Why the Democrats are in trouble (for 2022 and perhaps beyond that) (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

Yeah well solar makes a boat load of sense in your situation.   Not sure where you're at but in Taft, CA, I could see that being a very attractive ROI.

I'm in Michigan, where we are lucky to see 3 sunny days in a row.  And our elec bill stays around 200-250, depending on the hot summer days.   Your situation almost seems like a no brainer.

But for that kind of energy use, you can actually get solar to generate all you need? Or do you have to still use the grid now and again to supplement what you cant get from the sun?

Yeah we designed the system to cover 105% of our yearly usage.  We overproduce about 6 months of the year and “sell” it back to the electric company and either produce equally or a little under in the other months.  We don’t live in Taft but it’s very sunny where we do live.   The ROI is there and certainly nice but it’s also the fact that at this point in my life (and my wife’s) I want to be able to run the AC when I want and not worry about it.  In my youth I sweated out many a night, I’m over that.  Lol

I can see how if you don’t live in an area with much sun year round how it could be more challenging. 

 

[Sparky Big Time]

I don’t agree that Trump was that effective at getting things done. But more importantly, the things that Trump DID get done are things that I did not want to be done. I don’t think we were starting to “win again” with Trump; exactly the opposite in fact. 

On this point we will have to agree to disagree.

I found the outcomes from his administration to be profoundly beneficial for the widest possible swath, and pointedly for historically disenfranchised people. The outcomes time and again were exactly what I wanted.

Conversely, the present state of the world is far less palatable, and pointedly so for those who can least afford it.

 

[Stoneworker]

Yeah well solar makes a boat load of sense in your situation.   Not sure where you're at but in Taft, CA, I could see that being a very attractive ROI.

I'm in Michigan, where we are lucky to see 3 sunny days in a row.  And our elec bill stays around 200-250, depending on the hot summer days.   Your situation almost seems like a no brainer.

Please don't mind me jumping in here for a moment, guys.

The economics of solar are not just a function of amount of sunshine but also the area's electricity costs.

So while solar cells themselves are of course more efficient in the sunny Southwest, they can sometimes actually be as or even more economical in cloudier, colder Northeast. In fact NY, NJ and Mass are all top 10 in U.S. solar installations.

Incentives also of course can play a big role.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Well, first and foremost I genuinely apologize.  I should have shut my trap until I could do some checking.

I have a friend in Taft, CA. She says her bill is close to $1,200 and she has no pool (just a coy pond) and keeps the AC around 70.  

Sorry sorry sorry.......I was locked in my little bubble of $200-$250 monthly electric bills and just had no idea anyone could pay this.   I will be sure to check myself in the future before launching like that.   

Heard car registrations are nutso too.  $600 for a 2002 Suburban.

Again DKP, I'm sorry.   

Mighty cool of you do some research on your own, find out the facts, admit you were wrong about a subject that you were (mildly) passionate about. Wow. supermike indeed. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

So yesterday I listened to a podcast interview with two centrist pollsters, one Democrat, one Republican, and here’s what they had to say: 

1. Even though independents continue to shrink in numbers, they still decide control of government, particularly the House of Representatives (because so many seats there are gerrymandered, the ones remaining, which decides the balance, are based on whichever way independents swing.) 

2. Independents are currently most concerned about 3 issues, in this order: 1. Inflation/ the economy. 2. The border/immigration. 3. Covid. 

3. Independents are frustrated that Biden and the Democrats seem to be ignoring these issues. 
 

This doesn’t bode well for Democrats.  Here are my own thoughts: 

1. There is no short term fix for inflation. I personally believe that the current Democratic spending proposals are good for the nation, but they are likely to make the immediate inflation problem worse, not better. Yet if they refrain from these bills then they will appear to be inept failures. So in terms of the immediate electoral impact, I don’t think they can win either way. 

2. The folks who are most concerned with the border and immigration, which are Republicans and independents, generally want much more restrictions and desire the steps that Trump attempted to take. Most Democrats oppose such methods. My own view on this subject is no secret: personally I would rather the Democrats lose a thousand elections rather than give in on this issue. But I’m in the minority and now it appears the Democrats are as well. So it’s a political loser for them. 

3. The pandemic is going to be a problem, in the opinion of most health experts, so long as a significant portion of the population refuses to be vaccinated. And that’s not the fault of the Democrats. Still they are the ones perceived to be in charge, so they get the blame. 

4. There are two possibilities that could save the Democrats: first, Donald J. Trump. If the GOP ends up with a bunch of candidates too Trumpian, or if Trump continues to press his Big Lie nonsense, that could either energize Democrat turnout or diminish Republican turnout. Second, if Roe is overturned by the SC that could change the entire picture. 
 

But for now it doesn’t look good. And long term it doesn’t look good because the public is moving away from what the Democratic Party, as it becomes more progressive, is offering. And that particularly doesn’t bode well for climate change. Which worries me greatly. 

Looking at some voting numbers and some of the swings i think this time you may be correct.

 

[Mile High]

As long as the Democrats get these two bills passed who cares if the Republicans take back the House. Biden is still president so nothing gets passed for two years. Not that,that matters because the Republicans will spend part of those 2 years on impeachment of Biden. Trump will run against a new Democrat and lose. Then we will start a new cycle of rinse and repeat where congress gets little to nothing done as usual. While in the mean time the Red and Blue tribes will  continue to grow farther apart. 

 

[tonydead]

As long as the Democrats get these two bills passed who cares if the Republicans take back the House. Biden is still president so nothing gets passed for two years. Not that,that matters because the Republicans will spend part of those 2 years on impeachment of Biden. Trump will run against a new Democrat and lose. Then we will start a new cycle of rinse and repeat where congress gets little to nothing done as usual. While in the mean time the Red and Blue tribes will  continue to grow farther apart. 

That would be a dream best case scenario for the Dems. 

 

[John123]

As long as the Democrats get these two bills passed who cares if the Republicans take back the House. Biden is still president so nothing gets passed for two years. Not that,that matters because the Republicans will spend part of those 2 years on impeachment of Biden. Trump will run against a new Democrat and lose. Then we will start a new cycle of rinse and repeat where congress gets little to nothing done as usual. While in the mean time the Red and Blue tribes will  continue to grow farther apart. 

You might want to look up Joe Manchin's comments today if you think the bill's in their current form have any chance of passing.  You'll probably hate the source, but since he was speaking directly to this source you'll have to accept it as legit.  Watch the following video, and starting around the 2:50 mark he talks about it a bit:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-manchin-virginia-governors-election-results-wake-up-call-joe-biden-agenda-infrastructure

 

[Shula-holic]

That would be a dream best case scenario for the Dems. 

I don't think the Dems are getting the message.  To me this wasn't a CRT based wave, otherwise we wouldn't have seen NJ look the way it did last night.  Sure, there are definitely local issues like education in VA, property taxes in NJ, etc.  But while it's true Biden is unpopular, as much as the Democrats insist the public likes what will be in this reconciliation bill, the public polling I've seen is about 2:1 who think it will not do any good or make inflation worse. 

If voters view the administration as incompetent, which it's clear from the polling that most do, and the administration is pushing a legislative agenda that voters feel will hurt the economy, doubling down on that seems foolish.  They may well get it passed, but to me this is a vindication for the position of a Joe Manchin.  The best thing that could happen to the Democrats electorally is for him to force Biden to take the win on the bipartisan bill and bench the reconciliation bill.  If they press forward, it either fails and they look even more inept or they pass something that the majority doesn't want and is almost certain to pour gasoline on the inflation flames.

 

[Shula-holic]

I find this hard to believe, but the exit polling is showing Hispanics voted 55% for Youngkin last night.  The best number I can find for comparison was Trump garnered 38% there in 2020.  If that number is accurate, or even within a few points, this is something that would upend the long held Democratic belief of demographics leading them to perennial majorities.

 

[dkp993]

I don't think the Dems are getting the message.  To me this wasn't a CRT based wave, otherwise we wouldn't have seen NJ look the way it did last night.  Sure, there are definitely local issues like education in VA, property taxes in NJ, etc.  But while it's true Biden is unpopular, as much as the Democrats insist the public likes what will be in this reconciliation bill, the public polling I've seen is about 2:1 who think it will not do any good or make inflation worse. 

If voters view the administration as incompetent, which it's clear from the polling that most do, and the administration is pushing a legislative agenda that voters feel will hurt the economy, doubling down on that seems foolish.  They may well get it passed, but to me this is a vindication for the position of a Joe Manchin.  The best thing that could happen to the Democrats electorally is for him to force Biden to take the win on the bipartisan bill and bench the reconciliation bill.  If they press forward, it either fails and they look even more inept or they pass something that the majority doesn't want and is almost certain to pour gasoline on the inflation flames.

I completely agree that tying these to bills together still is( will be if they continue down this path) a disaster. Biden desperately needs any win he can get at this point.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't think the Dems are getting the message.  To me this wasn't a CRT based wave, otherwise we wouldn't have seen NJ look the way it did last night.  Sure, there are definitely local issues like education in VA, property taxes in NJ, etc.  But while it's true Biden is unpopular, as much as the Democrats insist the public likes what will be in this reconciliation bill, the public polling I've seen is about 2:1 who think it will not do any good or make inflation worse. 

If voters view the administration as incompetent, which it's clear from the polling that most do, and the administration is pushing a legislative agenda that voters feel will hurt the economy, doubling down on that seems foolish.  They may well get it passed, but to me this is a vindication for the position of a Joe Manchin.  The best thing that could happen to the Democrats electorally is for him to force Biden to take the win on the bipartisan bill and bench the reconciliation bill.  If they press forward, it either fails and they look even more inept or they pass something that the majority doesn't want and is almost certain to pour gasoline on the inflation flames.

Predictions are that crude oil is going to $120 a barrel and that gas prices are going up another 45% by June.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/business/gas-prices-oil-opec/index.html

Just curious, for all those out there that says the President doesn't control oil prices, then why does he keep saying that the high prices are from Russia and OPEC limiting production?  If supply can lower prices (as Biden indicates), here's a novel idea, increase US production and don't rely on other countries for supply.  I can't remember the last time the US was energy independent.  

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-economy-prices-7d567fede0ad9619a32def9a4b02eb37#:~:text=At a news conference Tuesday,that additional actions were coming.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

Biden is in an unenviable spot.

He cannot restore domestic production without a revolt within his party.  So he has to beg our adversaries to step up production to bail him out.  But what will they ask for in return? So he has to sell us out to placate the people he is pissing off.

He has accidentally triggered perhaps the worst spectrum of people with his mismanagement....middle class white women.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I completely agree that tying these to bills together still is( will be if they continue down this path) a disaster. Biden desperately needs any win he can get at this point.  

It's dumb to keep the bills together, but the Progressives know if they separate, the reconciliation bill is dead in the water.

 

[LawFitz]

I am/was a lifelong left-leaning centrist, who mostly voted Democrat, but generally tried to vote for best candidate, rather than party lines. I saw a cartoon in the last year that I wish I could find to share here, b/c it perfectly sums up how I feel about politics over the last twenty years...

The cartoon had three drawings set one over the other. The top drawing displayed the political landscape in the year 2000 - Republicans were on the far right of a diagram depicting a horizontal line, with Democrats on the far left, and a hypothetical centrist voter near a tick mark of the middle, but leaning left. That was/is me.

The next image just below depicts 2010. By that time the Republicans were still on the right exactly below the image above. The centrist voter was still directly below where he was from the image above. But the Democrats had now shifted further left and pulled the central midpoint tick mark left with them - and now to the left of the formerly center-left voter. Now suddenly, without having shifted his own beliefs, the former center-left voter was center-right.

Fast forward another ten years to 2020 for the next image just below the other two. You can guess what it depicted. The Republican party and the centrist voter stayed true to their original positions on the spectrum. But the Democrats moved even further left and pulled the center point even further with them. Suddenly, the former centrist voter was squarely right, even though he hadn't actually changed his political mindset. That's me. And it's why the Democrat party is a ####### dead man walking. Let's go Brandon.

 

[Nugget]

I am/was a lifelong left-leaning centrist, who mostly voted Democrat, but generally tried to vote for best candidate, rather than party lines. I saw a cartoon in the last year that I wish I could find to share here, b/c it perfectly sums up how I feel about politics over the last twenty years...

The cartoon had three drawings set one over the other. The top drawing displayed the political landscape in the year 2000 - Republicans were on the far right of a diagram depicting a horizontal line, with Democrats on the far left, and a hypothetical centrist voter near a tick mark of the middle, but leaning left. That was/is me.

The next image just below depicts 2010. By that time the Republicans were still on the right exactly below the image above. The centrist voter was still directly below where he was from the image above. But the Democrats had now shifted further left and pulled the central midpoint tick mark left with them - and now to the left of the formerly center-left voter. Now suddenly, without having shifted his own beliefs, the former center-left voter was center-right.

Fast forward another ten years to 2020 for the next image just below the other two. You can guess what it depicted. The Republican party and the centrist voter stayed true to their original positions on the spectrum. But the Democrats moved even further left and pulled the center point even further with them. Suddenly, the former centrist voter was squarely right, even though he hadn't actually changed his political mindset. That's me. And it's why the Democrat party is a ####### dead man walking. Let's go Brandon.

I don’t disagree with your view on Democrats, but I think the GOP is way different now than 20 years ago.  The current GOP has censored Mitt Romney and Cindy McCain. George Bush is disloyal for fundraising for Liz Cheney.  Republicans are no longer the party of small government.   This protectionist, nativist movement that relies on fear mongering is anti American.  

 

[LawFitz]

I don’t disagree with your view on Democrats, but I think the GOP is way different now than 20 years ago.  The current GOP has censored Mitt Romney and Cindy McCain. George Bush is disloyal for fundraising for Liz Cheney.  Republicans are no longer the party of small government.   This protectionist, nativist movement that relies on fear mongering is anti American.  

Lesser evil at this point. Tho I do fear what the wrong people on that side might do with the liberties this current regime has taken over our daily lives in the name of the pandemic. Once one party abuses traditional power restrictions, the next one seems to come in and take that abuse to the next level. 

 

[Sparky Big Time]

The people are fickle.  They can change their opinions rather rapidly and easily.  Most people are concerned with the next day, or week, or month and fail to extend their thoughts into the wider manifestation of outcomes.

I could see the Democrats recover from this.  They are not new, or amateurs, these people know their craft.  They have time to come up with new lies to manipulate people.

The main problem they have are outcomes.  You can lie as ably as possible, but when your policies destroy, people can see what is happening.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don’t disagree with your view on Democrats, but I think the GOP is way different now than 20 years ago.  The current GOP has censored Mitt Romney and Cindy McCain. George Bush is disloyal for fundraising for Liz Cheney.  Republicans are no longer the party of small government.   This protectionist, nativist movement that relies on fear mongering is anti American.  

Republicans never have been the party of small government. Well at least not when they have control. 

The best example I can give of this is in WI. Tommy Thompson was governor for my entire childhood it seems. Every year the number of govt jobs swelled. Just a massive expansion when it was all said and done. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Sen Leahy 

 

[rustycolts]

Roughly, after maximum state + federal tax credit. The panels are expected to last 25+ year (so far, so good). Not sure about the inverter. 

I don’t believe the tax incentives are as good nowadays, but the panels are cheaper + more efficient, and there is a lot more competition. So you may want to look into it again.

I just purchased solar panels. Significantly north of 20 grand. Starting to have some buyers remorse. Tax credit over $15,000 so that helps. Kind of like having a second  mortgage. But I figure now the time to do it if there ever was. Living in Florida I should benefit from it all year long at least I should. Still having a little anxiety over it though.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Whoa - GOP just won mayoral election in Columbia,SC. Dem candidate was endorsed by Obama and Clyburn. Biden won the county by 30+%. 
GOP wins Columbia,SC mayoral election

 

[Max Power]

Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier announces she will not run for re-election

 

[Max Power]

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) on Thursday announced he will not run for a 10th term in Congress next year

sensing a pattern

 

[JIslander]

Whoa - GOP just won mayoral election in Columbia,SC. Dem candidate was endorsed by Obama and Clyburn. Biden won the county by 30+%. 
GOP wins Columbia,SC mayoral election

Meh.  That County won't swing red.  And really Columbia is somewhat insular from DC endorsements IMO.   

 

[Nugget]

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) on Thursday announced he will not run for a 10th term in Congress next year

sensing a pattern

People in their 70s should retire from politics? I’ll agree with that. 

 

[Phil Elliott]

Meh.  That County won't swing red.  And really Columbia is somewhat insular from DC endorsements IMO.   

Isn't Clyburn from SC and the reason Biden won the dem primary?

 

[Max Power]

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) on Wednesday announced he planned to retire from Congress, becoming the 19th House Democrat to opt against running for reelection in 2022.

 

[tonydead]

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) on Wednesday announced he planned to retire from Congress, becoming the 19th House Democrat to opt against running for reelection in 2022.

I don't blame them.  They know they are like lambs to the slaughter.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So yesterday I listened to a podcast interview with two centrist pollsters, one Democrat, one Republican, and here’s what they had to say: 

1. Even though independents continue to shrink in numbers, they still decide control of government, particularly the House of Representatives (because so many seats there are gerrymandered, the ones remaining, which decides the balance, are based on whichever way independents swing.) 

2. Independents are currently most concerned about 3 issues, in this order: 1. Inflation/ the economy. 2. The border/immigration. 3. Covid. 

3. Independents are frustrated that Biden and the Democrats seem to be ignoring these issues. 
 

This doesn’t bode well for Democrats.  Here are my own thoughts: 

1. There is no short term fix for inflation. I personally believe that the current Democratic spending proposals are good for the nation, but they are likely to make the immediate inflation problem worse, not better. Yet if they refrain from these bills then they will appear to be inept failures. So in terms of the immediate electoral impact, I don’t think they can win either way. 

2. The folks who are most concerned with the border and immigration, which are Republicans and independents, generally want much more restrictions and desire the steps that Trump attempted to take. Most Democrats oppose such methods. My own view on this subject is no secret: personally I would rather the Democrats lose a thousand elections rather than give in on this issue. But I’m in the minority and now it appears the Democrats are as well. So it’s a political loser for them. 

3. The pandemic is going to be a problem, in the opinion of most health experts, so long as a significant portion of the population refuses to be vaccinated. And that’s not the fault of the Democrats. Still they are the ones perceived to be in charge, so they get the blame. 

4. There are two possibilities that could save the Democrats: first, Donald J. Trump. If the GOP ends up with a bunch of candidates too Trumpian, or if Trump continues to press his Big Lie nonsense, that could either energize Democrat turnout or diminish Republican turnout. Second, if Roe is overturned by the SC that could change the entire picture. 
 

But for now it doesn’t look good. And long term it doesn’t look good because the public is moving away from what the Democratic Party, as it becomes more progressive, is offering. And that particularly doesn’t bode well for climate change. Which worries me greatly. 

Thanks. I can see a lot of this.

@GoBirds Please be way more cool than posting a laughing emoji when someone has put a thoughtful post together like this. If you disagree, that's fine. But don't just drop the laughing emoji. Thanks. 

 

[timschochet]

So today the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Mississippi abortion law. According to the analysts I have heard, the most likely result is that they will uphold the Mississippi law, which places severe limits on abortion, but not go so far as to overturn Roe vs Wade. 

IMO, if this happens it will anger and energize liberals, but that in itself won’t be enough to change the outcome of 2022. Only if Roe is actually overturned could Republicans actually be threatened. 

 

[GoBirds]

Thanks. I can see a lot of this.

@GoBirds Please be way more cool than posting a laughing emoji when someone has put a thoughtful post together like this. If you disagree, that's fine. But don't just drop the laughing emoji. Thanks. 

No problem Joe, I would just ask that if you are going to get into censoring people’s responses to post you give detailed rules you want followed as “thoughtful post” is not something many will agree on. Hopefully you will enforce the new rules consistently for everyone. 
 

Also got another anecdotal Xmas tree story, $65 to $99. Inflation at 50% here unfortunately. 

 

[tonydead]

No problem Joe, I would just ask that if you are going to get into censoring people’s responses to post you give detailed rules you want followed as “thoughtful post” is not something many will agree on. Hopefully you will enforce the new rules consistently for everyone. 
 

Also got another anecdotal Xmas tree story, $65 to $99. Inflation at 50% here unfortunately. 

MT said a long time ago that there wouldn't be any policing of the feelings emoji (bottom right corner of each post) and anyone that complained about it would be the ones in trouble.   You know who tried to get that one shut down day one.  Too lazy to look it up.  Times change too I suppose.

Way too many people getting worked up about emoji.  

 

[timschochet]

No problem Joe, I would just ask that if you are going to get into censoring people’s responses to post you give detailed rules you want followed as “thoughtful post” is not something many will agree on. Hopefully you will enforce the new rules consistently for everyone. 
 

I have no complaints about your emojis. Never have. If you want to engage in discussion, that’s up to you. 

 

[GoBirds]

I have no complaints about your emojis. Never have. If you want to engage in discussion, that’s up to you. 

Thanks Tim, apparently a lot of the regulars that defend everything Liberal report me all the time so looks like I get my own rule. I know you have thick skin my friend and wouldn’t be triggered by an emoji in a sub forum. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

So today the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Mississippi abortion law. According to the analysts I have heard, the most likely result is that they will uphold the Mississippi law, which places severe limits on abortion, but not go so far as to overturn Roe vs Wade. 

IMO, if this happens it will anger and energize liberals, but that in itself won’t be enough to change the outcome of 2022. Only if Roe is actually overturned could Republicans actually be threatened. 

How does prohibiting States from regulating abortions at 20 weeks to 15 weeks place "severe limits on abortion"?  Roberts asked the question.  A pregnant mother (can we still use those terms) has 4 months under the Mississippi law to obtain an abortion.  Is that unduly burdensome?  

 

[KarmaPolice]

How does prohibiting States from regulating abortions at 20 weeks to 15 weeks place "severe limits on abortion"?  Roberts asked the question.  A pregnant mother (can we still use those terms) has 4 months under the Mississippi law to obtain an abortion.  Is that unduly burdensome?  

Isn't Mississippi one of those states that has 1-2 clinics where women could go? 

 

[timschochet]

How does prohibiting States from regulating abortions at 20 weeks to 15 weeks place "severe limits on abortion"?  Roberts asked the question.  A pregnant mother (can we still use those terms) has 4 months under the Mississippi law to obtain an abortion.  Is that unduly burdensome?  

I think it is. The previous limitation was based on viability- when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. The consensus is 22 weeks. So yeah this is burdensome IMO. 
But as I wrote it will go through and won’t matter IMO unless Roe is actually overturned. 

 

[Nugget]

How does prohibiting States from regulating abortions at 20 weeks to 15 weeks place "severe limits on abortion"?  Roberts asked the question.  A pregnant mother (can we still use those terms) has 4 months under the Mississippi law to obtain an abortion.  Is that unduly burdensome?  

I think most women find out they are pregnant in weeks 4-7. So that should give on average 8-11 weeks to make a decision. I guess my preference would be to give a woman more time than less to make a decision.  I don’t know how much an abortion costs (fees, transportation, ??). Are they walk in or appointment only?  I’ve never been in the situation and I can’t imagine it is fun. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I think most women find out they are pregnant in weeks 4-7. So that should give on average 8-11 weeks to make a decision. I guess my preference would be to give a woman more time than less to make a decision.  I don’t know how much an abortion costs (fees, transportation, ??). Are they walk in or appointment only?  I’ve never been in the situation and I can’t imagine it is fun. 

I don't know either, but I'd be willing to bet it varies greatly by location.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think most women find out they are pregnant in weeks 4-7. So that should give on average 8-11 weeks to make a decision. I guess my preference would be to give a woman more time than less to make a decision.  I don’t know how much an abortion costs (fees, transportation, ??). Are they walk in or appointment only?  I’ve never been in the situation and I can’t imagine it is fun. 

I think, you may want to look at actual data.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

"In 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. During 2010–2019, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%)."

Again, this law isn't a burden on someone looking to obtain an abortion in Mississippi.  Also I'll note that 10.5% of abortions performed in Mississippi were performed on out-of-state residents.  So the fact that there is only one clinic doesn't seem to slow down the rate of abortions in the State.

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/mississippi/ 

 

[Nugget]

I think, you may want to look at actual data.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

"In 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. During 2010–2019, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%)."

Again, this law isn't a burden on someone looking to obtain an abortion in Mississippi.  Also I'll note that 10.5% of abortions performed in Mississippi were performed on out-of-state residents.  So the fact that there is only one clinic doesn't seem to slow down the rate of abortions in the State.

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/mississippi/ 

Sorry - I didn't see any discrepancy from what I posted to what you posted - what did I miss?

If changing the law is only going to effect <10% of the women seeking abortions, why do it?  If women knew they had a shorter window, would they go ahead and have the abortion rather than risk running out of time?

I don't know how accurate your Mississippi data it, but I'd guess a good portion of the state would have better access in Memphis or New Orleans.   

 

[Snotbubbles]

Sorry - I didn't see any discrepancy from what I posted to what you posted - what did I miss?

If changing the law is only going to effect <10% of the women seeking abortions, why do it?  If women knew they had a shorter window, would they go ahead and have the abortion rather than risk running out of time?

I don't know how accurate your Mississippi data it, but I'd guess a good portion of the state would have better access in Memphis or New Orleans.   

At least we're getting closer here.  The Mississippi law has a de minimis effect on abortion access in the State.  Tim's position that it will place "severe limitations" on abortions is patently false and that's even if the entire United States adopted the law.  It comes from a person pontificating on a subject that they have little knowledge about and haven't taken the time to understand.  It's a position that you will most definitely see politicians and protestors take, but now we both know, that it isn't a position supported with factual data.  

The reason you make the law is you want it to get challenged so the Supreme Court will hear it.  Why?  Best case, they overturn Roe/Casey and put abortion in the hands of the States.  Then a State can end abortion altogether if they so choose.  If the SC decides not to overturn Roe, but allow the law to stand then that removes the viability prong from abortion regulations.  Now States can try and argue, if 15 weeks is not burdensome, maybe 10 weeks isn't either.  If 10 weeks isn't, maybe 5 weeks isn't.  You continue to chip away, chip away until you effectively end abortion while still legally allowing them.  But this won't happen by the 2022 election, and most likely wouldn't happen by the 2024 election.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Sorry - I didn't see any discrepancy from what I posted to what you posted - what did I miss?

If changing the law is only going to effect <10% of the women seeking abortions, why do it?  If women knew they had a shorter window, would they go ahead and have the abortion rather than risk running out of time?

I don't know how accurate your Mississippi data it, but I'd guess a good portion of the state would have better access in Memphis or New Orleans.   

Also, abortion is an out-patient procedure.  It takes about 10 minutes.  

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion

 

[timschochet]

It comes from a person pontificating on a subject that they have little knowledge about and haven't taken the time to understand.  

When you write stuff like this it weakens any other argument you attempt to make. Not only is it a personal attack, you’re making assumptions about me that you have no idea about. You also limit your own understanding when you assume that anyone who disagrees with your position simply hasn’t taken the time you have. On an issue as contentious as abortion, it’s especially absurd. 

 

[Nugget]

At least we're getting closer here.  The Mississippi law has a de minimis effect on abortion access in the State.  Tim's position that it will place "severe limitations" on abortions is patently false and that's even if the entire United States adopted the law.  It comes from a person pontificating on a subject that they have little knowledge about and haven't taken the time to understand.  It's a position that you will most definitely see politicians and protestors take, but now we both know, that it isn't a position supported with factual data.  

The reason you make the law is you want it to get challenged so the Supreme Court will hear it.  Why?  Best case, they overturn Roe/Casey and put abortion in the hands of the States.  Then a State can end abortion altogether if they so choose.  If the SC decides not to overturn Roe, but allow the law to stand then that removes the viability prong from abortion regulations.  Now States can try and argue, if 15 weeks is not burdensome, maybe 10 weeks isn't either.  If 10 weeks isn't, maybe 5 weeks isn't.  You continue to chip away, chip away until you effectively end abortion while still legally allowing them.  But this won't happen by the 2022 election, and most likely wouldn't happen by the 2024 election.

Thanks for this and the link on the procedure.

I'm most familiar with Kansas, and I feel like the laws in Texas are influencing what we are seeing locally in our legislature.  Kansas will vote on abortion in 2022 to take away the right to an abortion and to prevent government funding.  And it will probably pass.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

When you write stuff like this it weakens any other argument you attempt to make. Not only is it a personal attack, you’re making assumptions about me that you have no idea about. You also limit your own understanding when you assume that anyone who disagrees with your position simply hasn’t taken the time you have. On an issue as contentious as abortion, it’s especially absurd. 

Only half as absurd as your position.  At least you have the facts now.  Please don't posit the position that the Mississippi law places "severe limitations" on abortion again, as I said before it's patently false.  If you didn't know before, you know now.  I would expect you to advocate the correct stance whenever you see someone falsely label this as you have in the future.  

 

[timschochet]

Only half as absurd as your position.  At least you have the facts now.  Please don't posit the position that the Mississippi law places "severe limitations" on abortion again, as I said before it's patently false.  If you didn't know before, you know now.  I would expect you to advocate the correct stance whenever you see someone falsely label this as you have in the future.  

Except it’s not patently false. I explained why earlier. I already knew that the vast majority of abortions took place prior to 15 weeks, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are some that take place after that, and that this is a decision between a woman and a doctor which the state should have no involvement in. So of course it’s a severe limitation. 
And you continue to use phrases like “the correct stance.” There is no correct stance here; there is your opinion, which I strongly disagree with, and there is my opinion. The difference between us is that I don’t hold out my opinion, at least on this issue, as the only rational conclusion. 

 

[timschochet]

Personally I believe in abortion rights up until the date of delivery. A 15 week limitation is very severe and makes no sense. Late term abortion can be very necessary when there is hydrocephalus or other issues or simply as a decision between a woman and her doctor. The state should not play any role at all IMO. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

Except it’s not patently false. I explained why earlier. I already knew that the vast majority of abortions took place prior to 15 weeks, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are some that take place after that, and that this is a decision between a woman and a doctor which the state should have no involvement in. So of course it’s a severe limitation. 
And you continue to use phrases like “the correct stance.” There is no correct stance here; there is your opinion, which I strongly disagree with, and there is my opinion. The difference between us is that I don’t hold out my opinion, at least on this issue, as the only rational conclusion. 

The difference between our positions is that one is using data, the other isn't.