On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, could same-sex marriage be next to go?

Justice Thomas suggests the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.

www.houstonchronicle.com

"Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

 

[MT15]

If 90% of that 40% voted, your state would be considered a Democratic stronghold.

Still not 50%. And the 50% who are Rs vote, every time.

I’m hopeful that the abortion issue will resonate with women who might traditionally vote R. As you said, we don’t need much to flip.

our D candidate for SOS says we aren’t a red state, we’re a purple state with a turnout problem. I like her, lol.

 

[samiam5211]

Still not 50%. And the 50% who are Rs vote, every time.

I’m hopeful that the abortion issue will resonate with women who might traditionally vote R. As you said, we don’t need much to flip.

our D candidate for SOS says we aren’t a red state, we’re a purple state with a turnout problem. I like her, lol.

Voter turnout is so low, that if either side got 90% turnout, they would win the election no matter where you are. Assuming the other side turned out at the normal 60 - 65%

 

[MT15]

Voter turnout is so low, that if either side got 90% turnout, they would win the election no matter where you are. Assuming the other side turned out at the normal 60 - 65%

I think I mislead you - 40% of voters vote Democratic. Not people.

 

[J-DONK]

Excellent analysis. HC won the nomination in the South. But, of course, she got shellacked in the general there. Just like every Democrat.
She did jack-all to really appeal to Bernie's base. Lip service at best and easily seen as such.
She picked a living cipher as a running mate.
Same-old, same-old policies badly presented to people whom those policies had failed to help.

All of this represented by a woman for whom the concepts of authenticity and personal charisma are utterly alien.

I've seen multiple people on this board blame Bernie's base, and not HRC for her not picking up higher percentage of his base. It's such a bad blame shift, and almost logically fallacy.

I'll say this a million times. It's ALWAYS the candidates fault. Even if it's something the candidate can't change about themselves realistically.

HRC made so many errors, and one of those being Tim Kaine.

It's ironic HRC's 2016 campaign is coming up because Tim Kaine had articles ran like this in Politco:

Tim Kaine's abortion predicament

Once again, the Democratic VP prospect's record on abortion rights is under scrutiny.

www.politico.com

It really highlights how little the DNP elite has cared about abortion rights historically.

 

[Incumbent]

I think Sanders, Clinton, and Biden are all mediocre candidates, but then I think the demographic diversity of the Left makes it very difficult to find a unifying messenger. Speak too much or too little to any particular special interest, or appear too moderate or progressive on policy, and you risk alienating voters somewhere else along the spectrum.

It's impossible to prove scenarios that didn't happen, but I never had the feeling Sanders would have won in Clinton's place. I think he would have faced a similar uphill climb to turn voters out for reasons relevant to his candidacy. But I also don't know that much comes from the Left dragging out that debate.

What needed to happen in 2016 is for a lot more people on the Left to understand, then, the dire consequences of a Trump victory, that have since come to pass. Then, now, and in the future, I would vote for Sanders, Clinton, Biden, Manchin, Ocasio-Cortez, and anybody else representing the Democratic Party because I've already accepted that Republicans can't be trusted with power. The GOP has become too grave of a threat. That was true and easily recognized in 2016. It would have been great if Clinton was a much better candidate but it shouldn't have taken a much better candidate for Leftwing voters to see the trainwreck that a Trump administration was going to be, and the death knell it was going to pose to at least a generation of progressive ideology. By allowing Trump to stack the SCOTUS and federal bench, the road ahead for any future progressive leaders is now so much more difficult. I remember those exact conversations at the time and the stubborn resistance they met.

"Lesser of two evils" can be hard to stomach but mounting a backlash to that will always disproportionally hurt the Left because of the challenges we already face in keeping a coalition together. Until enough left leaning voters understand the importance of always voting for the most Left leaning candidate remaining in a race, we will continue to cede power and ground, setting any hopes of progress further and further back.

 

[Booker]

I think Sanders, Clinton, and Biden are all mediocre candidates, but then I think the demographic diversity of the Left makes it very difficult to find a unifying messenger. Speak too much or too little to any particular special interest, or appear too moderate or progressive on policy, and you risk alienating voters somewhere else along the spectrum.

It's impossible to prove scenarios that didn't happen, but I never had the feeling Sanders would have won in Clinton's place. I think he would have faced a similar uphill climb to turn voters out for reasons relevant to his candidacy. But I also don't know that much comes from the Left dragging out that debate.

What needed to happen in 2016 is for a lot more people on the Left to understand, then, the dire consequences of a Trump victory, that have since come to pass. Then, now, and in the future, I would vote for Sanders, Clinton, Biden, Manchin, Ocasio-Cortez, and anybody else representing the Democratic Party because I've already accepted that Republicans can't be trusted with power. The GOP has become too grave of a threat. That was true and easily recognized in 2016. It would have been great if Clinton was a much better candidate but it shouldn't have taken a much better candidate for Leftwing voters to see the trainwreck that a Trump administration was going to be, and the death knell it was going to pose to at least a generation of progressive ideology. By allowing Trump to stack the SCOTUS and federal bench, the road ahead for any future progressive leaders is now so much more difficult. I remember those exact conversations at the time and the stubborn resistance they met.

"Lesser of two evils" can be hard to stomach but mounting a backlash to that will always disproportionally hurt the Left because of the challenges we already face in keeping a coalition together. Until enough left leaning voters understand the importance of always voting for the most Left leaning candidate remaining in a race, we will continue to cede power and ground, setting any hopes of progress further and further back.

I think Sanders would have gotten annihilated by Trump in 2016, and don't think for a minute that Republicans wouldn't have relished that matchup. Not to mention that Trump wasn't recognized as the Trojan horse for the far right that he ultimately was. People vote by their pocketbooks, and Bernie would have been presented as big government coming to take your money and give it to (fill in the blank -- minorities, immigrants, trans people, etc.).

 

[Lapaz]

Interesting, because the climate says different: You don't see that more Americans than not support extensive measures on gun control, medicare for all / subsidized healthcare, climate change action, higher minimum wage, etc? Even by Democrats themselves, these are 'far left' <:insert scary music here:> ideas.

I don't think some of those are far left, even in America. Certainly not gun control, subsidized healthcare, climate action, and higher minimum wages, depending on how high or how implemented. I think medicare for all may qualify as far left. I think most successful Democrats in purple areas have been running on those moderate positions. Far left would be universal minimum income, kids transitioning, defunding the police, single payer, etc. Some of these have more support, but not enough to win over centrists, while even right of center people support the former. I think the country is slightly right of center, so Democrats would get destroyed by running further left. Democrats like Obama, Biden, and Clinton win by running as centrists. The right calls them far left, but they were very moderate. Biden is the furthest left, and he is the least popular. Republicans can afford to go further right, because the country is closer to the far right than the far left. Democrats can swing slightly left, but going much further left would be a disaster.

 

[Lapaz]

Staying in the center and reaching over the line to the right hasn't gotten us anywhere except to the point that the United States is effectively a Christofascist state controlled by six religious zealots with lifetime appointments. Every time the left reaches across the aisle the fascists grab their arms and force them further right. This week's gun legislation is the rarest of unicorns in today's climate, and if we're completely honest it's barely even a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

Bipartisanship has failed. "Going high" has failed. The entire system has failed. If the American people are going to react to "progressive" policy (let's be honest with ourselves, nothing even the most progressive politicians are proposing is in any way radical, we'd just be bringing ourselves in line with the rest of the developed world) by jumping ship to the fascists then there's no point in fighting anymore because that means Americans want a fascist state.

The country has moved leftwards socially over the last 20 to 40 years. Gay rights, interraccial marriage, women's representation, marijuana, and even abortion rights attitudes. The right has managed to undermine the country's attitude on abortion by getting the courts to restrict them, but that has nothing to do with bipartisanship. The left's gains have been made with bi-partisanship, but the failure has been due to poor salesmanship and not seeing the cancerous methods the right used. The right worked from the bottom up by marketing outrage on AM radio for decades, then making small gains to manipulate districting, then winning over legislatures, and finally winning over the courts. If the left had used its popular advantage and identified these other strategies to deal with them, then the country would continue to progress. The left would not have made the social gains by attempting to swing further left. People's social attitudes take a long time to change. Sudden leftward shifts would scare people away. Rightward swings aren't as scary, as they tend to favor a larger group of people that vote. There are not nearly as many radical leftists as radical rightists. It just wouldn't work.

The right has the supreme court, so it will take winning legislatures to stop the bleeding. Much better marketing of the scary right wing can lead to winning legislatures, but scaring them away won't help.

 

[Lapaz]

Respectfully, you're misreading the room/country during that time period. There are no shortage of news stories from immediately after the election where people say they voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary and they would have voted for Sanders because of his progressive economic policies. Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin was all he needed. The other states that went for Clinton were mostly a Democratic lay up and any D would have won them.

Meanwhile, Hillary didn't stand for much other than perhaps the symbolism of being the first female president. And I know there were a lot of Hillary voters that didn't want to vote for another old white guy or didn't trust Bernie... but I'd bet they would have trusted the three woman he would have appointed to the Supreme Court.

The 'socialist' thing is a legitimate concern but I don't think that would have come into play until 2020 when Trump and the GOP really hammered home the culture war.

Hillary probably would've won without the October surprise from Comey. Sanders may have won, but Hillary was the stronger candidate. She did make tactical errors, but I think Comey is what sealed her fate.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Hillary probably would've won without the October surprise from Comey. Sanders may have won, but Hillary was the stronger candidate. She did make tactical errors, but I think Comey is what sealed her fate.

I wasn't voting for HRC even without the Comey announcement. She was not a good candidate.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Hillary probably would've won without the October surprise from Comey. Sanders may have won, but Hillary was the stronger candidate. She did make tactical errors, but I think Comey is what sealed her fate.

Agree to disagree. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary was despised by many. She wasn't the stronger candidate given the times. I don't know how you can be a strong candidate and ignore key Rustbelt states because you think you have them in the bag or are entitled to win them. She didn't speak to the key economic issues many in those states were concerned about. America was looking for a populist in 2016 -- Hillary is the polar opposite of that.

And to carry this forward, people who think Hillary was the stronger candidate might be doomed to make the same mistake twice pushing Biden or Harris in 2024. That is a surefire losing strategy.

 

[Lapaz]

Agree to disagree. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary was despised by many. She wasn't the stronger candidate given the times. I don't know how you can be a strong candidate and ignore key Rustbelt states because you think you have them in the bag or are entitled to win them. She didn't speak to the key economic issues many in those states were concerned about. America was looking for a populist in 2016 -- Hillary is the polar opposite of that.

And to carry this forward, people who think Hillary was the stronger candidate might be doomed to make the same mistake twice pushing Biden or Harris in 2024. That is a surefire losing strategy.

I don’t fit your presumed mold, because I don’t think either Biden nor Harris are the best candidates for 2024, but I still think Hillary was the stronger candidate in 2016. She made campaign tactic errors, coupled with Comey was why she lost.

 

[Taurus]

I don’t fit your presumed mold, because I don’t think either Biden nor Harris are the best candidates for 2024, but I still think Hillary was the stronger candidate in 2016. She made campaign tactic errors, coupled with Comey was why she lost.

Have you ever listened to Hillary give a speech? She's terrible at it. Steps on her own applause lines, doesn't take care of her voice and comes across as authentic as Michigan boudin.

 

[SFIDC3]

Have you ever listened to Hillary give a speech? She's terrible at it. Steps on her own applause lines, doesn't take care of her voice and comes across as authentic as Michigan boudin.

Agreed, she was god awful….I also think that while going totally negative on Trump is easy to do it was ultimately her undoing….she really didn’t make a decent case why she would be a good leader with vision, she pretty much only bashed Trump…..there were many better candidates than HRC….

 

[Heathen]

Looks like team Biden still thinks he’d be a good candidate in 24. I really would love to see Ro Khanna run, but he’s indicated he won’t be open to it until 2028.

If Biden or even Harris run, I can’t see much chance of a Democratic victory personally. It will need to be a bright younger face who both calls out the dangers of the Republican Party to modern American values, and one that drives home that Democrats can do so much more.

Just my 2 cents..

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Have you ever listened to Hillary give a speech? She's terrible at it. Steps on her own applause lines, doesn't take care of her voice and comes across as authentic as Michigan boudin.

 

[SFIDC3]

Looks like team Biden still thinks he’d be a good candidate in 24. I really would love to see Ro Khanna run, but he’s indicated he won’t be open to it until 2028.

If Biden or even Harris run, I can’t see much chance of a Democratic victory personally. It will need to be a bright younger face who both calls out the dangers of the Republican Party to modern American values, and one that drives home that Democrats can do so much more.

Just my 2 cents..

I couldn’t agree more…need a younger, more vibrant, qualified individual….Dems need to replace Pelosi as well soon IMO…..

 

[MT15]

Looks like team Biden still thinks he’d be a good candidate in 24. I really would love to see Ro Khanna run, but he’s indicated he won’t be open to it until 2028.

If Biden or even Harris run, I can’t see much chance of a Democratic victory personally. It will need to be a bright younger face who both calls out the dangers of the Republican Party to modern American values, and one that drives home that Democrats can do so much more.

Just my 2 cents..

To be fair, nobody in his position would rule out running again at this point in his term. He has to keep that option open at this time.