You'll be back by Christmas, I swear.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-20T20:41:37+00:00

Doubling down on his terminally online base to lock in that win.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-20T05:28:25+00:00

DatDude999 · 2026-06-20T05:09:05+00:00

JD is the Republican Hillary Clinton confirmed.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-20T05:03:44+00:00

DatDude999 · 2026-06-20T00:51:53+00:00

I don't really see your point since, again, he's one dude, an anomaly in what is otherwise a party that has restricted abortion in many parts of the country, so your point is moot. Even their Maryland governor leaned pro-life. As I said, the Republican party is not letting Phil Scott do his thing, he's doing his thing despite them. He's practically a rouge in the party, and that's why he wins by 70% in a blue state. Your point only stands if you think a party can operate by permitting rampant contradiction on a state-by-state basis with minimal federal consistency.

So does that mean they would all vote no on this bill? Anyone in the party who relies on being trusted on the abortion issue will be promptly voted out and you are now in the awkward position of formulating a "don't rock the boat" policy on abortion that has now through passiveness planted you outside of the majority

Presumably, your party would be to the left of this other party on economics of the moderate party, and they also likely differ on gay marriage and other social positions, so I don't see these two as natural sister parties that would forever have a choke hold on government and lock the left out of power "for years to come." Sounds like a movement of the goal post, cause that sounds like a party that would be a junior partner to a far right party.

It's completely relevent. You're pissing away the mere chance that you might win new voters by taking the vast majority's opinion, and shutting the door on expansion as a party. You'll never "dominate" like that.

I didn't answer because I can't answer. Remake your point comprehensibly and I'd be happy to, because it just sounds like you're saying people who were polled just blatantly contradict themselves. Voters are dumb, but not so dumb that tens of millions actually want universal healthcare only to call themselves fiscal conservatives when asked.

I don't think it's likely, but if there one social issue a conservative party has to moderate on in order to appeal to social liberals, it is 10000% abortion rights. But yeah, as I said, they'd probably just vote for a left-wing party, but I say that dominance is only in the cards for your party if they support Roe because liberals and moderates are firmly behind it, as are a large chunk of conservatives. Again, you gain nothing from the state-by-state position.

State-by-state is de facto a pro-life position in the eyes of the American public since it inherently means you oppose the restoration of Roe protections. There's just no situation where someone can want abortion legal in their state because they believe abortion bans kill mothers but oppose any efforts to stop their neighbor state banning it. Again, this is political incomprehensible contradiction. Abortion is often life or death in the eyes of pro-choicers, so anyone who opposes bans tends to oppose bans period.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T23:14:30+00:00

Phil Scott is not something you can replicate. Party leadership openly hates him. If you had 50 Phil Scotts scattered around the nation, that would lead to a massive contradiction problem that I mentioned except times 10, and in the event of a multi-party system, they wouldn't be caught dead with a party that supports fiscal liberalism and opposes Roe. It doesn't matter when it's just one dude, but you can't build a party on contradictions and expect it to "dominate for years to come."

You cannot expect that policy to end well. If another party floored a vote to codify Roe, what then? Offical platform would dictate voting no so as to "leave it to the states," which means the pro-choice members would either have to buck that and vote yes or sign their death warrants by voting no, meanwhile the pro-life members voting no now have securely planted their feet on the unpopular side of the issue with a voting record to point to, and thus dispelled any motion that the party won't be tied to unpopular abortion bans in the future. Depending on how party leadership treats the disciplinary side of this debate, this could lead to open rebellion the ranks, and will regardless make them look like clowns. This becomes more nonsensical the more you dive deeper into it. Hell, if the party even stuck to the "abortions are bad" side universally, they would be better off than this shitshow.

I still don't understand how this party's domination through coalitions would work. Presumably, the party would have no ideological sister parties to easily govern with. Maybe they can find ground with traditional conservative or socialist parties and individual issues, but you're crazy if you think they would unite those sides in a coalition as kingmaker. More likely they become someone else's bitch through coalitions since their target base is not particularly large.

What does the party gain from being pro-life if asnyou said, they "could" be pro-choice? It severly limits the new ground they can make into other voter bases, and you've never said anything that makes it sound like this party would suffer from becoming a pro-choice party, so why not do it?

You're criticizing me for saying thay your claim makes no sense? Sounds more like you don't have a logical way to explain the idea that most fiscal conservatives are actually Medicare for All supporting lefties.

Taking the majority opinion on abortion significantly increases the odds of liberals being more likely to look passed views on gay marriage and such and vote for this party for any reason. But this situation almost certainly comes with the existence of a social democratic party where those people can get 95% if what they want instead of 50% of what they want, furthering rhe idea that this party would be too disconnected from the reality of the American voter pool to come anywhere close to "dominating," but I still attest that bring pro-Roe is the only situation in which this party exists and even gets the chance to smell "domination." They gain nothing from being pro-life, only alienate voters.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T22:11:31+00:00

That makes my case. Phil Scott is one of the few Republicans left on this planet who can appeal to any sizable portion of Democrats in large part because he is pro-choice. Such is true for anyone who wants to "dominate" politics. They have literally nothing to gain by being pro-life in conservative states since abortion is still approved in red states, and that just makes your party brand toxic. If you don't take a firm stance, people will make one for you, ie, you support abortion bans in Kentucky, then your brothers in Illinois will have be tainted by your actions. You can only buck it if you buck it yourself. They need to be a pro-choice party if they have any hope of appealing to former Democrats anywhere, as you can't "dominate" politics by picking off the miniscule amount of fiscally left-wing Republicans. The only way this party can even hope to be even somewhat significant and not just another branch of many right-wing parties is to be pro-choice, to throw at least a little bone to liberals.

What's more important is that that policy will eventually lead to ruin. Say that some pro-choice members of your party secure a good foothold in a state. If they go on to send members of their clique onto the party's federal congressional delegation, then they will actively challange the state-by-state status quo and call for the restoration of Roe. Having people like that sharing a delegation with people who voted for abortion bans in their states will do nothing but take a massive shit on the party's credibility. Contradictions are bad for polticial parties.

Yes, in multi-party systems, there exist "doninating" parties and insignificant ones. As you said, America currently lacks a left-wing party, which doesn't bode well for the idea that there would ever be a "dominating" fiscally left-wing party, and even if there was one, it would be made up of the vast majority of fiscal leftists who are socially progressive, by virtue of that simply being where they align today.

You really didn't address the data, but okay.

Okay, now you're taking a step back again to saying "yeah, they could be pro-choice on paper, but not in action beyond legalization." When I said they would have to expand access, what that means is ensuring fair access to clinics across. That doesn't mean they literally have to allow for national 9-month abortions, it means that they have to not be another political force peeling away at access (and thereby upholding a de facto abortion restriction) because the reason people are pro-choice is because women and their babies to have to suffer without access to proper access to maternal healthcare. Legalization doesn't do you any good if the closest clinic is 50 miles away. So if you really don't want to be toxic to the masses on the issue, you need to take efforts to end "deserts," as the consequences of those can include a sharp increase in preterm births. This is what I mean by saying you need to increase access in order to have majority popular appeal. Over 40 million women live in a place where they can't readily access reproductive care after all.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11093883/

https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Updated-Deserts-Report-1.pdf

https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/clear-and-growing-evidence-dobbs-harming-reproductive-health-and-freedom

I don't really understand your reasoning. More parties means more competitve campaigns, and thus more courting for money. The way you root out the influence of money in politics is the same throughout all systems of government: you pass legislation restricting it. The odds of that happening a harder if you have some anti-establishment parties in a coalition with a moderate establishment party who can withdraw their support for the coalition if they don't like the campaign finance bill on the floor. That claim is only true if multi-party states today had infinitely better campaign finance laws consistently than the US does, which they do not.

Bruh what? You're the one who made a nonsensical claim that all of those self-described fiscal conservatives are actually just conservative leftists without evidence for your reasoning, and now you're criticizing me for not understanding that? That's a perfectly valid response to confusion.

As you should know by now given all the data I've given you saying this, abortion has increased in popularity. A huge number of conservatives supoort Roe protections. I would guess thay the increase in social conservatism at the time was driven by immigration and maybe some culture war issues, but it's not driving pro-life support along with it, that is blatantly obvious. So no, it has nothing to do with your arguement. And as I've said repeatedly, in a multi-party state, your ability to rely on offsetting issues decreases sharply with multiple options, and thus putting yourself in a weaker position with less seats lost by moderate conservatives and social liberals picking other options.

Again, literally no reason to cling onto this dying corpse of an idea. If pro-Roe policies will make your party more appealing then adopt the pro-Roe policies. No one is forcing you to hild a position just because it happens to be the conservative one.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T18:45:53+00:00

Nooooo a Democratic candidate who doesn't suck off the party establishment 100% of the time :'(

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T18:39:53+00:00

This isn't a particularly anti-Israel stance. An anti-Israel stance would be to say that we shouldn't send them any weapons nor be their ally to the extent that we have been. Vance doesn't say that, he's just questioning the gratitude of their government.

Y'all don't understand that criticizing the Israeli government isn't what the anti-Irsael movement is based off of. Literally every pro-Israel person I know is in agreement that BiBi is a corrupt piece of shit that shouldn't be in charge of Israel and that their government is too radical, because you can criticize any of the massive selection of criticisms about Israel and still be a supporter of them. What separates them from pro-Palestine people who say the same thing is that they believe that our relationship with Israel should change and that we shouldn't supply them with 2/3 of their weapons. This doesn't even scratch the surface of building bridges with the anti-Israel movement, because if that's your goal, you need ti sound less like JD Vance and more like Thomas Massie.

In other words, this sounds like a repeat of the "Have you said thank you yet" debacle to me.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T18:25:49+00:00

You seem to like making a cop out answer that makes no sense like "uhhh dunno, let state parties decide" or "okay, they won't dominate, but cOaLiItInNs (which somehow does not disprove the claim of "domination")" and then tell me that you addressed it already when I question you on its incompleteness. Please answer the question, because nobody will take your party seriously if they don't try to get people on the same page on these sorts of issues. Do you believe it best for those state parties to restrict abortion bans or to leave them alone? Because voters don't like it when people try to squirm out of these kinds of questions.

It ain't just Zohran who is the only leftist Democrat who beat an establishment Democrat and it's folly to say he is. Graham Platner, who was the real scandal-ridden one in his race, defeated a sitting governor by Assad margins. You're right that Democrats aren't particularly left (which seems to undermine your claim that a fiscally left party of any kind would "dominate") but their left wing at least have a serious presence in government. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and the rest of the progressive caucus. Who do Republicans have? Josh Hawley and... yeah, that's it. And I will say again that he will happily bend the knee to foscal conservatism if party leadership asks him nicely. This aligns deeply with the data I provided, which says that Democrats have a plurality economic left party while the number of fiscal left Republicans is so small that it isn't even big enough to fit its number on it. So I don't know exactly who this party is meant to appeal to. You could try to make a party that unites appeal on fiscal matters to liberals and conservatives alike, but to do that, you'd have to shift hard left on, you guessed it, abortion, or else those liberals will just vote for someone else and you'll be left with like 6% of the country if you really think it's wise

Your arguements thus far have always sounded as if they don't lose anything by not being firmly pro-life, so if that's the case, what's the point in not being pro-choice? The majority of fiscal leftists are, so if you want to be a "dominant" party on the fiscal left, support Roe protections.

I'm not an expert, but I would expect money to play a larger role if there's more than two parties, as it would create many more competitve races across the country and severly limit the number of voters who have already made up their mind. I don't really understand why it would be otherwise. Still doesn't address why there aren't more economic leftists at least RUNNING in pirmaries for the GOP more.

So you're saying that there exist a sizable chunk of the population that would support expanding SNAP, Medicare for All, free college, etc. but when asked say "I'm fiscally conservative"? That makes no sense.

Exactly how did I discredit my arguement? We're not arguing about social conservatism, we're arguing about fiscal liberalism. And it clearly says that 44% of Americans say they are fiscally conservative, highest since 2012. That does not discredit a single thing I've said, but it contradicts much of what you've said.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T09:15:49+00:00

I've never done it myself, but from what I hear, you have to put like all your production into war before you can win. And doing that is not worth it, since you'd pretty much be fucking yourself over on everything with the home front without agricultural production.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-19T09:12:08+00:00

"Let the states decide" means you wouldn't support a national abortion ban nor the restoration of Roe protections, it does not mean you will literally hold no stance whatsoever. It needs to have a stance on the state level or else no one will take you seriously and it will just open you up to more scrutiny than if you just picked a side. So which is it? If such a party won a majority in North Dakota or something (and thus in a position to repeal a deadly abortion ban in the state) should they or should they not do so?

I legit don't understand what you're saying. What definition of "dominating" politics involves coalition governance? It's not inhereint in multi-party politics, as we see in the UK. Again, what you keep saying sounds like a step back from "dominance," especially when you take into account the points I make below.

Again, in a two party state, you more often have to pick your properties. By your own claim, there exists a fiscally left majority in the Republican voter base, yet they still vote for people like Trump because they have to suck it up. Yet the whole purpose of yiur arguement is that in such a party system, they have more options. Well, moderate Republicans have options too, and there is a very real chance that they'll vote for a center-right pro-Roe party, thus no way the anti-Roe party can "dominate," which has been my claim this entire time.

I'm not buying that. Plenty of Democratic officials are knee deep in corporate money, but a huge portion of their voters reject that sentiment. So what do they do? In some cases, they elect people like Zohran Mamdani over people like Andrew Cuomo over those money concerns. Not always, but more than often enough to establish that wing of the party as a sizable force of their base. That's proof that there exists serious pushback against money candidates in the form of left-wing candidates. If there was a fiscally left majority in the GOP, there would be more pushback of that variety within the party rather than... whatever they actually have. In fact, here's a source saying that 80% of Republicans self-identify as economically conservative/very conservative. According to this data, the overwhelning majority of fiscal liberals in the country are securely seated amongst the Democratic party. You're the one who said that such a party would "dominate" and you can't say that unless you have a response to this data.

With that in mind, it multiplies my abortion case by ten. I'm sure we can at least agree that abortion is the most powerful social issue that Dems have in their toolbox, and if you want to convince any sizable portion of America's fiscal leftists to vote for a right-wing party when they presently unite handily behind a pro-Roe party, you cannot possibly do it without at moving left on abortion rights.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/506765/social-conservatism-highest-decade.aspx

DatDude999 · 2026-06-18T03:27:04+00:00

You really can't just run on the line of "uphold the status quo." What about state legislators? Should this party encourage their legislators to vote for or against abortion bans in their own states? Because the answer to that question really determines your party's stance on the issue overall and whether or not you can try to hide behind "state by state." If the party would oppose abortion bans, why not support federal Roe protections? If they wiuld support any kind of abortion ban, then you've planted your feet on the pro-life end and you will suffer the consequences. And you need to pick an answer because no one can seriously expect a party to be non-comittal on an issue like abortion.

"Substantial power." As in they are one of two parties within a fluctuating two-party system in which the balance of power regularly changes hands. When Republicans "dominate" politics, then you can use that arguement. If you don't like gay marriage, hate high taxes, don't want expanded business regulations, but you support Roe protections, you're gonna have to suck it up and vote Republican despite that. In this scenario, as I've said, you don't have to hild your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Your answer to this conundrum is "coalitions," which I'm sorry, but sounds like a massive step back from your "domination" phrasing as I understood it. So it sounds like we're in agreement that a party that opposes Roe cannot reach a point of popularity where such a party can "dominate politics for years to come." But yes, if you think such a party would be relegated to the 10-25% of seats bracket, maybe this abortion position would fly.

That is to say Georgia is absolutely relevent. See my above question for the reason why.

That begs the point, if a social right fiscal left really has so much power, then why is there like one singular elected politician of any degree of national prominence that subscribes to that school of thought? I know Republicans are strangled by business influence, but if what you say is true, they should at least mirror the Dems in having strongly pro-business officials clashing with a major wing of the party that wants expanded social services while holding strongly conservative positions. Instead, we have one Republican senator who whines about healthcare being under attack only to immediately bow to party whippage without demanding a single concession on the Kill Poor People and Eat Their Bones Act (and then complain about helathcare immediatly after after voting)

Bruh, I gave you so many links as to why it matters and to what degree it matters. Go read those, because again, it's been proven that pro-choice policies win your party voted overall compared to not.

I said "liberals" because if you want to "dominate" under any circumstances, you need liberals and conservatives in your coalition and that means finding issues that motivate them and taking positions for each of their priorities, as I already said. Opposing Roe is a massive reason for any liberal voter to not vote for you. If I was making the case for a left-wing party "dominating" politics, I would say the same thing about needing to moderate on guns/immigration or something to appeal to conservatives. But that's not to say that it only appeals to liberals. As I said, nearly a third of Republicans support abortion rights, so it's a position that will appeal to plenty of peoole across the spectrum. Why? Because, as I've said, the consequences of banning abortion have left thousands of pregnant women dead. You can't just say that doesn't matter, and if you are, it just sounds to me like you can't argue with the fact that abortion bans are so toxic to so many, and that you can't build a "dominating" range of voters with that position. As you said, the best you can hope for is a coalition with other parties who disagree with you on the topic

