Yep. I was mostly making the point which is key to understanding this election. Of course reasonable and objective people like us are going to say "I wish Biden was younger. I wish he was stronger in this area, etc. etc." and still contextualize that with the alternative. However there are plenty of people out there who will say one of those things, and then say that's why they either voted 3rd party, didn't vote, or voted for Trump (which is likely what almost all of those people will do behind closed doors, but not want to admit in social circles.) The key question is with those people, how much does the party, media, or whatever placate to the single issue, and is a problem in each case to overreact to it, and adjust based on it? Its like blackjack where Biden is a solid pair of 10's. Do you split 10's and risk it when you know that you lose your mortgage if you bust or draw 5's on both split hands? Overreacting and changing a nominee as solid as Biden is despite what his polling shows (which IMO is all negative from the left who aren't voting for Trump anyways) based on one issue which could create worse challenges is a risk that I don't see anyone taking with so much on the line.
Just like no one was banning abortion rights and overturning Roe v Wade. But here we are. Let's look at the guy maga republicans just elected as speaker of the house and what his thoughts are on things like gay marriage among other LGBTQ rights . New House speaker's views on LGBTQ issues come under fresh scrutiny Rep. Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has called same-sex marriage a “dark harbinger of chaos” and suggested it could lead to people wedding their pets. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...house-speaker-lgbtq-views-scrutiny-rcna122317 Now lets look at supreme court grifter, er, justice thomas and his recent thoughts on contraception... Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256 And even interracial marriage? Thomas didn’t mention interracial marriage, and that’s worth talking about Every justice but one who signed an opinion for the Dobbs abortion case took care to mention Loving v. Virginia. https://www.courthousenews.com/thom...acial-marriage-and-thats-worth-talking-about/ Who knows how far backwards justice thomas and the maga republicans will push us back...
Social Conservative Warrior Can you imagine the self-hatred Thomas over the inability to control his weakness in making marital decisions? Can you imagine the the conservation he would have with his wife once his overturns his marriage? ... "Honey, I love you but the Constitution says you gotta go."
Thomas said these things. Does anyone recall the backlash he got from Congressional Rs? from the Federalist Society? SCWs do not think that Thomas is taking it too far.
What part of “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” was unclear?
No... you didn't read what I wrote or the article I posted? The article literally said it stood out because he didn't mention it. That said... the same basis for the ones he listed is the same basis for Loving. And... the ones he listed protect contraception rights and LGBTQ rights. Which you claimed wouldn't be banned. Or did you forget that already.
I Backed Trump, but Now I’m for Haley She has experience in foreign policy and can appeal to independents and suburban voters. By Andrew Stein Oct. 26, 2023 at 5:07 pm ET 2562 Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks at a campaign event in Pella, Iowa, Oct. 21. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES I supported Donald Trump twice, but I now think the country would be best served with a different candidate in 2024—Nikki Haley. I don’t take this view lightly. Mr. Trump did a good job as president, from improving the economy to securing the border and maintaining world peace. But a Trump re-election would be difficult, and half the country will never accept him as president. It would keep us divided while we face international situations that require this country to be unified. Mr. Trump’s poll numbers show him with a clear path to the Republican nomination and rising ahead of Joe Biden. Given his mounting legal troubles, however, today’s polling may prove irrelevant. If Mr. Trump is found guilty of some of the charges against him, voters would have to choose between an old felon and an old fool. America needs an alternative, and over the past several months only Ms. Haley has shown any momentum. She cut South Carolina’s taxes while governor and has a strong economic record. On issues of race, she has been a consistent conservative. She appointed the African-American Tim Scott to fill a vacant Senate seat and removed Confederate flags from statehouse grounds. Although she is pro-life, she has pointed out that national bans on abortion are counterproductive and unlikely to pass. She avoided knotty transgender bills, and has been a strong supporter of Israel, signing an anti-BDS bill as governor. As a former ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Haley is one of the few candidates with real foreign-policy experience at a time when such experience will be important for the next president. Mr. Scott, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy have no such credentials. Ms. Haley is likely to have a broader appeal than Mr. Trump for independents and suburbanites, especially women. The Democrats hope he wins the nomination and is convicted of felonies, leading him to lose the presidential election. Republicans need to consolidate around Ms. Haley so they have a credible nominee who can take on any Democrat. Mr. Stein, a Democrat, served as New York City Council president, 1986-94.
I think Haley would give up a couple of points from the get-go for being a woman, but she'd probably still be a better general election candidate than Trump would be. And picking her (instead of DeSantis or Ramaswamy) would be a clear turn away from Trumpism (even though she herself hasn't turned away). Which is why she won't be winning the primary. I think her best hope is to be ready in case a Trump conviction causes an unexpected upheaval in the primary.
Her abortion stance would be a huge harm for her chances that would be difficult to overcome among other things.
There isn't any Republican candidate that doesn't have their abortion stance as a drag on their candidacy. I think it might be somewhat less damaging for her than it is for other Republicans because she is a woman. But, it's a weakness for all Republicans in the general. And, of course, they all (except Teflon Trump) need to be bullish on outlawing abortion if they want to get to the general.
