Politico asks and answers the question: “Was abortion a wave-stopper for Democrats in 2010?”
As many of the anti-abortion Democrats elected over the last four years were going down in defeat, the party made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they ended up in the Democratic column as a result.
The states at issue are California, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington. In all of them, successful Democratic Senatorial candidates made an issue of their opponents’ opposition to abortion. In all of them, women favored the Democrat.
But let’s take a closer look at the exit polls, starting with California. While Barbara Boxer defeated Carly Fiorina 55-39 among women, Fiorina beat Boxer 49-46 among white women. To be sure, that latter number could have been higher (nationally, Republicans beat Democrats 58-39 among white women), the fact remains that an emphatic pro-abortion stance harmed more than helped with the single largest bloc of women in the California electorate. Of course, a Democratic strategist could respond that it helped at the margins, moving some white women in Boxer’s direction. But reaffirming its identity as the party of abortion can’t be at the top of the Democrats’ to-do list.
Then there’s Colorado, where Bennet beat Buck 56-39 among women and 51-44 among white women. A majority of voters regarded Buck as too extreme, and there are plenty of observers (mostly, but not entirely, pro-choice) who want to claim that his stance on abortion cost him the election. But I ask again: in a race between the party of abortion and the party of life (understood as most Americans understand it), who wins in Colorado?
In Nevada, Harry Reid beat Sharron Angle among women 53-42, but lost white women 50-43. As in California, the gender gap is largely a function of the ethnic composition of the electorate. Is the main reason African-American and Hispanic women support Democrats their stance on abortion? I’d be willing to bet that in many cases, the support comes in spite of the Democrats’ abortion stance.
Finally, in Washington Patty Murray comprehensively won the women’s vote over Dino Rossi, but Washington is a “blue” state with party and ideological identification to the left of the nation’s as a whole.
If I were to draw a lesson from the evidence before us, it isn’t that abortion is a winner or wave-stopper for Democrats, or that Republicans need to modulate their pro-life positions in order to win office. It’s that Republicans have to find a way (which has nothing to do with abortion) to win over more African-American and Hispanic voters. That’s been done before and can surely be done again.
In the meantime, if Democrats want to strengthen their connection with roughly one-third of the electorate by emphasizing their strongly pro-choice position, well, who am I to stand in their way?
November 14th, 2010 | 9:15 am
Joseph is right. This is a fatuous argument. First of all, when they say abortion was a ‘wave-stopper’ they are referring to the Senate, right? Because I’m pretty sure that the wave in the House was not stopped. There is absolutely no reason to think that Angle or Fiorina lost because of their positions on abortion. Buck is a closer call, because he said some foolish things about ‘high heels’ during the primary, and therefore was subject to a campaign calling him ‘anti-woman’ (not the same as being pro-life, of course, but it opens one up to attacks). Buck’s defeat, however, had as much to do with the bizarre CO governor’s race and the lack of a get-out-the-vote effort on the ground from the NRSC. You’ll notice, too, that abortion did not appear to harm Portman, Johnson, Rubio, Blunt, etc., even though all of them were running in either purple or blue states.
November 14th, 2010 | 10:24 am
Mike,
Buck won the Republican primary against a woman (former Lt Gov Jane Norton), in part because of that comment about not wearing high heels — Norton’s histrionic supporters and her own campaign tried to play the comment both ways. According to the various ad campaigns, you were supposed to vote *against* Buck because he was a male chauvenist, but you were also supposed to vote *for* Norton simply because she’s the woman.
You’re right about Buck’s defeat in the general election, though. Even Hugh Hewitt, when he came to town, didn’t seem to know what to do about Buck and the Maes/Tancredo mess.