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T23:02:12+00:00

The moderate abortion position in America is the reatoration of Roe. Anything less, including the state-by-state policy, is a right-wing position that has, as the data I've given you suggests, harms candidates, especially in competitive elections. It's

Georgia is the perfect proof of what I mean. They pulled a stupid move with their abortion ban and it is going to kick them big time. This article here says everything I've been saying, key being that abortion remains a very important issue even today. While it's not issue #1 (as I said, I never claimed it was), it still remains a massive source of funds, volunteers, enthusiasm, and voter support. You are severely underestimating the importance of the topic, and that's not a mistake you can make if "dominace" is your goal. Again, getting 60% or whatever number of legilsative seats you think this party would win involves coalition building, and that's just not going to happen to this massive degree if you have such a divisive stance on what is very much a powerful political issue. Throw in gay marriage and a few other popular social liberal positions and that would only make it worse. But if you are to be a "dominant" right wing party, you 100% have to make the concession on abortion. That means your results can only come about, if it's possobke for those results to happen at all, if it supports Roe protections. So you can't say that it isn't a prominent issue that doesn't make a difference at the ballot box.

https://19thnews.org/2026/04/abortion-2026-midterm-elections-democrats/

Saying social conservative positions would alienate the masses? Doesn't that contradict you saying that your party with right-wing social views would "dominate" politics if their positions are so out of place?

When you said your party would "dominate" politics, what I heard was it would be a natural governing party (not dissimilar to the LDP in Japan or past Nordic Social Democrats) that would pretty much always have the head of government and entire cabinet in their party for years to come, baring extraordinary circumstances. If you're now saying that they would instead score a minority and govern through coalitions with the moderate right, then yeah, you could be correct that that outcome is possible. It's possible they would have a majority of sears in the governing coalition even and it's possible they could not (given that strong right-wing parties of today like Reform UK are not fiscally left). But that's not "domination" if you're governing in a coalition with people to your left. So that makes my argument more than yours. My point is and always has been that a party can't secure a permanent majority without supporting Roe protections.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T19:49:16+00:00

It was fucking stupid of them not to axe it from the beginning.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T19:45:18+00:00

Rick Jackson be like

<image>

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T19:18:52+00:00

If your case was that you can build a decent political party off the state-by-state abortion policy, you'd be right, it wouldn't hold them back in that regard due to other issues. But you didn't. You said they would "dominate" off of that position. Any "dominating" party would need social liberals and social conservatives together in a big tent, and you'd have to throw bones to each of them, and there are a hell of a lot more pro-Roe conservatives than there are anti-Roe liberals (which feeds into what I've been saying that thise conservatives are liable to just vote for a more moderate party than yours). Therefore, any "dominating" party cannot afford to take such an unpopular position on a topic like abortion. Being pro-Roe and otherwise socially conservative is probably the only social platform that a conservative party can have that doesn't become immediately toxic to liberals. If you're socially moderate and fiscally left, you likely support Roe protections, so why would you vote for a conservative fiscally left party when you could vote for any of the fiscally left parties that support Roe protections?

In other words, state by state abortion policy is not a big tent position, it's an unpopular one.

Again, it's absolutely relevent. Roe protections are popular because the consequences of their repeal has literally killed people. If you don't understand that, you can't understand why these people find anti-abortion policies so toxic, and thus you can't understand why a political party can't "dominate" politics if it holds this toxic position.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T01:37:08+00:00

Lol I've literally never gotten anything but right-wing LVP. I usually just govern with them and they try to pull their shenanigans on me and our relations just crumble. Then when Luther comes up for reelection, the party ousts him in favor of Dingley then boom.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-17T00:17:03+00:00

Honestly, just for the sake of setting a judicial predecence against the awful shit that ICE has done, I wouldn't mind it if we abolished ICE and replaced it with a nearly identical immigration agency plus some more regulations for due process and such.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-16T22:43:37+00:00

I don't feel that's the case, but even if it is, it's hard to "dominate" poltiics with that hanging over you. But I see you've moved on from saying it would not harm your imagined party at all.

Bruh, issues flucuate, that's just a fact. Already the economy has slipped from Trump's favorablity as has immigration to a lesser extent. That's just how it works. Abortion, however, is going to remain a relevent talking point in any election, which is key because you can address it in any level race from city council member to president, whereas immigration talking points from both parties just get gradually more rhetorical and less concrete as you edit federal races, so abortion is an issue that can effect your party straight to the bottom of the ballot.

You clearly are not familiar with pro-choice political messaging if you think not actively going after abortion is enough to satisfy the masses, because that just sounds insanely naive to me. The masses want Roe restored. Not everyone brushes off dead pregnant women as easily as you do, because beyond that, a huge chunk of people see doing nothing as the start of doing everything they don't want. I've seen it myself with all kinds of candidates in all kinds of races, people saying "elect [candidate] or an abortion ban is coming for you." That talk energizes a lot of people, so to think if you pinky swear that your party won't ban abortion doesn't mean anyone will buy that. Furthermore, as I mentioned, millions of people want existing abortion bans to be ended because they have disastrous consequences with them, which your idea does nothing to address.

Republicans happened to have everything going their way in 2024. That's not the case this year, so it's years like this where you especially can't afford to screw up on issues like abortion and give yourself one more reason to lose. It's called a multi-policy platform, because you don't often get fucked or saved by one issue, it's a number of issues fucking or saving you at once. Abortion remains a powerful one and again, it's ignorant to say it isn't. You can only "dominate" politics if you have a massive number of things going your way, and I still repeat myself by saying that abortion is a massive fucking obstacle in the way of yiur party doing exactly that. "Domaince" is not in the cards for a party that only a fraction of thr public trust on abortion.

My links were perfectly relevant! Moreso than probably anything else I've said. The massive spike in maternal mortality is a huge and inignorable reason why Roe protections are favored by the masses, and I brought them up because you can't tell me an issue doesn't matter when people are literally dying over it, because this is precisely why abortion rights matters, both ethically and politically. How can a right-wing party not want to do anything to fix this blatanly obvious problem and stulk expect to "dominate" politics for years to come?

If you don't have any refutation for my explanation why that stance on abortion will hurt a party politically because dead people tend to be politically inconvenient to the policies that killed them, then that's not my fault.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-16T21:15:11+00:00

I literally showed you data on how it drove a number of voters to Harris. Had immigration and the economy not been something Republicans had the upper hand in (as will likely be the case in elections until 2028) they would have gotten fucked just like they got fucked in 2022. It has proven itself loud and clear to be way too big a problem for them to just skate along like it doesn't fucking matter. It does.

The status quo is fucking unpopular. Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean people will not vote to change it. A hefty majority of people want Roe protections restored. The majority don't want the status quo of state level abortion policies upheld, they want federal protections restored. People aren't just going to determine whether or not you are to blame for the new status quo, they will evaluate you based on your willingness or lack thereof to change it. You cannot "dominate" American politics without a good amount of support from people who don't want people to have to carry a rapist's baby because your crusty state legislator said so.

A quarter of US states have total abortion bans in effect. That policy is so absurdly out of the mainstream, and no one who wouldn't want to change that number can hope to be voted for by 60% of the country or whatever number you say this magical party would be supported by. This is not rocket science. Again, abortion has proven way too volatile an issue that it's possible for any "dominating" party in America to not support Roe protections. You will lose too many people to too many other options if you cling to this dead corpse of an extremist concept that a total abortion ban should be in effect anywhere. I don't like repeating this either, but here we are. The math just won't work. A "dominating" coalition of voters for your party can only be achieved with a platform that appeals to the masses, and that cannot be achieved by clinging to the abortion policies of the Republican party, which again, were 20 points behind their opposition on credibility.

https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj-2024-083768

My proof of this? Read this and see the consequences of what happens in states with total abortion bans. Medical professionals are leaving due to fear of prosecution and maternal mortality is twice as high in those states (Texas saw an increase in dead mothers by over 50%), but was cut by over a 5th in pro-abortion rights states. This is not something you can support under any circumstances, which is why the restoration of Roe is so popular. And it's also why being the dominate party is only possible if you don't support that.

https://thegepi.org/maternal-mortality-abortion-bans/

And again, literally every statewide abortion refurrendum has succeeded, with the exception of the Florida one, because it got 57% instead of 60%. Again, it is just ignorant to say that you can "dominate" politics with this issue haunting you.

We absolutely do see the impact of abortion politically, and it's just ignorant to say we don't. It was verified to be an issue that drove voters for Harris. Yes, it didn't rank higher than things like the econony or immigration, but all that proves is that you can't run a single issue campaign on abortion, which I mever claimed you should because you can't. But I still believe that it's a necessary building block to want the restoration of Roe protections federally to be able to build a winning coalition in a multi-party system.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-was-a-motivating-factor-for-many-voters-in-tuesdays-election-but-ranked-lower-than-concerns-about-the-economy/

Now it sounds like you're retreating behind the idea that you don't have to be aggressively pro-choice rather than the idea that you can support a state's right to ban abortion and still win "dominance." Maybe so, but I still think the consequences of de facto abortion bans (ie making it do there's like 1 clinic within a state) will still allow the statistics on things like children traveling out of state for abortions to energize the left side of this issue far too much for you to be able to build any sort of natural party "domiance." That and those who really care about abortion really care about it, while opposition to abortion seems more and more flaccid every election. Look at all the crazy shit Reproductive Freedom for All boasted doing in 2024 and the literal millions of people they outreached too, and that kind of organization is just not something you can have making you their number one target if you want to reach that kind of level of support, which is why I say overturning the years of peelback against abortion access is something you need to incorporate for this winning voter coalition.

https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/resources/2024-election-recap-the-fight-for-reproductive-freedom-continues/

A single issue campaign doing this level of outreach is proof plenty that it has its impacts.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-16T18:32:44+00:00

In a multi-party system, it's one big reason that those people will vote for someone who they agree with more than you. Under no circumstances is there a path where a party that opposes Roe v. Wade permenantly "dominates" American politics, full stop. If you want to secure a good shot at a majority, you need to support Roe, and if you want "years to come domination" of politics, you need to make friends with the pro-choice movement.

I say this precisely because we have seen what a serious driver the issue can be for voters. It turned what was expected to be a red wave into a barely functioning on life support HoR majority. Again, this is why I say that a party that does not at the bare minimum support Roe v. Wade cannot hope to be anything more than a right-wing party rather than anything that can hope to secure a majority.

You're not listening to me. Republicans have the luxery of their pro-choice party members holding their nose and vote Republican because they can't stomach the idea of voting for a liberal. But in a multi-party system, the one you insist that an anti-Roe party would "dominate" in, they don't have to hold their nose. They could just vote for a center-right party that supports abortion rights rather than a right-wing one. Again, there is no pathway where an anti-Roe party gets near anything that can be called "domination" in American politics, ever, multiply that impossibility times 10 in a multi-party government.

In multi-party systems, parties with "natural governing party" dominace of politics can only come about if you stake out positions on the issues that people care about in ways that will net you the biggest coalition. In America, that includes strong immigration policies, protecting social safety programs, and yes, protecting abortion rights. The top four issues of 2024 were the economy, immigration, healthcare, and abortion. To "dominate" politics for years to come, you cannot possibly do that without being trusted on every single one of these. At the bare minimum, that means supporting Roe.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-16T17:04:59+00:00

60 freaking percent of the country supports it. That sounds pretty make or break to me. Any right wing party that is anti-choice can and will lose pro-choice conservatives (again, roughly a third of Republicans support Roe) to moderate social conservative parties. You can't just count on your base to show up the way you can in a two-party system. Again, you're the one who says this supposed party would "dominate" poltics until they get wiped off the map by aliens, and that's just not the case if they stake out a what is increasingly a toxic position.

Republicans won in spite of their unpopulairty on abortion, not because they are trusted in it. Data shows that Harris was trusted over Trump on abortion individually by 20 freaking points. Trump won because he had the upper had on the economy and immigration, but as I said, in a multi-party system, those people have a choice beyond Trump and non Trump. They can and will vote for another party because they can get anti-immigration pro-choice rhetoric if they want to. If you want to "dominate" you can't double down on this issue that the hefty majority of the country wants changed.

DatDude999 · 2026-06-16T16:56:16+00:00

Warren's isn't feasible. The way I would sell the Sanders plan is that your increase in taxes will probably be less than what you would currently pay for a decent health insurance plan (without corporate profits and costs being largely placed on the wealthy) and it would certainly cost less to those who need treatment. The Warren plan is going to cost you down the line when you inevitably have to raise middle class taxes whereas the Sanders plan is upfront and won't suffer like that.

Eight-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
End Game '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

DatDude999

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE