Current Events > Ezra Klein says we should be willing to run Pro-Life Dems in Red States

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000010407682/when-it-comes-to-the-left-ezra-klein-is-frustrated.html

Personally I find this to be a common Ezra Klein L but I know some people here tend to like him and some people also tend to think in this way of cautiously backing away from social issues to court moderates and right wingers.

Do you agree that we should be willing to run Pro-Life dems in red states to win seats in those states?

EDIT: Here is the relevant quote:

A lot of the people who embrace alarm dont embrace what I think obviously follows from that alarm, which is the willingness to make strategic and political decisions you find personally discomfiting, even though they are obviously more likely to help you win, right? Taking political positions that will make it more likely to win Senate seats in Kansas and Ohio and Missouri. Trying to open your coalition to people you didnt want it open to before. Running pro-life Democrats. And one of my biggest frustrations with many people whose politics I otherwise share, is the unwillingness to match the seriousness of your politics to the seriousness of your alarm.

Why would a republican vote for a pro-life Dem when they could vote for any given republican?

Someone get that quote about the futility of trying to get people to vote for the diet version of the opposite side or whatever.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Why would a republican vote for a pro-life Dem when they could vote for any given republican?

This is my reaction more or less whenever Dems try to pivot to the right

A_Good_Boy posted...

Why would a republican vote for a pro-life Dem when they could vote for any given republican?

Exactly. The Republican base isn't going to go for Diet Republican when they can have the real thing. All this would accomplish is depressing turnout among the Democratic base.

Because going further right has worked so well for the Democrats in the past...

I do agree that dems need to be slightly more accepting of candidates that don't tick all the boxes in order to at least get something of chance in less favorable areas. Like, Manchin sucked, but he was probably the best you were going to get in West Virginia, and any maga republican you get otherwise would be worse. Pro-life is a bit of a red line though.

I'd rather gain power federally and use it to suppress Republican voters everywhere. Then try this idiotic strategy of wooing them for the umpteenth time.

Why would Dems moderate in this when abortion is one of their best issues?

El_Dustino posted...

win Senate seats in Kansas and Ohio and Missouri

Three states where abortion access won when put to a statewide vote? And any subsequent roadblocks to that access came about from pro-life state congressmen?

A pro-life Democrat would do nothing to solve that problem, assuming they would win at all, which is unlikely.

This also assumes republicans will rationally oppose Dems on policy and uh.

No? This is just Dems can win by being more populist in red states! Repackaged in a dumb way

The whole thing between democrats and conservatives is Democrats believe in rights to ensure freedom while conservatives want to give up rights for "freedom".

I believe a antichoice individual is likely to be fundamentally opposed to the majority of the democratic platform. Maybe there are a handful of people who view abortion as the only right they want to stand against... but I just don't see it. I don't see what they would offer to obtain the vote of a democrat or the vote of a conservative. The more conservative politicians like Manchin were the last stragglers of how politics used to be before the southern strategy. The conservative minded people who were just used to voting democrat their whole lives are dead, the people who didn't grow up that way are just voting straight ticket now.

Compsognathus posted...

Three states where abortion access won when put to a statewide vote? And any subsequent roadblocks to that access came about from pro-life state congressmen?

A pro-life Democrat would do nothing to solve that problem, assuming they would win at all, which is unlikely.

I just heard this from a different source and was about to post it after verifying, though you beat me to the punch lol

I wish that would have been brought to his attention, but as said, common klein L

I've seen the way some people on this board talk about about walking back LGBT to facilitate dem so wins so I'm pleased at the reaction so far

I agree that Dems should run more socially conservative Dems in those States. Or at least Dems who speak about abortion in a more conservative way.

But I don't really think abortion is a good example since I think Dems already win on this issue. At the end of the day all this stuff is about trans policies and they need to just outright state it.

emblem-man posted...

I agree that Dems should run more socially conservative Dems in those States. Or at least Dems who speak about abortion in a more conservative way.

But I don't really think abortion is a good example since I think Dems already win on this issue. At the end of the day all this stuff is about trans policies and they need to just outright state it.

It isn't a good example, which is why I was honestly shocked when he used it. Most people have been going to trans in sports for their rightward pivot, but going after abortion when, as LS put it, it's their best issue is insane.

I'd hope the poll results would be the same if it was trans support and not abortion support

There are enough single-issue voters stuck on the subject of abortion that this could be strategically useful, but I'm not sure anyone would buy it.

as of late Dems have been doing a solid job winning on pro-choice platforms even in red states

what the fuck would even be the point

Rantman posted...

as of late Dems have been doing a solid job winning on pro-choice platforms even in red states

what the fuck would even be the point

Ezra Klein is the pinnacle of the Pundit Bro. He thinks he's an expert in everything. He thinks he knows everything and never considers he might be incorrect.

I can believe that there are people for whom banning abortion is an important enough issue for them to to switch their vote over. Or persuade them to vote rather than just stay at home.

But enough to make a difference?

ai123 posted...

I can believe that there are people for whom banning abortion is an important enough issue for them to to switch their vote over. Or persuade them to vote rather than just stay at home.

But enough to make a difference?

Tbqh, even if you run an anti-choice candidate, then...

well, they're probably gonna have other views that are dealbreakers. A Democrat, by definition, is gonna believe in something that right wing voters find an unacceptable dealbreaker.

Just continue abandoning our principles! Thatll get people to vote for us! Im a very serious person.

No harm trying it in super red uncompetitive districts that you're going to lose anyway

Ethan Klein is a legitimate idiot.

Yes, let's keep pivoting right to get those Republican voters that always end up voting Republican no matter what. Let's keep ignoring the voter base we lost because we keep pivoting right instead. Surely, it will work this time.

The thing to note is that most Americans are pro-choice, but there are more pro-life only voters than pro-choice only voters when it comes to single-issue voters. There are plenty of people thatd unironically support a pro-choice ballot initiative while voting for a pro-life candidate because of their economic or other social views.

In meaningfully competitive districts or safe blue ones, having a pro-life Dem candidate is nonsensical. Pro-choice is the winner there. But for deep red districts? A pro-life blue dog is probably the only chance for a Dem candidate to win. In those cases, and only those cases, the national Dem apparatus should support pro-life Dems, and exclusively in reference to other issues. Increasing the size of the Dem caucus is way more important than sticking to a litmus test that ensures a loss in a given area, especially as increasing that caucus invariably helps advance a pro-choice agenda by producing Dems that might vote against a pro-choice matter but not stand in the way on any kind of procedural motion thatd allow a smaller pro-choice majority to pass.

Democrats need to actually TRY in red states. They'll never get enough of a majority to actually get things done if they keep only winning in blue and purple states.

Erza Klein: in this new era of politics let me suggest we once again do the only trick we know and that's move to the right. Sure it keeps failing to work but that's why it's so genius, nobody will expect it this time and we'll sweep up!

CastletonSnob1 posted...

Democrats need to actually TRY in red states. They'll never get enough of a majority to actually get things done if they keep only winning in blue and purple states.

They do. Arizona and Georgia were solid red not long ago!

Enclave posted...

Erza Klein: in this new era of politics let me suggest we once again do the only trick we know and that's move to the right. Sure it keeps failing to work but that's why it's so genius, nobody will expect it this time and we'll sweep up!

Like other rich liberals, he knows hes insulated from the consequences of what hes suggesting and therefore sees no problem with going in that direction.

No, instead Dems need the same policies, just packaged in language catered to those states.

CastletonSnob1 posted...

Democrats need to actually TRY in red states. They'll never get enough of a majority to actually get things done if they keep only winning in blue and purple states.

Refusing to concede on important issues like this is how you try.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/457698d5.jpg

So trying to set up a bunch of Manchin's?

Flatly, this would probably be to Manchin's right. Manchin was pro Roe v. Wade

I don't think people realize how much we're gonna miss him in the years ahead.

LightSnake posted...

Flatly, this would probably be to Manchin's right. Manchin was pro Roe v. Wade

I don't think people realize how much we're gonna miss him in the years ahead.

So worse than Manchin. Dang

Happy to be #69 (in the poll).

The fuck? No, of course not. Besides, anti abortion is wildly unpopular

Charged151 posted...

So trying to set up a bunch of Manchin's?

I mean, I would rather have a manchin in West Virginia and Idaho or whatever,than the Republican senators we have there.

But like I said earlier I don't really think abortion is a good example since I think Dems already win on this issue.

We did this in 2010. It didn't work. When has Klein ever been strategically correct?

No, they should continue letting the opposition take their votes from ppl who actually get off the couch?!?

There are certainly some issues I could see being a good idea to shift stances on but I don't think this is really one of them

Dems already do. Sometimes they win, often they don't.

Doe posted...

You are not a real democratic strategist if you are brainstorming how to alienate your strongest demographics.

Ezra Klein is not a Democratic strategist

This whole business of capitulating to the right on policy issues to try to win elections is stupid for so many reasons:

1) It won't win over any Republicans -- they will always vote for the real bigot (R) over any both-sides appeaser.

2) It's unprincipled -- abortion bans kill women, so the strategy is to expect women to accept this carnage as a sacrifice for the greater good? Fuck that noise.

3) Elections are often decided by fuckwits in the middle, and fuckwits in the middle vote based on vibes rather than policy. So these fuckwits aren't even going to know or care if Democrats agree with Republicans that women are appliances with two functions.

LightSnake posted...

Ezra Klein is not a Democratic strategist

My mistake, I see him come up all the time lately. I may also be misusing the term, I used it pretty loosely and didn't necessarily mean to imply he is paid by the party for exmaple

Ezra Klein should learn to shut the fuck up.

EPR-radar posted...

This whole business of capitulating to the right on policy issues to try to win elections is stupid for so many reasons:

1) It won't win over any Republicans -- they will always vote for the real bigot (R) over any both-sides appeaser.

2) It's unprincipled -- abortion bans kill women, so the strategy is to expect women to accept this carnage as a sacrifice for the greater good? Fuck that noise.

3) Elections are often decided by fuckwits in the middle, and fuckwits in the middle vote based on vibes rather than policy. So these fuckwits aren't even going to know or care if Democrats agree with Republicans that women are appliances with two functions.

Abortion is a winning issue. The real issue that's done horrible damage to the Dems they should disavow as hard as possible is "Defund The Police"

LightSnake posted...

Abortion is a winning issue. The real issue that's done horrible damage to the Dems they should disavow as hard as possible is "Defund The Police"

They can't disavow something they never avowed in the first place.

LightSnake posted...

Abortion is a winning issue. The real issue that's done horrible damage to the Dems they should disavow as hard as possible is "Defund The Police"

And yet Roe vs Wade being struck down didn't cause the reaction people were hoping for. Trump still won.

Might just be people have the attention span of a gnat.