Kamilla
November 14th, 2010 | 6:43 pm
So California’s Sanctuary Cities engorge themselves on taxpayer’s money, thanks to the return of Sen. Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown. Los Angeles county and San Francisco is drowning in public entitlements being given away as freebies to millions of illegal aliens. Senator Barbara Boxer and ex speaker Nancy Pelosi are hard line liberal progressives, who ideology is you don’t have to work for a living as government will pay your way. Senator Harry Reid who squeaked back to the Senate is another member of the Liberal extremist groups, who has sold his soul for large minority votes, promising the Dream Act–a sleight of hand, to pass a De-Facto Amnesty. The Dream Act will not only reward students of criminal aliens, who stole through our borders. But will also function as a sponsored pass for the whole families to arrive after the newly naturalized students use the “Chain Migration Act” to open the gates to their Immediate Relatives—the spouse, minor children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens.
Chain Migration refers to the unceasing and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate as the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members. This Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to over one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief menaces in America’s current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, dwindling energy supplies and other impacts that reduce American’s quality of life. This type of immigration is very dangerous to our society as the US population is beginning to see the light, from the costs brought to them in higher taxes from catering to the illegal alien population by Liberal zealots.
The Lame Duck Dream Act would explode our population even more and as the Heritage Foundation has projected, at a cost of 2.6 Trillion dollars and millions more uneducated relatives. This certainly will put our Social Security at risk. Senator Reid, Barbara Boxer Diane Feinstein and the creeping fetid fringe groups of Liberal lawmakers are not concerned with the costs, but the amount of votes extended to them by grateful minority blocs in future election, the lobbying secretive bribes and a need to exert their influence upon America. It’s beyond comprehension that Harry Reid would try for the passage of this Dream Act, when our schools are overcrowded with the children of illegal aliens, the massive cost to taxpayers and the terrible reality of the 15 million jobless rates in this nation. This will add even more red ink to our US deficit and certainly not riding the favorable wave of the Tea Party, to lower taxes and reduce a over encroaching federal government.
Any new incremental Amnesty–as that is what the Dream Act is, will just keep on attracting the forever poor and desperate across our borders. We must secure our border with an electrified fence, stop the drain on our social services by pregnant women who intentionally births their children here, to take advantage of instant citizenship for the infant; so all family members can stay. Now is the time to release your anger on all members of Congress, by calling (202)224-3121 beginning this Monday? Learn the reality of illegal immigration at NumbersUSA and which politicians are corrupted at Judicial Watch.
November 14th, 2010 | 9:08 pm
Actually- winning over the Black and Hispanic vote is related to abortion. When they can be made to see that the Abortion-Industrial complex that is at the heart of Democratic party life wants them as simply as grist for the mill, and that it is the language of people like Justice Ginsburg that sees abortion as a means of keeping “them” under “control,” then we can recruit them into the Republican Party.
November 14th, 2010 | 9:16 pm
Most polls consistently show a majority of americans, when exceptions are made for incent, rape, and threat to the life of mother, are allowed, support the anti-abortion position.
Oddly, the republican party, has not, in my assessment, sufficiently capitalized on this. The leaders seem unwilling to emphasize the importance of the prolife position. And when it’s a winner,as well as being right, why not?
November 15th, 2010 | 2:11 pm
[...] Joseph Knippenberg responds to a Politico article which asked if abortion was the reason some Republican candidates for U.S. Senate lost:If I were to draw a lesson from the evidence before us, it isn’t that abortion is a winner or wave-stopper for Democrats, or that Republicans need to modulate their pro-life positions in order to win office. It’s that Republicans have to find a way (which has nothing to do with abortion) to win over more African-American and Hispanic voters. That’s been done before and can surely be done again. [...]
November 17th, 2010 | 5:23 pm
There were pro-life Republican senatorial candidates here in Washington state, but the state Republicans centered in liberal Olympia refused to recognize or support any but their own pet candidate, Rossi.
Conservatives here in WA, especially here on the agrarian dry side of the Cascades, were not impressed. Rossi vs. Murray was a choice between weevils.
The Republican party isn’t the solution, it’s part of the problem.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact