Democrats for Life?

[rlg94086]

And, ironically, the third party candidate might win while die-hard Republicans and Democrats vote the party line.

I doubt it. The people splitting off would be the pro-choice, Leftist Democrats. There aren’t enough of them to gain a 1/3+ plurality. The most likely winner in that scenario would be the Republican candidate.

 

[chicago]

I doubt it. The people splitting off would be the pro-choice, Leftist Democrats. There aren’t enough of them to gain a 1/3+ plurality. The most likely winner in that scenario would be the Republican candidate.

Allow me to relate what happenned in Illinois when two allegedly “pro-life” candidates ran for governor about ten years ago.

The Republican, George Ryan, had once been a leader in the state legislature on many social conservative issues. So he was trusted by the establishment conservatives.

The Democrat, Glenn Poshard, was a solidly pro-life Congressman of outstanding moral character. He was running for governor, in part, because of a self imposed term limit as Congessman which he was honoring.

Poshard beat out the pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary. He was also what you might consider conservative on many of the other moral issues, though (as a Democrat) more liberal on other social concerns.

The crafty Ryan, seeing this, positioned leftward. He claimed to be on board with what he always had stood for and shored up the support of his longtime allies in the process. At the same tme, he insisted that these people were not his base.

The most leftward of Democrats jumped ship to support Ryan, figuring that he would better suit their interests than Poshard. The hardline conservatives supported Ryan because he was their boy and, well, they were “Republicans”, afterall, who (in many cases) probably despised the idea of electing a Democrat, even if he seemed solid or could help move the overall situation of the state’s political climate in a positive direction with such a position of influence.

The party faithful loyalists on each side just voted their ticket, as usual.

In an extremely close race, Ryan won. He ended up disappointing the conservatives greatly (leaving them feeling betrayed), helped to send the state’s Republican Party to ruins, and is now heading off to the federal penitentiary (as do so many Illinois Governors, it seems.)

The point is that most people just vote the party ticket to which they are culturally or geographically affiliated with. People who have particular concerns which they don’t see getting addressed by the main candidates may jump ship. They can, however, have a significant influence if there are enough of them, particularly from varying areas of interest. Indeed, it might be suggested that the present Republican party is just such a thing, which has coalesed a wide swatch of groups to form a stronghold and majorities.

Given, it can be quite difficult for a third party candidate to win office. And, in the scenario above noted, you may be correct that the Republican would be the most likely winner. Though it is also possible that a third party candidate might come up with an agenda which would attract voters from both sides, siphoning off significantly dissatisfied citiizens, to the point where the unexpected could happen… such as the Democrat winning or even the factors which play into the established party electorates splitting votes and lowering turnout while the third party person rallies those with a passion enough to make a difference that he somehow slides through, or at least makes it into a runoff (if a state’s system works that way) where he could well win the ultimate election.

 

[rlg94086]

Given, it can be quite difficult for a third party candidate to win office. And, in the scenario above noted, you may be correct that the Republican would be the most likely winner. Though it is also possible that a third party candidate might come up with an agenda which would attract voters from both sides, siphoning off significantly dissatisfied citiizens, to the point where the unexpected could happen… such as the Democrat winning or even the factors which play into the established party electorates splitting votes and lowering turnout while the third party person rallies those with a passion enough to make a difference that he somehow slides through, or at least makes it into a runoff (if a state’s system works that way) where he could well win the ultimate election.

Hi chicago,

The example you gave didn’t involve a third party candidate, so it is more indicative of Illinois politics than the results of a third party split.

I agree that overcoming the party “die-hards” is difficult. But, more importantly, it would be very difficult for a third party to siphon off enough votes from an ideological standpoint. The way I see it, you could throw people into four categories (a simplification, of course):

1. Socially Conservative/Fiscally Conservative (a core Republican)
2. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Liberal (a core Democrat)
3. Socially Conservative/Fiscally Liberal
4. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative

People in the 3 and 4 camps can go to either party, depending on where the stronger sentiment lies. What I don’t see is how a third party could attract a combination of the two. In theory, with a pro-choice Republican candidate, you could create a third party that is socially conservative to compete, but would it be fiscally liberal or conservative? It would need to be a “moderate” position between the two, but what does that mean? Safety net social programs only? Plus, defense issues also go into the mix.

 

[chicago]

I agree that overcoming the party “die-hards” is difficult. But, more importantly, it would be very difficult for a third party to siphon off enough votes from an ideological standpoint. The way I see it, you could throw people into four categories (a simplification, of course):

1. Socially Conservative/Fiscally Conservative (a core Republican)
2. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Liberal (a core Democrat)
3. Socially Conservative/Fiscally Liberal
4. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative

People in the 3 and 4 camps can go to either party, depending on where the stronger sentiment lies.

I disagree with the “core” identifications you have suggested. I find that “core” voters for each party can vary widely (and come in varied types) due to any number of factors. “Core” quite often is much more based upon local customs of political stronghold than anything else.

What I don’t see is how a third party could attract a combination of the two. In theory, with a pro-choice Republican candidate, you could create a third party that is socially conservative to compete, but would it be fiscally liberal or conservative? It would need to be a “moderate” position between the two, but what does that mean? Safety net social programs only? Plus, defense issues also go into the mix.

I think that BOTH major parties are presently hodgepodges, really. There are not a small number of Democrats, for instance, who are probably both socially and fiscally more conservative, but who vote the party line, nonetheless… just because that is what they have always done and who their elected officials all are, anyway. Similarly, not a few Republicans in more traditionally Republican areas trend to both the side of social liberalism and big spending. These strains may not be the majority anymore, but they remain significantly influencial as a core part of the coalition for party power.

A draw for a third party would probably have to take off from issues where there is some common disconsternation among voters in each major party’s core. For instance, a candidate who, in 2008, could come up with some ideas on Iraq outside the box of what either side presently offers which could potentially appeal widely and siphon off from either side. Given, due to the various concerns which one might have it would make matters quite complicated and muddy the waters of who went where why.

 

[rlg94086]

I disagree with the “core” identifications you have suggested. I find that “core” voters for each party can vary widely (and come in varied types) due to any number of factors. “Core” quite often is much more based upon local customs of political stronghold than anything else.

I think that BOTH major parties are presently hodgepodges, really. There are not a small number of Democrats, for instance, who are probably both socially and fiscally more conservative, but who vote the party line, nonetheless… just because that is what they have always done and who their elected officials all are, anyway. Similarly, not a few Republicans in more traditionally Republican areas trend to both the side of social liberalism and big spending. These strains may not be the majority anymore, but they remain significantly influencial as a core part of the coalition for party power.

Well, I disagree, but I think it will be difficult for either of us to support our positions with any actual numbers.

A draw for a third party would probably have to take off from issues where there is some common disconsternation among voters in each major party’s core. For instance, a candidate who, in 2008, could come up with some ideas on Iraq outside the box of what either side presently offers which could potentially appeal widely and siphon off from either side. Given, due to the various concerns which one might have it would make matters quite complicated and muddy the waters of who went where why.

I just have doubts that such an overarching issue could bring enough voters out of their chosen parties to reach a 30%+ plurality. I don’t see it.

 

[Amolibri]

No, it’s the Democratic Party, not the “Democrat” Party, regardless of what Hannity, Rush, Bush and Fox"News" say.

Go to the party’s website and it says in big white letters on a blue background: “The Democratic Party.”

THANK YOU!!! Whenever anyone uses the term “Democrat party”…I know the hammer is coming down. Get it right, willya?

and fyi, there are plenty of good Christian Democrats… the Repubs don’t have a monopoly on Christian morality. Read the beatitudes for some ideas on Democratic ideals!!!.

 

[chicago]

Well, I disagree, but I think it will be difficult for either of us to support our positions with any actual numbers.

It would take a much more intense survey to demonstrate either position. And, even then, legitimate arguments could be put forth depending upon how the stats were interpreted.

My take is, simply, that these matters need to be observed in local/politically environmental contexts to be properly understood.

A more conservative, old school city Democrat in the industrial Midwest or old cities of the Northeast is not the same as a liberal California Democrat. Or (to get even more local, for instance) a NW Side or SW side Chicago Democrat is different than a Lakeshore Liberal Democrat, who is different from a struggling North Side poor Democrat, who is different from an immigrant Mexican Democrat, who is different than a Polish Immigrant Democrat, who is different from a Black Democrat (and a West Side Black Democrat may be different from a South Side Black Democrat.) The various groups share some similarities in places, disagree in others. Sometimes widely. But they are all Democrats.

A good example of this plays out politically is how the present Governor of Illinois (when he was running for Congress in a district which clearly contained some of these differences in votership) highlighted his social liberalism on certain issues in mailings to the part of the district that contained voters to whom that was a concern and his social conservatism on others issues to voters in another part of the district where this played better.

On the Republican side of things, we often think of the party as conservative trending these days. But in the Northeast (and North Shore of Chicago which is similar), there have often been (and continue to this day) more liberal tendencies which we might relate to that of the rich liberal Democrats of today.

Of course, demographics change. People move to another area of the world and bring their ideas with them, even while changing party because now they live in an area which has different affiliations. So an influx of younger, liberal women into an historically conservative Republican district might enable a liberal Republican to get elected. Or a union Democrat who moves to the suburbs now finds himself voting for conservative Republicans who happen to fit his views more closely than the increasingly liberal trending Democrats he once supported in the city. Perhaps, his more conservative Democratic Congressman actually has an awful lot in common with his newfound Republican representative.

My point, therefore, is simply to say that there is a lot more that makes up a party than simple ideologies. It is a politic of power at play which involves a coalition of extensive local factors across an area.

I just have doubts that such an overarching issue could bring enough voters out of their chosen parties to reach a 30%+ plurality. I don’t see it.

And I don’t necessarily disagree. Though I do believe that a certain cult of personality, voter frustration/apathy, and innovative ideas has had the ability to attract electorate in the past to the point of electing unexpecteds. Also, when someone comes in to differentiate themselves against what is perceived as a certain “sameness” which splits votes, then there is sometimes the ability for someone to “sneak in.” So, while I don’t think it is very likely, I can also see where it could well happen under the right circumstances.

 

[estesbob]

THANK YOU!!! Whenever anyone uses the term “Democrat party”…I know the hammer is coming down. Get it right, willya?

and fyi, there are plenty of good Christian Democrats… the Repubs don’t have a monopoly on Christian morality. Read the beatitudes for some ideas on Democratic ideals!!!.

There is nothing democratic about the democrat party

 

[estesbob]

THANK YOU!!! Whenever anyone uses the term “Democrat party”…I know the hammer is coming down. Get it right, willya?

and fyi, there are plenty of good Christian Democrats… the Repubs don’t have a monopoly on Christian morality. Read the beatitudes for some ideas on Democratic ideals!!!.

A

It is debateable which party best supports the Beatitudes. But catholics can not get away from the fact the democrats have added to them:

Blessed are the abortionists, for they allow women to excercise their most precious right

Blessed are the sodomites for all sex is equal in the eyes of God

 

[Amolibri]

A

It is debateable which party best supports the Beatitudes. But catholics can not get away from the fact the democrats have added to them:

Blessed are the abortionists, for they allow women to excercise their most precious right

Blessed are the sodomites for all sex is equal in the eyes of God

SAVE IT for someone who appreciates your “humour” bob.

 

[estesbob]

SAVE IT for someone who appreciates your “humour” bob.

I wish it was joke. read the Democrat party platform.

 

[melensdad]

I wish it was joke. read the Democrat party platform.

Well I did. What you wrote is sadly the truth and nothing of a joking manner. The party platform is pretty vague in some areas, but it does offer some hard statements. The party embraces the gay agenda, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
DNC Party Platform:

Investing in science to battle disease. We will push the boundaries of science in search of new medical therapies and cures.** The Bush Administration has put ideology over science**, skewing information about everything from women’s health to scientific research. Americans deserve access to the best evidence available about illnesses, therapies, and cures. From new therapies to prolong life for people with AIDS, to new openings in the battle to cure cancer, the possibilities of medical research fill us with hope. We will secure more funding for aggressive biomedical research seeking affordable and effective therapies based on real science.
President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy.

 

[Ender]

Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley recently said that the support of Massachusetts Catholics for politicians who support abortion:"… at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned."

In response to that statement, the Boston Globe had this observation: “If Catholic voters punished their politicians for opposing church views on abortion - or gay marriage, or any other subject - the response might be quite different, political experts said last week. But they haven’t.”

That pretty much sums it up. So long as Catholic Democrats overlook the party’s support of abortion and continue to vote them back into office, abortion (and its sister evils euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage) will continue to thrive. Way to go guys.

Ender

 

[TMC]

The problem I have with Cardinal O’Malley’s statements and some of the comments here is that I don’t understand why the Democrats are criticized and the Republicans get a pass. We had Republican control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for years with no real action on life issues. To say that you agree on these issues, even make them an election issue, and then do nothing is worse, to me.

When the upcoming Presidential election features two pro-choice candidates, it will be interesting what outspoken and politically active Catholics say. Will they look to other morals issues, or will they stick to the conservative party line?

 

[rlg94086]

The problem I have with Cardinal O’Malley’s statements and some of the comments here is that I don’t understand why the Democrats are criticized and the Republicans get a pass. We had Republican control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for years with no real action on life issues. To say that you agree on these issues, even make them an election issue, and then do nothing is worse, to me.

The failure of the Republicans to accomplish everything a pro-lifer would want is due to a shortage of pro-life votes. It means we need to vote for more pro-lifers, not do as Democrats do and give pro-life a back seat.

When the upcoming Presidential election features two pro-choice candidates, it will be interesting what outspoken and politically active Catholics say. Will they look to other morals issues, or will they stick to the conservative party line?

There is a huge, gaping difference that you are missing. If we have to choose between two pro-choice candidates, we will have to pick the lesser of two evils (or go third party, which I oppose). This does not mean we will ignore life issues. We can also look at which of the two candidates will have a better impact on abortion, even though they are pro-choice.

You are comparing that forced choice of the lesser of two evils with past Democrat choices of voting for the greater of two evils when one of their choices was pro-life? They aren’t the same situation.

Also, just because pro-life is at the forefront of our voting, does not mean it is the only issue. We will always look at other Catholic stances and weigh our vote accordingly. Democrats have just always weighed the abortion issue (and gay marriage…and euthanasia…and embryonic stem cell research…etc.) as less important than other issues.

 

[melensdad]

The problem I have with Cardinal O’Malley’s statements and some of the comments here is that I don’t understand why the Democrats are criticized and the Republicans get a pass. We had Republican control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for years with no real action on life issues. To say that you agree on these issues, even make them an election issue, and then do nothing is worse, to me.

Interesting. It is worse to say you support pro-life issues and act against expanding abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc than it is to say you support abortion and act to loosen the laws regarding it?

I simply don’t understand that.

There has been pressure to loosen laws regarding gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc and the GOP congress/president were able to prevent most movement. That is a good thing. The GOP has its share of Pro-Abortionists, not enough to turn the tide, but a few that add their votes to the Democratic side of those votes. So when we can simply stop progress of their march to death, then we actually score a victory. But you consider that worse than killing babies?

When the upcoming Presidential election features two pro-choice candidates, it will be interesting what outspoken and politically active Catholics say. Will they look to other morals issues, or will they stick to the conservative party line?

You are making some presumptions we cannot make, at least not at this early stage. You may be right, but I believe that it is too early to seal the election coffin with 2 pro-abortion candidates.

 

[chicago]

The problem I have with Cardinal O’Malley’s statements and some of the comments here is that I don’t understand why the Democrats are criticized and the Republicans get a pass. We had Republican control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for years with no real action on life issues. To say that you agree on these issues, even make them an election issue, and then do nothing is worse, to me.

When the upcoming Presidential election features two pro-choice candidates, it will be interesting what outspoken and politically active Catholics say. Will they look to other morals issues, or will they stick to the conservative party line?

I have long pondered what the situation would be like if it were the Democrats who better supported pro-life issues and the Republican leaders who were blatantly pro-choice. Would the die hard Republicans and conservatives lambast their own party? Would they try to find ways to work within for upbuilding and change? Would they vote Democratic? Or would they tow the party line and make excuses about the pro-life issues?

 

[chicago]

There is a huge, gaping difference that you are missing. If we have to choose between two pro-choice candidates, we will have to pick the lesser of two evils (or go third party, which I oppose). This does not mean we will ignore life issues. We can also look at which of the two candidates will have a better impact on abortion, even though they are pro-choice.

In Illinois, Republicans had to choose in the last election whether to support a pro-gay, pro-choice Republican or an even more radically so Democrat. Many of them opted to sit out and let the Democrat win in hopes of changing the direction of the Republican Party to something more conservative.

 

[rlg94086]

I have long pondered what the situation would be like if it were the Democrats who better supported pro-life issues and the Republican leaders who were blatantly pro-choice. Would the die hard Republicans and conservatives lambast their own party? Would they try to find ways to work within for upbuilding and change? Would they vote Democratic? Or would they tow the party line and make excuses about the pro-life issues?

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would probably be a pro-life, fiscally conservative Democrat. Since I used to be a Democrat, I don’t see that as a stretch at all. I would work hard to increase the number of pro-lifers and do my best to move the party in my direction fiscally…same as I do today.

Would some Republicans be hold-outs and create a “Republicans for Life” organization? Probably.

 

[tomarin]

I have long pondered what the situation would be like if it were the Democrats who better supported pro-life issues and the Republican leaders who were blatantly pro-choice. Would the die hard Republicans and conservatives lambast their own party? Would they try to find ways to work within for upbuilding and change? Would they vote Democratic? Or would they tow the party line and make excuses about the pro-life issues?

i’ve been wondering something similar, which is can one generalize about the political attitudes towards life issues of non-religious conservatives?

at the weblog i was frequenting before i came here, i caught a lot of flack for standing up for the unborn. some of it came from lefties but some from righties too (or at least libertarian-right types).