Roe vs. Wade overturned

[ronntaylor]

It was made by an official. Doesn't matter that they were outgoing. I haven't heard anybody in the current administration disputing it. But there's also plenty to be outraged about beyond that statement. They knew this decision was likely coming down for months before it happened and once again we get snail pace reactionary bullshit. The only thing they had prepared instantly was telling people to vote Democrat.

What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. They have to keep the House. They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.

 

[Deleted member 215]

They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.

Well, when Moore vs. Harper is decided in favor of state legislatures having complete control over congressional elections, they can draw one district that includes all major cities of Texas and 35 districts for the rest of the state.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.

Texas may be immune to this, or slower to feel the impacts, but this decision along with many similar likely to come is just going to make red states dumber and poorer. They'll be the first to strip gay rights as well. There will be a major brain drain of people who leave as well as people who won't move there. Eventually, corporations will get tired of rights outreach and lack of talent in these states and just leave. Then watch them scream for help from the federal government.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. They have to keep the House. They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.

I'm not sure exactly what they could do but that's also not my job. All I know is "our hands are tied" isn't exactly a vote motivator along with a long history of not doing things when their hands weren't tied or less than tied. It's a relationship that's bounced between neglect and abuse for decades. A lot of initial Trump supporters (we need major change and an outsider) probably felt that more directly than the rest of us but then that movement went dark and south rapidly. Imagine if that same energy (and threat) was on the side of those of us who want a better outcome for more people.

Of course at this moment the only option is for everybody to hold their nose and vote Democrat to stop the authoritarian takeover, possibly the last opportunity to stop it, but if we give Democrats that win I would be seriously shocked if they did anything other than "nothing will fundamentally change" from the Democrat side of the aisle.

 

[ronntaylor]

I'm not sure exactly what they could do but that's also not my job.

It's your job to stay focused and not let a single vote be the end of your responsibility. Voting and then going home is pointless. Voting is such a small part. Supporting and engaging candidates is important. Holding pol to their promises is important.

All I know is "our hands are tied" isn't exactly a vote motivator along with a long history of not doing things when their hands weren't tied or less than tied.

That is the reality in the here and now. Telling voters our hands are tied and we need to get more on our side is a vote getter if voters are engaged.

Of course at this moment the only option is for everybody to hold their nose and vote Democrat to stop the authoritarian takeover, possibly the last opportunity to stop it, but if we give Democrats that win I would be seriously shocked if they did anything other than "nothing will fundamentally change" from the Democrat side of the aisle.

Nope. There is plenty of time to vote in people that will vote the way voters like. The thought that only odious Dems become candidates is belied by AOC & The Squad. The other side gets their candidates when uninvolved, low information voters are not engaged and just vote in big elections. Primaries are super important. At the same time, if your preferred candidate doesn't win, wishing the alternatives to simply implement your wishes is naive at best. Dems/liberals/Socialists can't resort to "Just Do It Now" demands as if democracy is a game.

Biden-Harris can't simply wish things into place. They need at least a few more Dems in the Senate and continued control of the House.

All those that fault them for not having something in place giving the leaked ruling need to look in the mirror. The threat was coming down the road since the day after the Roe ruling nearly 50 years ago. What did they do to prepare for it several weeks after the leak? Well, besides whining about it after the actual ruling. Posting memes about camping and pics from The Handmaid's Tale doesn't count.

 

[Herdfan]

They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.

If true, how do you explain the election of Maya Flores?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It's your job to stay focused and not let a single vote be the end of your responsibility. Voting and then going home is pointless. Voting is such a small part. Supporting and engaging candidates is important. Holding pol to their promises is important.



That is the reality in the here and now. Telling voters our hands are tied and we need to get more on our side is a vote getter if voters are engaged.



Nope. There is plenty of time to vote in people that will vote the way voters like. The thought that only odious Dems become candidates is belied by AOC & The Squad. The other side gets their candidates when uninvolved, low information voters are not engaged and just vote in big elections. Primaries are super important. At the same time, if your preferred candidate doesn't win, wishing the alternatives to simply implement your wishes is naive at best. Dems/liberals/Socialists can't resort to "Just Do It Now" demands as if democracy is a game.

Biden-Harris can't simply wish things into place. They need at least a few more Dems in the Senate and continued control of the House.

All those that fault them for not having something in place giving the leaked ruling need to look in the mirror. The threat was coming down the road since the day after the Roe ruling nearly 50 years ago. What did they do to prepare for it several weeks after the leak? Well, besides whining about it after the actual ruling. Posting memes about camping and pics from The Handmaid's Tale doesn't count.

I'm faulting the Democrat party for getting us to "the reality in the here and now" over many decades.

 

[SuperMatt]

If true, how do you explain the election of Maya Flores?

Why not take a stab at it yourself?

 

[Herdfan]

Why not take a stab at it yourself?

Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.

I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left. It is showing in polling done along the border counties. And Flores election is a result.

We will know more in November.

 

[SuperMatt]

Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.

I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left. It is showing in polling done along the border counties. And Flores election is a result.

We will know more in November.

Yes, one Republican won in a district that usually goes for Democrats.

But let’s look at the biggest factor: turnout.

The last election in that district had a Democrat win with over 111,000 votes. This election was a special election and the Republican won with under 15,000 votes. She ran on a far-right platform (including QAnon craziness) in an election ignored by most Democrats but watched by many far-right wingers specifically because of her going as far right as possible. In an election with turnout 85% lower than usual, this was a winning strategy. In the November election, her chances of winning are slim-to-none.

Also, the Flores campaign out-spent the other (Sanchez) campaign 10-to-1.

Now, why would they do that, especially if they are almost certain to lose the seat back to the Democrats in just a couple months?

Publicity. You’re talking about it as some sign of things to come. I saw many news outlets, including all the ones you’d consider “liberal” talking about it too.

I’m not sure if the spending was worth it for the GOP, or if it was wise for the Democrats to ignore the race almost completely.

But even the GOP redistricting committee didn’t think holding the seat was sustainable, because they gerrymandered the district to make it more “blue” in order to secure other “red” districts moving forward.

It’s not wise to claim some national trend when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.

 

[Herdfan]

It’s not wise to claim some national trend when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.

I didn't. The original post by @Joe was about Texas.

They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.

I asked because he lives in TX so I thought he might have some insight.

You are the only one who said anything about a national trend. Maybe you need to read a little closer.

 

[Herdfan]

What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. They have to keep the House. They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.

Even liberal news orgs are conceding the House. I do not see the Dems keeping it.

 

[Renzatic]

Even liberal news orgs are conceding the House. I do not see the Dems keeping it.

It's looking pretty grim at the moment. 15% chance of Dems keeping the House according to 538.

That said, there's still a few months left until the election, and no one quite knows what, if any, effect nixing Roe v Wade will have on the voting populace.

 

[SuperMatt]

I didn't. The original post by @Joe was about Texas.



I asked because he lives in TX so I thought he might have some insight.

You are the only one who said anything about a national trend. Maybe you need to read a little closer.

So you were referring to only Texans in this statement?

I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left. It is showing in polling done along the border counties. And Flores election is a result.

Even if so, 15,000 votes is way too few to draw such a conclusion in a state of 30 million.

 

[Herdfan]

So you were referring to only Texans in this statement?

Yes, because I was quoting @Joe's post about TX going Blue.

Scroll up and you will see. I even bolded part of his post that I was referring to. And you accuse me of not reading.

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes, because I was quoting @Joe's post about TX going Blue.

Scroll up and you will see. I even bolded part of his post that I was referring to. And you accuse me of not reading.

Well your response to me didn’t specifically refer to Texas, so I didn’t assume you were talking only about one state in such a general statement about the “Hispanic community.” So thank you for clarifying.

I will say that even claiming a state-wide trend is not reasonable based on the particulars of this election though.

 

[Herdfan]

Well your response to me didn’t specifically refer to Texas, so I didn’t assume you were talking only about one state in such a general statement about the “Hispanic community.” So thank you for clarifying.

I will say that even claiming a state-wide trend is not reasonable based on the particulars of this election though.

Maybe calling them "breakfast tacos" will help.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.

I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left. It is showing in polling done along the border counties. And Flores election is a result.

We will know more in November.

As far as the southern border a lot of it has do with perception both inside and outside the country. I won't deny that more people from south of the border attempt to do a border run when there is a Democrat president, but as far as border enforcement, and I'm being a bit lazy here (@SuperMatt with a data drop?) if data showed that enforcement and deportations are just as strong or more when there is a Democrat President would the right just drop it then? Highly doubtful from both sides of the argument, they'd advertise outlier breaches as normal and frequent occurrences under a Democrat President and ignore or marginalize similar situations when a Republican President is at the helm. Actually, scratch that second part. As long as there is at least one Democrat breathing air in the US they will blame it entirely on them.

 

[SuperMatt]

As far as the southern border a lot of it has do with perception both inside and outside the country. I won't deny that more people from south of the border attempt to do a border run when there is a Democrat president, but as far as border enforcement, and I'm being a bit lazy here (@SuperMatt with a data drop?) if data showed that enforcement and deportations are just as strong or more when there is a Democrat President would the right just drop it then? Highly doubtful from both sides of the argument, they'd advertise outlier breaches as normal and frequent occurrences under a Democrat President and ignore or marginalize similar situations when a Republican President is at the helm. Actually, scratch that second part. As long as there is at least one Democrat breathing air in the US they will blame it entirely on them.

I’m not sure the president is the determining factor in the number of illegal border crossings. I think it has more to do with conditions in Central and South America.

But if we look at it by president? Reagan was president in 1986 with 1.6 million illegal crossings, which was the highest until 2021 with 1.7 million. But it is by fiscal year, so that is a split year, with Trump and Biden. 2020 was one of the lowest because of the pandemic, but 2019 was the highest in over a decade.

Obama’s years had some of the lowest numbers since the early 70s. Yet another reason that Trump’s rhetoric about a border invasion was absurd.

Here’s a link to the data from 1960-2020.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-Aug/US59B8~1.PDF

 

[ronntaylor]

It’s not wise to claim some national trend when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.

Especially as the Dem nominee is an incumbent switching to this gerrymandered super Dem-heavy district (IIRC 67% which skews for Biden over Mango by 16%). He's a pro-life Catholic, a so-called Blue Dog, with "border protection" rhetoric during his years in the House. There will be a lot more voters, and the national party and Dem PACs will be heavily invested in this district as they try not to lose three seats in Texas alone. They may be able to keep the loss to 1/2 seats as the old 15th District could be a surprise keeper for them given the abortion ruling.

I recall all the talk about how the GOP would keep the Senate in 2020 -- both during the general and even at the start of the Georgia runoffs. A long way to go before November. We'll see if the most vocal on left can do more than whine about the abortion ruling by putting that energy into electing/re-electing Dems that forward legislation in the House and Senate so Joe can sign.