that it must represent *something.*"
Perhaps the NYT is trying to scare their supporters to the polls.
Women are shoppers. Inflation is painful, whether shopping for groceries or business clothing. They may also have been turned off by Democrat crime and open borders. Also costly.
Women who are still Democrats are either too rich or too stupid to notice.
"What is not to like. If you want to eat dog food when you are old vote democrat."
I think they want us to eat bugs.
A 32 point swing correlates almost perfectly with the percentage loss in the respondents IRAs. Pundits can bang on about abortion and gas prices and the cost of bread but when investments held for retirement are slaughtered people notice. And they don’t like it. Worse still is the fact that required distributions for retirees may result in the forced sale of securities that have lost a third of their value ( taxed, of course, like ordinary income). So a third more of holdings will have to be liquidated. Double whammy.
"Nothing about the law he would favor, nothing about where he would draw the line, just opposition to the extreme law that is currently on the books and being challenged in court."
So Evers won't declare a position and he won't "correct" Michels' assertion. Looks like case closed to me.
Hispanics
@Ann Althouse
Ann, thank you for the detailed response to my question. That's exactly what I was seeking - a better understanding from you on your own stances, with more nuance about actual powers.
To answer your questions....I was not disputing Congress power, I was disputing whether Congress should use it's power to federally ban or mandate medical procedures. Whether it's abortion, euthanasia, or something else.
You also asked, "Are you saying the Court was wrong in Dobbs, and there "should" be an individual right to have an abortion? I agree that Roe shouldn't have been overruled, but the reasoning in Roe (and Casey) was weak."
No, I think the Court did a much better job in Dobbs than in Roe. And that's not about my stance on Abortion - my stance (to me) is about actual jurisprudence.
Lastly, I actually don't understand your statement here, "I don't like the idea of articulating a definition in one place and saying it must be used in an all sorts of contexts. That assumes there really is a point when the unborn becomes the equivalent of a born person. This is a position that only works for people who are very intent on an absolute view that an overwhelmingly important life comes into being at the point of conception."
This seems unusual for you. Don't you generally like consistent definitions?
Should there not be a common definition of when individual personhood begins? Right now the lack of definition here means laws relating to murder, assault, child support....things like how an employee gets or does not get paid leave if they lose a child at -5 days or +5 days from birth....all of these areas are all over the place because politicians, and their constituents, want to sometimes recognize a fetus as a person and sometimes do not.
Isn't the simplest, from a legal perpsective, answer to define when personhood begins?
Theoretically speaking, I'd be fine doing that the medical definition of birth (i.e. emerges from mothers womb alive) or similar even though I'm against today's practice of non-emergency abortion.
I feel - and this is why I'm asking for your feedback - that the issue of legalizing the medical procedure is just a bandaid on defining when individual personhood begins. And that is what advocates should be asking congress to do - define personhood.
"That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!"
Could be a lot of things.
Seems to me polling is only as good as the sample selected and the willingness of people to respond honestly. Not every sample will be representative of the whole.
Remember 1980? The race between Carter and Reagan was judged too close to call. Most all the pollsters had it that way right up until election day, yet Reagan won in a landslide. One story I recall is that Patrick Caddell, Carter's pollster, sat Jimmy down the weekend before election day (right after a big rally which buoyed Carter) and told him it was over. Caddell's polling had seen Carter's support suddenly crumble in the last days of the campaign. So maybe the "public polls" were massaged to help Carter. Who knows? I wonder what Reagan's pollsters saw.
Biden has had nothing but bad news for months. The economy, the pandemic, Ukraine, you name it. And that weight on the Democrats may finally have cracked "independent women". Too many people no longer think this government can find its ass in the dark, and they are choosing accordingly.
Or the polls could just be wrong.
H/Ts to Rusty, Shouting Thomas, and john_d for their insights.
I'm not a woman, but I shop for groceries and buy gasoline and pay electric bills. And I see the effect of inflation on my business (FYI: inflation BAD for my business).
Were I younger, I'd worry a bit about abortion rights, but would know that anyone wanting one can still get one, for the price of driving to another state at the most. Most people don't vote 10th Amendment issues, they vote based on their wallet.
And along with every other person in the US, I have daily reminders of the Democrats' failure in office, every time I open my wallet.
Most people vote wallet.
The compromise that's achievable on abortion is what the court has already done: leave it to each individual state to decide. The people who care about abortion the most are the absolutists on both sides. Those people, almost by definition, aren't going to compromise at 15 weeks or any other gestational midpoint.
That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!
The independent women have been reading hpudding's and Left Bank's comments?
"a striking swing given... how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights."
Have Democrats focused on independent women? I don't think Democrats focus on anyone except progressives. Thanks to Obama's apparent blackness and Trump's general jerkiness they didn't have to worry about independents for a while, but now they're stuck with Biden.
"I was not disputing Congress power, I was disputing whether Congress should use it's power to federally ban or mandate medical procedures. Whether it's abortion, euthanasia, or something else."
I didn't answer that, so let me say, I think Congress should set a baseline, creating access to abortion at a point that represents a consensus, and leave it to states to permit more access.
"This seems unusual for you. Don't you generally like consistent definitions?"
No! This isn't about people using language accurately. It is about making laws that put the lines in the right places. So the question what can be done to the unborn should depend on the particular context, not defined separately and then controlling what happens in diverse contexts. A legal code is not a dictionary. The same word doesn't mean the same thing in different contexts. (And even in a dictionary, there are multiple definitions and you need to understand which one applies by the context.)
When people are inconsistent, it's worth trying to figure out what is going on and whether there's some sort of deceit or manipulation. But it would be a disaster to be rigidly "consistent" about everything.
But a 32-point turnaround in one month — that's so huge!
Is it that "disapproval of President Biden" is "hurting his party"? Or is it that the stress on abortion rights isn't hitting independent women the way Democrats think it would?
Embrace the healing power of "and".
When you look at independents as a whole — men and women — they favor Republicans by 10 percentage points, up from 3 last month, a 7 percentage point difference. What's going on with independent women?
What's happening is the t"low information voters" are starting to pay attention to politics. More below.
But that's not what we've seen. We've got Democrats resisting setting any limit.
Bingo.
What "indépendant women" are discovering is that the Democrat position is "abortion up until crowning."
Since that's a position only supported by about 10% of Americans, this position, demanded by the "pro-abortion base" (heck, there's more there than there are "trans" people, and the Democrats are massively pissing off parents with their "parents should have no say on trans issues" campaign) is driving away voters.
Worse, it's causing voters to say "hmm, so when the Democrats are saying 'my opponent is an abortion extremist', what they actually means is that their opponent wants any restrictions, at any time."
So as people discover the Dem position of "no limits", the minimum result is that it pushes the aboprtion question off the table.
And now what we're left with is an amazingly shitty economy with massive inflation and a recession.
Oh, and the Democrats are campaigning on "you stupid parents can't be trusted to make choices for your children".
So:
1: It's a relatively smaller group, so wider swings are easy to come by
2: It's full of LIVs who are just now starting to pay attention
3: The Dems don't have ANYTHING for those voters, other than "abortion until crowning"
Why wouldn't they flip?
I did watch the Wisconsin gubernatorial debate in which the Republican Tim Michels accused the Democrat Tony Evers of supporting access to abortion up to the point of birth, and Tony Evers never corrected him — not right after the accusation was made and not later when the moderator asked each candidate to correct anything that has been said about him that's wrong.
So I've got to consider the possibility that the giant 32-point shift in opinion is not in spite of the Democrats' support for abortion rights but in part because of it.
Yep
Based on his ads during the baseball games, Sen. Bennet's campaign in Colorado resembles that scene in a sci-fi movie where the nose-diving astronaut screams, "Abort! Abort! Abort!"
"Should there not be a common definition of when individual personhood begins?"
As I said in my original response to you, the question personhood doesn't need to be answered, and those who want it answered are probably those who want to answer it with conception. No other line works. It's just a confusing way to restate the question how long should the right to destroy the unborn go on.
Who thinks there's a time when "personhood" comes into existence?
"Right now the lack of definition here means laws relating to murder, assault, child support...."
These things should all be handled individually. And I don't think anyone really supports first degree murder charges for a woman who has an abortion or a doctor who performs one. Maybe at the point just before birth.
The real message of the NYT story is:
HEY DEMOCRATS, YOU ARE NOT SPENDING ENOUGH MONEY ON ADVERTISING. CALL OUR SALES DEPARTMENT TODAY OR WE WILL FUCK YOU SO HARD THE REPOS WILL GET 400 HOUSE SEATS AND 80 IN THE SENATE !!!
That's my takeaway from that story.
But maybe it's in spite of the abortion issues. Economic matters dominate, and people may want change. But why are women — in the independent group — changing so much more than men?
Labels matter, so the main question I'd ask is "what's the size of that group, and of the other groups?"
Numbers for illustrative purposes only!:
If you have
M: 20% D, 40% I, 40% R
W: 40% D, 30% I, 30% R
Then the I males are going to be to the Left of the I females, just for one thing
Abortion isn't relevant to the lives of nearly enough people to alter the dynamics of this election. People generally vote according to their own perceived interests, especially economic interests. Inflation and the general state of the economy cut across all groups. Same for the threat of nuclear war. Same for crime. And there are other big issues, like the threats to civil liberties and parental rights posed by rampant woke-ism, that aren't just important to conservatives but also to a lot of moderates and even so-called liberals. By comparison, how many women are personally going to be prevented from getting an abortion they otherwise would have gotten because of Dobbs? It must be tiny sliver of the electorate.
For evasion on abortion as performance art check out Katie Hobbs trying really hard not to answer Dana Bash on CNN. What extreme position?
madAsHell said...
The next shoe to drop??,,,,,,,,,,No one really cares about abortion, but my 401k is hemorrhaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
There's a tiny number, albeit boisterous, on each side of this issue. No one I've ever known in my life makes an electoral decision based upon it.
"a striking swing given... how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights."
Maybe, just maybe, this is Fox Butterfield territory.
Given the mediaswine's commitment to the "big lie" big lie, despite mounting evidence of voting irregularities in 2020, it is likely that they are aware that the Democrats have perfected election fraud.
Republican will need an army of volunteers and lawyers prepared to intervene. However, in light of the cowardice and/or corruption of the courts there may not be any adequate safeguards.
Democrats are awful and most voters appear to notice that and will likely vote Republican. I wish I believed it mattered. Democrats corrupt everything: law enforcement, the military, the IRS. Elections are not an exception.
Maybe they need to reconsider their biases with that word "despite."
That swing may sound improbable, but it’s the time of year when women start thinking about spending on Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. It’s one thing to be stretched thin during normal months, but this is crunch time.
TreeJoe said...
I see an enormous issue with the federal government - either Judicial or Legislative branches - ruling on Abortion. Ultimately abortion is a medical procedure, and I don't really believe the government should be involved in banning/allowing procedures.
Then I guess you want to get rid of the FDA, since that's pretty much its purpose for existence.
You also need to favor ending the "War on Drugs", because at this point all drugs are now legal.
So, by the way, are all "performance enhancing drugs". After all, what right does the government have to tell you how much human growth hormone and testosterone you can inject? They're both natural!
In short, you've taken a position that maybe 10% of the population would agree with, if you approached it honestly.
Now, I'd be part of that 10%. But it still wouldn't matter for abortion. because the abortion question is "what does it mean to be a human life that the State can protect?"
Since we all agree (I hope) that the State should be able to create laws against child abuse, and protect people from abusing parents, I don't believe that one can reasonably argue that the State has no "right" to protect "human" unborn babies from their mother's attempt to kill them.
So, the question is "where is the dividing line between "human" and "not human"?
Contra Althouse, I do NOT believe that "conception" is the ONLY valid place to draw the line. My preferred place to draw it is at "sufficiently functioning brain". At some point I should dig into embryology again, and find out what we currently know on human embryonic brain development.
But so long as the Democrats remain at "no limits until crowning", I dont' really need to put in the effort, because the Democrat position is so clearly wrong that there's only one way I can vote on the issue: against them
Not all women want to abort their child. And those with children- let's say a sizable percentage of people- have noticed the incompetent teachers in our horrible schools, have noted that the teachers unions get priority over their kids, which is why the schools were closed, and have noticed the gender grooming, drag queen happy hours, racist anti-racist curricula and have said, "Uh-uh. Not with my kids, you don't."
They note how their schools were shut down, their kids are horribly behind, and now that they're back in school the teachers priorities seem to be that white people are bad, being gay is good, and being trans is best. And the Democrats not only seem to be fine with it, they actually seem to think those who don't agree with it are racist/phobics.
Also, Dems refuse to allow for charter, magnet, or any other options when it comes to better schooling. Many who can have moved over to private schools (of all types). Others are on waiting lists to get into private schools.
The Democratic Party, home of the most number of degreed people in history, somehow does not believe that the masses should have a good education. And the masses have noticed all of this.
Abortion? What about the kids who are living?
"Sorry to anyone who is in the middle of trying to respond (and perhaps arguing with something I've already changed)."
It has always been a woman's prerogative to have it both ways.
Althouse asked: Who thinks there's a time when "personhood" comes into existence?
Personhood begins at conception. But there is a viability consideration that should be measured. Personhood and viability are two different things. However personhood is already defined by the law. If you murder a pregnant woman you kill two people in the eyes of the law, no???
Althouse also said: It's just a confusing way to restate the question how long should the right to destroy the unborn go on.
In other words, how long is the right to destroy that person. I say 14 to 15 weeks. We debate the destruction of person's all the time. The death penalty. What actions qualifies a person for that punishment? Then we destroy the person, but it's dependent upon the location of the crime, the nature of the crime, and the money the accused can spend on a lawyer.
War. We decide what reasons justify the destruction of persons on a mass scale all the time. And the United States has made and artform out of ignoring the innocent civilian casualties just like we have the innocent victims of abortion.
The REAL problem with defining personhood for the unborn, is that ALL OF THE UNBORN PERSONS ARE INNOCENT. They have committed no crime for which to be punished other the inconvenience of being conceived of which they had no control.
14 to 15 weeks. And let's be done with this.
We've got Democrats resisting setting any limit. Instead of saying let's restore access to the point of viability — the Roe line — they're resisting setting any line.
Credit the Dems for logical consistency. The bodily autonomy argument demands abortion up to the moment of birth, life of the child be damned. Any time limit is, like Roe, wholly arbitrary.
Once again, either the prenatal entity is a living human being from the beginning - and thus to abort her is to kill a human being - or she is a subhuman, non-human nothing. There is no magical time during gestation where spontaneous animation occurs or the baby suddenly becomes human, much less is there a sliding scale.
"Are you saying Congress lacks constitutional power to legislate about the scope of access to abortion? Under current Commerce Clause doctrine, it clearly does. Providing medical procedures is a commercial activity — it is a service customers buy — and there's a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
Professor, I'm curious: did any of the Supreme Court's cases that define "current Commerce Clause doctrine" arise out of instances in which a state sought to ban a certain activity or industry within its borders, but Congress intervened to ensure that the activity or industry would be legal throughout the U.S.?
The hard left wants women to shower with penis-attached transgendered folks. The hard left wants cross-dressing men with huge fake boobs to teach small children and participate in all-ages drag shows. The hard left is actively cancelling JK Rowling and older generation "TERFs" for believing in biological differences.
Your last sentence proves the inaccuracy of the first two. The hard left is actually splintering precisely because of the penis-attached transgendered folks. Many of the hard left are so mad about it that they have vowed to not vote Dem even though they hate the GOP.
The collective left also try to muddy the argument water with "reproductive rights" - making a tired and lame accusation that the GOP want to take away contraception and tampons.
And, for the record, I hate abortion but support abortion rights.
Same here. I don't like abortion, but I really don't like the idea of living in a country that forbids it. (Same thing with guns.)
And, for the record, I hate abortion but support abortion rights.
Same here. I don't like abortion, but I really don't like the idea of living in a country that forbids it. (Same thing with guns.)
And, for the record, I hate abortion but support abortion rights.
Same here. I don't like abortion, but I really don't like the idea of living in a country that forbids it. (Same thing with guns.)
the question what can be done to the unborn should depend on the particular context
The particular context in all cases is that they are living human beings.
Any question about what can be done other than what can be done to any other living human beings is to create two classes of humanity, one of them being deemed subhuman. The world and this country have tried that in other cases and history has condemned us for it each time.
I do NOT believe that "conception" is the ONLY valid place to draw the line. My preferred place to draw it is at "sufficiently functioning brain".
There is functioning brain activity by the time that women generally determine that they are pregnant.
how long is the right to destroy that person. I say 14 to 15 weeks. We debate the destruction of person's all the time.
Since you are pontificating on issues of life and death for others, how about society determine when others can legally kill you? That is the principle that you are arguing for.
What exactly do they mean by Independent Woman? Oh, the independent part I understand. But this word "Woman" what does that mean exactly.
I think Congress should set a baseline, creating access to abortion at a point that represents a consensus, and leave it to states to permit more access.
I agree with that idea, except that the Congress is not made of rational honest people to debate the abortion issue.
These things should all be handled individually. And I don't think anyone really supports first degree murder charges for a woman who has an abortion or a doctor who performs one. Maybe at the point just before birth.
Accepted for the sake of argument. However some people do support murder charges for those who kill a fetus before birth by assaulting the mother. How early in the pregnancy does that become operative? Why? Since intent seems to matter, can you be tried for negligeance for killing a fetus?
At some point they moved from voters moved by "choice" to voters motivated by necessity. This is similar to 2008 when voters who would ordinarily have voted for the Republican felt they had to vote for Obama because of the economy and Bush's failures.
Or similar to 1992 when Clinton and Perot were able to spook Reagan voters to reject the elder Bush because of fears about the economy and Bush Sr.'s apparent listlessness. By every standard, Biden is far worse than the elder Bush. I do fear, though, that if the big swing comes now, those independent women will have gotten it out of their system and be ready to swing back in 2024.
Notice that it's not women who are registered Democrats who are defecting. I'd like to see a breakdown of independent women in terms of age, region, ethnicity, etc. The youngest, most pro-abortion women are probably registered Democrats, meaning that independents are older and have other important concerns.
"Gov. Evers continues to fight Wisconsin’s 1849-era criminal abortion ban"
So we can all agree, can't we, that abortion was never a fundamental right as required by "substantive" due process?
"What idiot wrote the phrase "any action necessary"?!"
A regular prog who believes BAMN is the correct strategy on any issue?
That's a 32-point turnaround. How the hell could that happen?!
The polls always do this Ann.
Why do you even pretend this is a real thing?
Polls always how democrats winning by huge margins until we get within a month of the election then they swing towards republicans.
Stop being obtuse.
My only question is: Why didn't this shift happen earlier.
Why should women support a political movement that cannot even define what a woman is?
The Democrats are the ones calling mothers "birthing parents" and insisting that men can get pregnant and menustrate.
The Democrats are the ones insisting that there is no biological difference between men and women, when they should instead be celebrating the differences and accommodating them in law. (except for some reason, when it comes to the draft)
The Democrats are the ones demanding that perverts be allowed to use women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
The Democrats are the ones hiring drag queens to perform in our schools.
The Democrats are insisting that men can become women by choice, and then outcompete actual women at sport.
The Democrats are the ones promoting the mutilation of troubled children.
The Democrats are the one's denying the humanity of the unborn, and supporting a company designed to make a profit off of killing the unborn and selling their remains. (If the unborn had gold teeth, you can be sure Planned Parenthood would have tiny pliers at work)
Gusty Winds said...
Althouse asked: Who thinks there's a time when "personhood" comes into existence?
Personhood begins at conception. But there is a viability consideration that should be measured. Personhood and viability are two different things. However personhood is already defined by the law. If you murder a pregnant woman you kill two people in the eyes of the law, no???
I like your examples, and would additionally add the distinctions that are made for both justifiable homicide (self-defense) and negligent homicide (usually voluntary and involuntary manslaughter). There is usually no question of the personhood of the victims in these circumstances but as a legal matter we draw distinctions between the actions of the defendant in these cases and a first-degree murder case.
The analogy isn't perfect because abortion is a deliberate act with foreseeable consequences but we live in a fallen world. Recognizing that the state has an interest in defending the rights of all persons doesn't necessarily lead to a result that treats all homicides the same.
Mark said...
Since you are pontificating on issues of life and death for others, how about society determine when others can legally kill you? That is the principle that you are arguing for.
They already have. Self-defense and negligent homicide.
Since you are pontificating on issues of life and death for others, how about society determine when others can legally kill you? That is the principle that you are arguing for.
To be fair, that's exactly what society does. For instance the difference between justifiable homicide and murder.
The problem is, society has decided that it is murder to kill a baby in the womb, unless the mother wants the baby dead, then it is not even justifiable homicide, but instead a women's reproductive health procedure. Why? because we refuse to call the fetus a human life and we refuse to determine when that life becomes a person with legal rights.
Gusty Winds said...
"Althouse asked: Who thinks there's a time when "personhood" comes into existence?
Personhood begins at conception. But there is a viability consideration that should be measured. Personhood and viability are two different things. However personhood is already defined by the law. If you murder a pregnant woman you kill two people in the eyes of the law, no???"
Yes. We have established that the rapidly dividing egg with it's own DNA is a person. We are arguing about the time and circumstances of which to kill it. Let me be clear. That decision rests on the shoulders of the woman carrying the fertilized rapidly growing egg. Also for the sake of clarity. Despite what abortion proponents say, the rapidly growing egg is also a person so the pregnant woman is making her decisions for two people. I am not pro abortion, but I also recognize that it may sometimes be necessary. I also think that it isn't something the federal government has any business in deciding. At all. Ever.
1. Economic issues. Anyone who has had their first heating bill is fully aware of drastic inflation.
2. Social issues. As mentuoned- maybe all women aren't abortion fanatics supporting even post-birth abortion, which used to be called murder.
3. Social issues. Gee, how many independent women who are parents, or grandparents, or aunts, want the young children they have or know being taught in school how ot tip a drag queen?
4. Social issues- it's not that teh Republicans are winning in these, it's that the DemoncRATs are losing. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single social issue where the DemoncRATs don't support a radical social idea that mainstream Americans don't, abortion, transgender issues, officially supported discrimination against whites and Asians, etc.
Polls are useless. Who answers the phone to unknown callers or obvious pollsters, these days?
You won't know what the people are going to do until they vote.
Hell, some of them are out here actively sowing confusion by knowingly lying to the poor bastards doing the surveys. For the lulz.
"Oh, yeah... I'm voting for X, this year..."
X being Captain Spaulding, or Freddie Krueger.
Come to think of it, both those characters would make for more compelling candidates than the vast majority of the Democrats I've seen.
drag queen happy hours
Pretty sure you mean "story hours," Temujin... Drag queen happy hour could be either really entertaining or absolutely rife with drama.
Why the shift? Because women want to be nice and to be seen to be nice. The Republicans are seen as evil and mean and not nice. A nice woman doesn't want to be associated with them.
They maintained this as their go-to voting philosophy as long as they could, but with their household budgets and finances getting tighter and tighter, they have to resort to actually voting on pocketbook policy. So, out go the nice Dems, who exploded the economy and went cray cray over the last two years; and in come the evil and mean Reps, who at least claim to understand how to right the ship and won't send porn stars into my 4-year-old's classroom.
Women do most of the shopping.
Human life from conception. Personhood thereafter. Six weeks to baby meets granny in [legal] state, if not in process.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.
School started. The social issues in schools (discipline, sex (mis)ed, etc), poor progress in studies are right damn front and center.
The likely voter model is almost certainly shifting away from (D) (enthusiasm gap).
And add in the Fetterman and other just BAD candidates, the VA 'Prosecute parents for not affirming minor gender dysphoria' and they are freaking out the rubes, instead of reassuring them.
Frankly, you just can't hide the price hikes and availability problems.
I think the conclusion is (D) are also throwing this election (trying to reduce the pressure on '24?). If this were a sports team, I'd say the (D) are tanking for a better lottery pick in '24.
If this polling is correct, probably everyone has said this already, but:
All the food has shrunk and I am now paying $4.58 for the 18 pack of eggs that cost me $2.20 this time last year.
My Facebook feed is full of moms sharing side by side screenshots of their curbside grocery orders from two years ago compared with today. They are cutting activities for their kids and teaching each other how to cook pinto beans and fry potatoes and have meatless dinners three times a week.
The mothers of the wealthiest country on earth behaving like it's the Depression while we're sending billions of dollars to a corrupt regime overseas is probably not a recipe for electoral success no matter how much you spin the media and stuff the ballot boxes.
"But why are women — in the independent group — changing so much more than men?"
I guess national suicide is not selling as a policy choice. Women see many examples every day. As layoffs begin, men will catch up. A national ban on "gig work" will be a nice start.
Elective abortion of Fetal-Babies is a model of diversity [dogma] (e.g. affirmative discrimination) and a class of "ageiophobia" (e.g. planned parent/hood).
I cannot think of a single social issue where the DemoncRATs don't support a radical social idea that mainstream Americans don't [oppose:], abortion, transgender issues, officially supported discrimination against whites and Asians, etc.
C'mon, man! Abolish gasoline-powered cars to save the planet! Buy (and burn here) imported oil from dictators, don't Frack our own oil or gas! Keep parents out of our schools! Restore tax deductions for state-and-local taxes paid by those rich enough to itemize! Mandate medical masking, forever! Censor Christians! Defund local police!
Logically, if abortion is allowed because the fetus has no rights, then why not abortion at 8 months and 29 days?
That seems to be the democrat position.
We will not likely find a compromise on the issue of abortion for a long time due to key differences in the definition of the value of life.
1. For some, life is inherently valuable, and thus conception is the only valid demarcation.
2. For some, life is only valuable if the person who is hosting thinks it is valuable, and thus birth is the only logical demarcation. This group will also include those who would call killing a pregnant woman a double murder, but not consider an abortion a murder.
3. Many people are uncomfortable with those extremes and thus form the mushy middle. They look for reasonable alternative demarcations on the physical level such as heart beats, appearances of humanness, brain activity, etc.
4. Another consideration is an ethical one where people are uncomfortable with abortion but allow it on the basis that the child is human, but has no real life experience to "lose" and possibly cannot experience the pain of death either and thus it is not as tragic as the killing of a cognizant human. Death represents a loss not only for the person in question, but for those associated with the being. On a non absolutists framework, we would then evaluate a person's loss, the loss experienced by associated people, the level of innocence of the person, and their expected quality of life. People will rarely come to a comfortable agreement across all these issues.
There really is no hope of any detente on this issue.
I am not sure what to make of it, but what Althouse proposed as a reasonable position on abortion is almost precisely what Lindsey Graham has proposed. To much mockery and contempt from those who think the Republicans should “leave it to the states.”
Maybe Lindsey has good polling data?
How many times do I have to keep telling you people:
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
You cannot decimate people's retirement accounts and have ANY HOPE of retaining power. Retirement accounts are down 50% since Joe Biden took over.
Gasoline is up 150%
Groceries are up 100% ... not 8% ... that's government BS. Eggs are now $6 a dozen. Milk is now almost as expensive as gasoline if gas hadn't gone up so much. You think young mothers don't realize or pay attention to these things?
Democrats want to DESTROY the present oil-based economy in favor of ... an electricity-based economy run on coal or magic pixie dust or something because they also won't approve any nuclear plants. And we all know the reason ... they all bought EV stock and are watching their personal fortunes evaporate.
People are literally walking into stores and stealing everything in sight knowing full well they won't be arrested or prosecuted. Let alone jailed. YouTube is FULL of videos of hoodlums wilding up in the WaWa's. And the more videos you LOOK AT of the hoodlums wilding the more videos you are FED of the hoodlums wilding. Thanks Al Gore rhythms.
The issues are the issues they've always been: ECONOMY. CRIME. RETIREMENT. Quality of life issues. Responsible women don't get pregnant, and we're not going to allow our nation's future to be decided by those irresponsible women who do.
I dare not speak for Althouse but she is an Independent voter who, based solely on my reading of her Blogger posts, has changed her overarching viewpoint from "cruel neutrality" to "I'm sick of their shit" in the last several weeks.
But that's just my opinion.
If I'm right it appears she is not alone.
Ann Althouse wrote: "Who thinks there's a time when "personhood" comes into existence?"
It's the exact same moment when you can charge someone for murder for killing an unborn child in its mother's womb with a gun.
So when is it, Ann?
Legal Hypothetical: Supposed I don't want you to give birth, but I don't want to kill you. If I walk up to pregnant you and shoot you in the pregnant belly, and kill your yet born child, but don't kill you ... can I be charged with "murder?" Let's say I positioned the gun in such a way as to only slightly wound you, but definitely to kill your child. Can you try me for murder? Or can I only be charged with "assault" if my intent was to kill the kid, but not you.
Explain your work and remember, you're deciding what the future is going to look like for women in unwanted pregnancy situations (i.e., where the MAN doesn't want the kid.)
I think Temujin is on to something. A lot more women care more about the education of the children they have than about the right to kill the children they don't have.
Heating bills The temperature has dropped in the northern tier, furnaces have come on and bills have been received or prepared for. Yikes. Too bad for you, Dems, that the elections are in November because every day it gets colder in more places and people get more ghastly utility bills. They already had trouble with gas and food. Abortion, if they care, seems safe in our time or anyhow at least till 2024. But meanwhile, there's these price increases and: "WTF!! What's that about Armageddon!? Have the Democrats ...??!! Oh, oh, it's OK, Biden's eating ice cream again and going to beach and has authorized millions in beach restoration for Rehoboth Beach. I guess Armageddon, like abortion, is going to be put off till the next election. But still. Hell may shortly freeze over the way things are going and that's when I said I'd vote Republican."
Here is a very good detailed breakdown of the conception process.
The question I had which sent me looking was how many fertilized eggs die before successfully completing implantation in the uterine wall. About half.
What do you girls do with those?
It is a woman's right to change her mind because the grocery bill went up or for no reason at all. Real logic doesn't work in politics, but lots of well-financed twisted logic (let's twist again like we did last summer) claims the easily convinced - regardless of gender.
I see where "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke was awarded a piece of the Nobel Prize for Economics in recognition of his quick work in fixing the 2008 recession. Perhaps it is time to put him back in the saddle as Fed Chair.
Althouse also said: It's just a confusing way to restate the question how long should the right to destroy the unborn go on.
In other words, how long is the right to destroy that person. I say 14 to 15 weeks.
One issue is the stage of viability. When I was a surgical resident in 1968 I operated on a baby who weighed 1 pound 10 ounces. That was the smallest baby to survive surgery at that time. Now, much smaller babies are surviving birth and even heart surgery. Some things like spina bifida can be fixed before birth, doing the surgery intrautero. Actually, partly outside but the baby goes back in for another few weeks.
perhaps they don't like the attitude that killing your unborn baby is a great idea, but if you don't chose that, then your children belong to the government.
The Democrats not only refuse to set any limits on abortion, they also have been going after crisis pregnancy centers that provide support for women who want to keep their babies. See Elizabeth Warren. It’s as if the only choice they support is abortion. And their activist allies like Planned Parenthood lie about the implications of Dobbs, claiming that it outlaws the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. I suspect Independent women aren’t stupid and aren’t as willing to turn a blind eye to this evil because they aren’t expecting anything in return. They aren’t going to get a good economy, cheap gas, or peace in our time under the current Democrat crew. And they probably aren’t union members expecting some personal reward.
Remember when it was alleged by people on this board the Republicans were going to pay the price for being abortion extremists?
Who knew killing your babies up until the moment of birth wasn't such a hot message to take to the voters?
I agree 32 points is a ridiculous swing and must be a math error.
However Kitchen table issues outweigh anything else, always. Food prices are painfully high compared to a year ago(my wife and I grocery shop together), likewise gas, heating fuel and other utilities - the basis of everyday living. The recent dance with the Saudis made everyone who wasn't paying attention before aware that oil prices are a Biden/Dem self-inflicted problem. On top of that we are getting more and more entangled in the Ukraine war to the point that the frightening concept of nuclear bombs is being bandied about. I would think that the threat that the species could be wiped out would outweigh the abortion issue and war always tends to get a negative response from women.
Althouse,
Doesn't that just expose how ridiculous the current Commerce Clause jurisprudence is? The Chief Justice himself will tell you that the government doesn't have the authority to force you to buy something (heh), so how can it tell you that you must/can't engage in interstate commerce? That's the only sensible justification for the "affecting" part of that jurisprudence--if no one ever did, or even want to, cross state lines to get an abortion, would Congress' authority to legislate on it somehow evaporate?
Not that there's any textual support for affecting, any more than there is for "having moved in...", -- but I'd like my unconstitutional extensions of power to be at least coherent. Is that too much to ask?
While the abortion discussion has been interesting here I don't think that's the driving issue for the change. I think it's the trans movement. I've had female friends express their rage to me around men "identifying" as a woman without having a period, PMS, or any of the things that come along with that. Apparently (I've been told in no uncertain terms) that regardless of the operation or procedure no man has been granted the gift of menstruation. Claiming to be a woman without having to deal with that upsets a lot of real women.
This is from a right leaning web site (so not representative of independent women) but some of the social media quoted I think is representative. Especially the last tweet.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/megan-fox/2022/10/16/makeup-giant-ulta-goes-woke-highlighting-trans-girl-dylan-mulvaney-customer-base-of-real-women-revolts-n1637555
Maybe it's just that polls two months before an off-year election are even less meaningful than usual. When it gets a few weeks away people start to pay attention.
Also, even if most people don't answer phone calls from unknown numbers, a shift like that among those who do is meaningful. And even if the sample size of independent women is only 180, as someone suggested, the margin of error is still only about 8 percentage points. So this is a big problem for Democrats.
I'm sure I'm coming too late to the conversation, but Ann Althouse says "Providing medical procedures is a commercial activity — it is a service customers buy — and there's a substantial effect on interstate commerce." and I'd like a clear explanation of how abortion has any effect at all on interstate commerce. Because, I just don't see it.
“But a 32-point turnaround in one month — that's so huge!”
Maybe it’s a reaction to the lies about the pandemic and the vaccines and masks. Those true believers who treated mask and vaccine “deniers” with such derision and disgust may now be having second thoughts about their allegiances.
Most readers of this blog are out of touch with buying groceries for a family with less than a two-lawyer-income household budget.
That's quite the assumption there. Any proof?
Legal Hypothetical:
How about this one?
A woman makes an appointment to have an abortion on her 20 week old fetus. The doctor scheduled to perform the procedure gets drunk at lunch on the day the abortion is supposed to occur. While the woman seeking an abortion is driving to the clinic, she is hit by the drunk doctor, and in the crash the baby dies, but otherwise the woman is OK.
Did the doctor commit a murder? Did he even commit a homicide? Why should the doctor be charged with anything other than DUI?
I think Congress should set a baseline, creating access to abortion at a point that represents a consensus, and leave it to states to permit more access.
If you posit that Congress draws a line that represents a (presumably national) consensus, why would you permit states to vary from that consensus in one direction but not the other? Isn't that just a strategy calculated to maximize abortion rights in each state? And doesn't this "mother's right to a floor" approach simply ignore the possibility that Congress could also establish a "child's right to a ceiling"?
While the woman seeking an abortion is driving to the clinic, she is hit by the drunk [abortionist], and in the crash the baby dies, but otherwise the woman is OK.
Did the [abortionist] commit a murder? Did he even commit a homicide? Why should the doctor be charged with anything other than DUI?
The Soros-funded prosecutor isn't going to charge him regardless.
Part of the problem that I had with abortion was the limit issue. I saw a democrat party that would rip apart a child while being born , call it legal and then call anyone a Nazi/sexist who had any qualms about it.
The only way to deal with that type of issue is to rip it out and start over. Well done supremes.
Robert Cook-before ww2 the USA was pro-isolationist. On Dec 7, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the country was dramatically non-isolationist. So big swings in opinion can happen literally overnight.
Blogger who-knew said..."I'd like a clear explanation of how abortion has any effect at all on interstate commerce. Because, I just don't see it."
You're not alone.
Was the latest poll before or after the “I was 30, she was 12 comment”. I’m wondering how much the “no serious men until you are 30” will move the numbers.
Blogger Jim at said...
Most readers of this blog are out of touch with buying groceries for a family with less than a two-lawyer-income household budget.
That's quite the assumption there. Any proof?
My wife is has been a full time housewife and mother since 1980 on E5 pay for me. I’m still working at 67.5. Started drawing SS when I hit full retirement age. Wife started this year based on my income- she doesn’t have enough creditable quarters to qualify on her own. Average annual income in county is about $32000 currently. Between our two SS checks we get more than that. Plus I’m drawing two pensions and still working. And when I decide to retire, if I do, there’s a third one. From data I just looked at I am now making more than an average attorney.
Expenses with no children at home are way down. In another 4 months all debts except for car payments will be gone. A year later I can be rid of them. Maybe then I’ll retire.
I worked as I did to make sure I wasn’t a poverty stricken senior.
Mark said...Since you are pontificating on issues of life and death for others, how about society determine when others can legally kill you? That is the principle that you are arguing for.
That's just a reality. We turn the other cheek on killing all the time. Take the Democrat nursing home COVID contaminations from 2020. Tens of thousands of elderly dead. All at the end of life. Expensive. Expendible. Not one Democrat cared.
Just like babies in the eight and ninth month womb...
Or...we turn the other cheek on HOW they kill you. Method matters too... There's poverty, hunger, and open borders to feed fentanyl into the USA...oh...and mandated mRNA "vaccines". That one is more of a roulette wheel.
Hemingway described it best, “ Gradually, then suddenly.”. The Sun Also Rises
Abortion isn't the most motivating issue to get women to vote.The economy is. Their retirement plans and investments are. Extreme social positions favored by the Democrats are. So is crime. None of these have in anyway improved since the 2021 election. The democrats own this 100%.
The mystery is why does the polling show a 32 point flip to the GOP among independent women voters. And we are all focusing on abortion. Sad really. For women and children.
Shocked!! That's supposed to be the end all be all for women voters.
Maybe they're thinking, "Fuck it...I don't need and abortion right now. I had one ten years ago. Now...I have real kids to feed and they're already here."
The cost of food, warmth, and clothing are real. Especially when you made the wrong "choice" two years ago.
Polls converge toward reality as the election approaches. The pollsters require a fig leaf of respectability with this election to stay employed for the next.
Gordon Pasha said...
Hemingway described it best, “ Gradually, then suddenly.”. The Sun Also Rises
I thought he was talking about orgasms.
@Michael K., all the way back at 12:51, you mentioned “gig work.” I wonder … could it be that women with young families are more apt to be engaged in gig work than men? If so, the recent push be the Democratsto abolish gig work could be backfiring on them big time.
Even further back, at 9:55, I had a list of things impacting families that might be reasons for a 32 point flip, but I inadvertently left off the issue of crime. Back in September the case of Eliza Fletcher, who was abducted, raped, and murdered while on her morning run in Memphis, became national news. Paraphrasing one woman’s reaction, jogging while female should not be a life-risking activity. Seems reasonable to this Republican male that women object to being raped and murdered, but apparently it’s a concept that Democrats of any sex find difficult to grasp.
"changed her overarching viewpoint from "cruel neutrality" to "I'm sick of their shit" in the last several weeks"
My impression too. A good thing.
Althouse at 10:41: "I think Congress should set a baseline, creating access to abortion at a point that represents a consensus, and leave it to states to permit more access."
I know everyone thinks Congress should just do whatever it wants, as it has done for decades, but--how does the Constitution authorize such legislation?
Tony Evers non position is the only position he can take. Agreeing to any restriction destroys his future in the Democratic Party and agreeing to no restrictions kills him with the general population so it’s best to say nothing. For the same reason neither side in Congress is likely to take up the issue in any real meaningful way. My guess is that the issue will die in those states where the legislature pass a compromise that their people can live with.
Mark said...
I do NOT believe that "conception" is the ONLY valid place to draw the line. My preferred place to draw it is at "sufficiently functioning brain".
There is functioning brain activity by the time that women generally determine that they are pregnant.
So?
Have unprotected sex, take Plan B. Or get a menstrual extraction. Or do any of a number of things that will kill any baby you might have made, before said baby develops a functioning brain.
It's still out-conception
Althouse at 10:41: "I think Congress should set a baseline, creating access to abortion at a point that represents a consensus, and leave it to states to permit more access."
I know everyone thinks Congress should just do whatever it wants, as it has done for decades, but--how does the Constitution authorize such legislation?
I agree that the Constitution would not support such legislation. But just for the record, if it did, I would be in favor of a Congressional law limiting access to abortion to fifteen weeks and leave it to the states to further restrict the ability to get an abortion. Which is precisely why I believe that besides following the Constitution, it's simply good governance to allow each state to set abortion policy. Let the people vote with their feet. Althouse can live in a pro-abortion state, I can live in one dedicated to protecting innocent life, and we can both be happy.
I know everyone thinks Congress should just do whatever it wants, as it has done for decades, but--how does the Constitution authorize such legislation?
You may find the Wikipedia article on “Wickard v. Filburn” instructive, including its brief treatment of subsequent Commerce Clause cases. Althouse appears to be firmly convinced that the Commerce Clause does the trick, but I believe that is a matter of considerable academic debate.
Tulsi Gabbard moved the Overton Window.
And then immediately endorsed the LaRouchite candidate in the NY Senate race.
I was kidding about this stuff last week.
Still, nobody likes the idea of playing Groundhog Day with 1962, especially with the trilaterally incontinent and corrupt Executive Branch we have this time, and especially because we also now know what comes after 1962. Soccer moms won't say it out loud, but they're finding their inner Archie Bunkers.
""But why are women — in the independent group — changing so much more than men?""
The beta males they're married to pissed em off.
What use is a right to abortion when you can't afford the $5 a gallon gas to drive to a provider facility. Your neighbors can't afford the gas, either. What was that about a scheduled hanging focusing the mind?
I'm not sure that anyone wants to hear my sad story, but I've been diagnosed with "anti-acyclical-atypical-anorexia-nervosa" (AAAAN). (Thanks in advance for all your kind thoughts and prayers.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा