comment: >
  
  Don't let them just be quite about abortions, the did the deed, the outlawed abortions in big parts of the country and teared the door out to allow more anti-abortion laws.
  Don't let them pretend that they didn't
context: Those midterms were not bruising enough. >
  
  No they weren't, many were razor-thin margins. It's a damn good thing that the GOP is a hair better than the Dems at shooting themselves in the foot. >
  
  The thing about that is, by several measures, the republicans should’ve swept congress up. Between the gerrymandering, ownership of many crucial roles in state governments, and the midterm schlacking every dem pres seems to receive after their first two years, the fact that they didn’t even fully take congress, even if by razor thin margins, is a disaster for them. >
  
  Ya if it's even close to the same environment in 2024 they are fucked and they know it because a new voting rights act will destroy all their gerrymandering. >
  
  Wouldn't the House (and Senate, but the House'll be held by the GOP) need to pass a new voting rights act? Or did they pass one and I missed it? >
  
  As I recall, the House tried by passing it and it died in the Senate. >
  
  The House will deliberately pass bills knowing the Senate won't pass them. Too many corporate shills in Congress. If it weren't for Biden getting on their asses all the time they wouldn't have passed ANYTHING. >
  
  The only thing the House is planning to do for the next two years is attack Biden. Because somehow that'll lower inflation and crime. 🤷‍♂️  The WH is already hiring lawyers in preparation that's how little of a secret it is. >
  
  Strategy??
  "The people don't want to ban abortions"
  "I know, but how do we make them THINK they want to ban abortions?" >
  
  Invent terms like “partial birth abortion,” and pretend they’re commonly used by irresponsible hussies and evil devil worshiping democrats and ignore the fact that they’re one of the rarest forms of abortion that’s almost exclusively performed when a woman’s life is in danger or the fetus is no longer viable. It’s actually an effective strategy to get votes. The problem is when you get enough votes to create change, the change reveals the lie. >
  
  Go further, actually. Keep spreading stories about “a new law” democrats are trying to pass that allows children up to X months after birth to be killed.
  Watched that one happen in my family idk how many times at this point.
  “No literally no one wants that what the fuck?” They don’t care. It validates their hate of dems. >
  
  How is it that the same argument in the opposite direction does not work ?
  "You want to force women to marry their rappist."
  "You prefer that a woman dies because her foetus has a medical condition than abort her. It is just murder at this point." >
  
  Republicans are good at victim blaming. The replies to your questions would be
  "What was she wearing?"
  And
  "Should have kept her legs closed." >
  
  True. Sad though. >
  
  Minding their own business would be a good strategy. >
  
  They’re incapable of this. >
  
  How does one classify a "deeply held moral or religious belief" as something that can be altered for strategic use...
  ...l mean, unless of course it ISN'T a deeply held moral or religious belief by the person making the claim.
  I'm sure that's just me being cynical on acold Thursday morning and not at all the modus operandi of Republican politicians. >
  
  I find it interesting that this party has a greater hand in creating the welfare state it so heavily rejects by floating legislation and political agendas that encourage the birth of more unwanted children.
  Guess it's God's Will™! >
  
  They don't dislike welfare, they dislike having to give welfare money to poor people. They will happily spend it on all kinds of things including giving it to a rich former NFL player to build a volleyball stadium for his daughter.
  There is an ongoing effort on the part of republicans to switch to a Block Grant approach for welfare. As it currently stands the Federal Government has rules on how it can be spent. Republicans claim the rules don't allow for the states to craft spending on local needs...which is really just code for "we would like to decide how to spend the money wealthier states are giving us for our poor without any pesky oversight, but you can totally trust that we will spend your money on only the very needy it is intended for because that is currently what we do...even though we don't." >
  
  Welfare should go to poor people. Full stop.
  'financial support given to those in need.' is the textbook definition. I know the Rs wont abide by that since they live in a whole other reality or whatever. >
  
  A rising tide lifts all boats.  
  Helping people out of poverty means more educated people, more healthy and successful children, more money going into the economy.  It means people get a chance to reach their potential and do good for others through a career they might not have been able to access, for instance.  Welfare and other social safety nets benefit our whole population. >
  
  If you have an ectopic pregnancy in Tennessee right now they will literally let you die in your hospital bed. Unless you can make it to Illinois in time to be successfully treated it is a death sentence. And Republicans think this is a "messaging" problem. >
  
  The messaging problem is the one where they fail to listen to reason. >
  
  There is a branch within the conservative movement rejects the enlightenment and liberal values, so yes, there are those that literally reject reason in order to embrace faith. >
  
  “Republicans think about lying about their stances on abortion to try to appeal to citizens now that they got what they wanted from scotus”
  This is like claiming that the reconstruction era was filled with confederates trying to right their wrongs >
  
  
  Republicans are recalibrating their messaging on abortion...
  
  No, they don't get to rethink something that's already been implemented. The damage is done and the Republican's did it. The women who's lives have been drastically changed due to the Republican's wedge issue cannot recalibrate. 
  Republican's have demonstrated they want to legislate women's bodies, our bedrooms, and our relationships according to the rules they pick and choose from  their bronze age religion. They will govern us back to the 1600s with their push for an American theocracy; that is who they are. >
  
  It's already their brand.
  They can't abort it. >
  
  Best strategy? Their best strategy now is hoping the Dems screw up so bad, Dems don't vote. The GOP overplayed their hand.  When you trigger the youth vote, you done messed up. They'll never get those voters as they age, at least not easily. >
  
  I think the subtle, very good shift that has occurred in the general public's mind is that Republicans went from the stability guys to the instability guys, and there's simply no way of fixing it without reducing the Republican Party to just George Will, more or less. >
  
  Yea, they definitely got over confident that no matter what they do, they'll win and voters don't care. They really doubled down on the being an unapologetic asshole routine that that's all people associate them with, not policy, not family values, and definitely not stability. 
  They have major hurdles with that aging base and the fact that other minority groups aren't shifting over in droves. >
  
  Who'd have thunk that saying 10-year-old rape victims should be thankful for the blessing of having to not only give birth to but raise their rapists baby, women suffering from non-viable, life-threatening pregnancies can die, and that the answer to abortion is forcing more women to give birth so that affluent families will have babies to adopt isn't a winning strategy.
  Remember right after the Dobbs decision, when the entire Republican party gleefully entered the race to the bottom of just how cruel the party can be by trying to top each other with ideas of how to speedrun their way to the handmaid's tale?  
  Next year when those same Republicans suddenly become a lot more moderate on abortion, the mass media needs to dig up those clips of them cheering on the idea of 10-year-olds being forced to give birth and cram it right down their throats.
  I know it won't happen.  It should, but it won't. A man can dream, right? >
  
  Desantis is aiming for a full 6 week abortion ban without exception for rape or incest. 
  They are going to go much further. 
  They are going to go after birth control and title 9. >
  
  They're Republicans. They will double and triple down, they can't help themselves. >
  
  They will do what it takes to get elected >
  
  But that's the thing
  A significant portion of their voters have banning abortion as their #1 goal.  If Republicans back off, those voters won't be Dems, they'll just not vote.
  Republicans are a very loose coalition of a lot of people that care about one or two issues and almost nothing else.
  That's why the party is like a dog chasing a car.  They're fine as long as the car is moving.  But when it stops and the dog "catches" it, the dog has no fucking clue what to do. >
  
  “It was probably a bigger factor than a lot of people thought,” McDaniel said in an interview earlier this month with radio talk show host John Catsimatidis. “We’ve got to get conversant on that.”
  Conversant = come up with better lies, get elected, and continue to increase restrictions on abortion. >
  
  It's our personal rights that the "Big Government GOP doesn't get.  Stay out of our bedroom, stay out of our bodies and stay away from telling us who we can love.  Stop the constant lying to us.  Stop supporting Fascist Authoritarian leaders. >
  
  Well, clearly the issue is women voting, so they will probably set their sights on repealing women's suffrage next.  
  /s, but not really. >
  
  Sounds like they are trying to come up with creative phrases and sound bites to fool independent voters who support abortion rights into thinking they really arent trying to ban ALL abortion. See? They left in a 3 week eye-of-a-needle exception for under 10 year olds who get raped by a family member. >
  
  Non family members.
  If its the weirdo uncle expect to carry that child >
  
  They don't really care about abortions or any of this bullshit, power, money and votes are all they care about period. >
  
  Conservative are really out of step on this issue ...its to late >
  
  Republicans stand for nothing and their voters fall for everything. >
  
  Not so fast….consistently changing your hard stance on what you thought would get you votes after finding out it does the opposite, that’s a big NO.  Republicans want power - period.  They stand for NOTHING >
  
  Haven't heard them pushing the whole "post-birth abortion" thing in a while. Guess they finally figured out that murder is already illegal in every state? >
  
  The only strategy republicans know is to double down >
  
  So their strategy will be to push the unpopular topic even harder. >
  
  Like Democrats and gun control, which caused the loss of the House. >
  
  Not when you read the actual questions and look at the data.  Democrats need rural Democrats to vote to maintain control and win elections.  Its a group thats largely pro-gun and distrusts Democrats when it comes to gun control legislation.  They are also primarily single issue voters when it comes to guns.
  Look at the history of lost elections from 1994's assault weapons ban and the tide of blue states turning red.  Recently both Beto and Abrams lost their race due to their stance on firearms, and New York lost several House seats flipping control to Republicans. >
  
  
  both Beto and Abrams lost their race due to their stance on firearms, and New York lost several House seats flipping control to Republicans.
  
  There is no proof that those were due to stances on firearms. Warnock is also pro gun control. I do not think that any Dem has a chance in Texas, regardless of gun control stance. Abrams was unfortunately just not a great candidate, though she is great at other stuff like GOTV. 
  Dems had a historically good midterm. It is almost always a huge swing towards the party who does not hold the presidency. And considering inflation and gas prices it was especially good to only lose a few seats. Especially given how redistricting was abused by red states and states like NY were forced to use fair maps. 
  Rural districts generally aren't going to go to Dems no matter what. It's a good idea for Dems in those districts to be soft on gun control like Golden and Schrader are but as for the overall party message it gets them votes. There is a ton of anger in America over all the gun violence. 
  I'm actually not for gun bans myself but voters approve of it overall. >
  
  Abrams called for banning all semiautomatic firearms in Georgia, and Beto doubled down on his assault weapons ban AR-15 confiscation statements in Texas.  These two positions had an incredible amount of influence on peoples opinions, pretending that they did not involves a heavy dose of denial.
  Warnock ran against an absolute imbecile...the man has severe brain damage...And he still almost lost, barely winning.
  Rural Democrats dont vote because Democrats push gun control.  It does not matter what the Democrats in those districts push, all Democrats are guilty by association and rural Democratic voters typically stay home.  If Democrats just dropped gun control entirely and built up trust with the voters then you would see better results at the polls.
  Gun violence is a socioeconomic problem far more than it is an issue with firearm ownership.  You want to address gun violence, then tackle income inequality and how media reports on gun violence and mass shootings.  But that doesnt meet the need of politicians who want to use gun violence as a wedge issue.  Neither Republicans or Democrats are truly interested in addressing disparity of wealth distribution in our society.  Because that means their rich donors would be adversely affected.
  Running on gun bans just means Democrats hand power to Republicans indefinitely. >
  
  This is literally all just opinion on your part. Something like 66% of the nation wants stricter gun laws so saying that running on stricter gun laws is the cause when any Dem loses is pretty flawed reasoning. 
  I'm aware that a lot of rural citizens do not want gun bans but there is no evidence to say that they'd vote for Dems if Dems dropped the issue. I mean maybe a bunch of urban voters would vote (R) if Dems dropped the gun control issue. Literally just 1% of poll respondents said gun control was their top issue anyway. >
  
  Yeah your problem is that most people do not want far reaching assault weapon bans.  Democrats cant clearly define what an assault weapon actually is.  When the question is asked what those stricter gun laws are there are a varied responses.  And when asked who they trust to pass that legislation, its not Democrats.
  In order to win elections Democrats need the rural vote, polls are not being conducted asking the appropriate questions because they are not being paid to.  I dont know what to say about that.  You can see the results in the election outcomes, again you can choose to ignore the blatantly obvioius if you want.
  But we are all going to see the Democratic party crash and burn real soon because it is quite obvious what the Democratic strategy is, and its obvious it is not changing.  There is no sense in me arguing with you about it.  2024 is coming up real fast, Democratic states are going to lean hard on gun control and it will bite them in the ass.  Just like running Biden as a presidential candidate in his 80s being a horrible idea... >
  
  Fuck you Susan Collins. >
  
  They really have no clue how to govern. The dam laptop is not what we care about. >
  
  I had intense stomach cramps last month and they made me wait to get a pregnancy test to administer pain meds for it. Fuck all the way off. Damage is done. >
  
  Rethink.....Ya think?  :-) >
  
  “There's 14 seditionists that got re-elected,” Rep Jordan said. All of the conspirators laughed. Gym quickly added: “Swear to God.”
  Speaker McCarthy instructed his seditionist lieutenants to make the conversation public, saying: “More leaks. . . .  shit we just need another fucking insurrection !”
  Edit: parody of an actual conversation >
  
  
  But anti-abortion advocates say it’s important to have someone like DeSantis, who is growing his national profile and his standing in 2024 polls every day.
  
  Yes, that sounds just fantastic. >
  
  I dont understand how republicans like my father, and others fall for these grifters... >
  
  Good thing they poisoned a whole generation against them >
  
  New strategy: lie harder. >
  
  Sure, they will rethink their strategy, but not their stance. "Voters did not like our delivery" is all that they learned from the midterms. They voted "no" on abortion bans? That must be because we did not sell it to them the right way! >
  
  The Republican Party platform has featured strong “right to life” language for decades. They are going to have to wear that albatross. If they try to eliminate or soften that language, they lose all the fundies, which would fantastic.
  The dog caught the car. >
  
  Forgive me for mangling the metaphor, but what if Moore V. Harper turns the dog into Krypto the superdog and it drags the car back hundreds of years? >
  
  I’m investing my energy into hoping it doesn’t happen. >
  
  If hoping it doesn't happen worked, we wouldn't have had a trump presidency where he got to appoint 3 supreme court judges. >
  
  I hope and I vote. >
  
  Republicans: Let's run on extremely unpopular policies in battle ground states!
  Republicans: Yeah!
  *Loses*
  Republicans: ??? >
  
  Republicans:  Lets put abortion rights back to the states.
  Republicans:  Good idea.  That'll put it to the Libs.
  Conservative Leaning States:  Nah, we want women to have access to abortions to save the mother when her life is in danger due to a failed pregnancy.
  Also Republicans:  No! That's not what we want! >
  
  You don’t bring yourself back from extremism
  Even if you condemn and excise Trump to MTG from your party, you don’t just come back from what you’ve done >
  
  I got $20 bet on they'll go for the Double Down strategy. >
  
  Looking at that article, it doesn't seem like they're rethinking it very well. They're still out to lunch.
  The party of sexism underestimates women, who woulda thunk it. >
  
  So vehemently firm their beliefs until they lose. >
  
  They can't drop being anti-abortion, they used it to fire up their base and now anti-abortion is an undeniable part of what the GOP is. >
  
  Christian theocracy is their dream - implementing Christian law into the US.  Anti-American.  No freedom of religion from those traitors.  Anti-Constitution in so many ways (to the level of supporting and assisting the overthrow of our elections based on LIES from their fraud God Emperor Trump).  
  Republican Party should be tried for treason and barred from elections. >
  
  Is it a strategy or a value? Those aren’t exactly synonymous >
  
  They’d be smart to…uh…abort… their current strategy.
  Unfortunately they have gotten in bed with the religious right, and if they piss those folks off, then their already dwindling base will grow even smaller and the insanity from the lunatic fringe will grow even louder. >
  
  Even in their insanity, republicans grasp that this was the worst midterm performance in 50 years.
  Will they pull their heads out of their asses? Possibly just enough to see with one eye. >
  
  Oh I'm sorry. Dose insane forced births and death penalty for mothers that feared for their lives not win you elections >
  
  Cheat harder. -GQP >
  
  I found it really interesting that in MI they attacked prop 3 as "confusing" rather than thier 50 year old lines of attack based around "life". >
  
  the damage is done >
  
  But the GOP's default position these days is 'as crazy cruel as we can be'. >
  
  Huh, who would have thought that going against what like 70% of voters want would be an unpopular strategy? Literally nobody could have seen that coming. >
  
  Republicans don't care about the sanctity of life, just the sanctity of power. >
  
  I've seen this movie already.
  After Romney got his ass handed to him, a public Republican post-mortem identified that they needed to be less xenophobic to embrace hispanic voters, and we saw that with all the forced Spanish during the 2016 republican primaries. Then Trump doubled down.
  We will see sensible republicans calling for changing up their abortion stance, and then they will nominate someone who wants to lock up all women who ever had an abortion. >
  
  
  We will see sensible republicans calling for changing up their abortion stance, and then they will nominate someone who wants to lock up all women who ever had an abortion.
  
  Hmm...
  (googles Ron DeSantis Abortion)
  Yep. >
  
  Excuse me, they saw the numbers and did it anyway. Idiots. >
  
  How about no strategy about it all and minding their business? Let women decide what they want to do with their bodies. >
  
  It's such a beautiful catch 22 for the GOP. 
  They remain pro-life, their more secular voting block won't for them.
  They step back from being pro-life, their more fundamentalist voting block won't vote for them.
  I really hope we're nearing the end of this issue that shouldn't even be a debate anymore in 2023. >
  
  They don't really need to do much more. They packed the 5th and 11th circuits, and SCOTUS with Zealots, and just need to stand back and watch as Texas and Florida push through cases that result in Nationwide Bans on Abortions, Contraceptives, Gender Affirming Care, and many other soon to be former rights. >
  
  Is this like how they rethought being racist after Obama won, then said 'fuck it' and doubled down?