The Obama/Biden ticket got an unexpected gift today from a solid member of the GOP pro-life establishment. Instead of discussing the topics discussed at the town hall meeting that Romney and Ryan did at St. Anselm’s College, we were talking about Todd Akin’s inexplicable description of the most sensitive of issues: abortion in the case of rape. But the Dems are now trying to turn this short-term victory into one that is much longer term by bringing abortion to the forefront of the campaign. They have already released a new campaign ad with this goal in mind.
But this is a classic example of why it is important to be careful what you wish for. It is relatively easy to point to the fact that Obama is not moderately pro-choice and if abortion becomes a center of this debate, that will become clear. But isn’t the received wisdom that this won’t hurt him? Aren’t those who Obama needs to turn out all solidly in the pro-choice camp? Hardly. For starters, a record low number of people now describe themselves as pro-choice–a definite concern for those who wish to woo “undecideds” with a pro-choice focus. We also shouldn’t forget that about 30% (and growing) of all Democrats now describe themselves as pro-life and that Obama needs Catholics, in a particular, to break for him in a way similar to 2008. It is also worth mentioning that a focus on abortion choice puts pressure on Catholics that were ready to vote against a Ryan-plan that is at variance with Catholic Social Doctrine.
Despite the fact that some believe there is war on women being waged by the GOP, Obama continues to struggle with previously-supportive female voters. Another demographic Obama won big in 2008 was the youth vote–but in part because of their poor job prospects, he is struggling with them as well. How will a focus on abortion rights work out with these groups? Sign point to “badly.” Only 37% of Millennials consider abortion to be morally acceptable, and even the president of NARAL will step down this year because she understands new leadership is needed in light of the fact that young people are more energetically pro-life than pro-choice. And despite their being told at every turn that abortion rights are necessary for them to flourish, women are less likely to describe abortion as morally acceptable than are men.
Contrary to what was true in past elections, a focus on abortion choice actually hurts Obama with the very voters he needs to turn out the most: undecideds, women, Catholics and young people. If the Dems are not careful, they could win this short term battle and lose the war. The tide has turned, and a passionate defense of the lives of our prenatal children can no longer be understood as existing primarily in old guard GOP pro-lifers like Akin. Understanding a focus on abortion rights as radically betraying the values of nonviolence and protection of vulnerable populations is now mainstream and continues to grow, and grow energetically, in places where the old wisdom might not expect it.
Update:
In addition to the campaign ads, the Democrat convention is also now apparently “all in” with a focus on abortion rights. Today we learned that “Democrats said that they will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund [and] Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL” at the convention to send the message “Romney, Ryan, Akin and the GOP want to take women back to the dark ages.” For all the reasons mentioned above, this is a fundamentally wrong-headed strategy. Obama and the Dems had a narrow opening to try to paint Paul Ryan and perhaps a few others as being in the same category as Akin, but the overreach that is going “all in” on abortion rights is going to cost them precious votes in critical demographics.
Thanks, Charlie, for this post. I think I hope that your read that the “tide has turned” is accurate.
In addition, though, I guess it should also be noted that Romney’s/Ryan’s political position on abortion, at least as stated in connection with my fellow Missourian Akin’s unintelligible comment about “legitimate rape,” apparently does not regard abortion as an “intrinsic evil” that can never be justified regardless of circumstances or intent: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122031/-Romney-and-Ryan-suddenly-support-abortion-sometimes-maybe. I’m simply noting this and am neither defending nor criticizing it here at this time. But I do want to suggest that one question all of us have been avoiding here at cmt.com so far has to do with “intrinsically evil” acts. David Cloutier has rightly and helpfully explained the difference between intrinsic evil and grave evil. But are we really all on the same page on this matter? And does it matter ?
Feel free to make whatever theological argument you wish, but please do not cherry pick data that you like and ignore the overwhelming data that contradicts you. The NYT poll did indeed show Obama doing the same with women as with men. But why did you focus on only that poll and ignore pretty much every single poll that shows a significant gender gap? I won’t link every poll, but you can go to TPM Polltracker ( http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12/ ) and find links, as well as see that in an average of all polls, Obama has a 1.3 point lead. But filter out Rasmussen–widely regarded by non-partisan analysts as a consistently Republican-leaning pollster–and Gallup, which between them account for about 2-3 times more individual polls than all other pollsters combined, and you get a 5 point margin for Obama.
Look at individual polls other than that one NYT poll you cited, and in every single one of them Obama leads among women, and in every single one of them there’s a gender gap. Politico shows Obama winning men by 12, women by 15. Fox News has Obama winning men by 6, women by 11. CNN has Obama winning men by 6, women by 9. Public Policy Polling has Romney winning men by 10, but Obama winning Women by 12. And Pew has Romney winning men by 1, but Obama winning women by 19.
Feel free to make all the normative arguments you want. But if you’re going to use empirical data, please use representative data, not something that is clearly an outlier.
Hi Dana…thanks for joining the discussion. I invite you to check the words I used in the post and reconsider your claim that that the data you cite “contradicts” my position. I said that Obama “continues to struggle” with women…and compared the situation today to his “winning big” this category in 2008. Given that he comfortably won women in 2008, by 11 points, even having the average be 5 points you cite (and if we are going to edit out both liberal and conservative partisan polls, that number would be less), Obama is struggling with women compared to 2008. This is remarkable, especially considering the attempt to create a so-called “war on women” and the incredible missteps by the GOP and others in allowing the narrative to take effect.
At any rate, the point of the post is to show that Obama’s attempt to win back the women he has lost (as well as young people and Catholics) by going all in on abortion rights is poor strategy.
P.S. Thanks for your for permission to make “any theological argument I wish.” 🙂
Charles, I suggest you take your own advice and reread what I wrote. I didn’t say that in the average of polls that Obama has a five point lead among women, i said he has a five point lead. Looking at some of the individual polls I cited, it’s possible that Obama does, in fact, currently hold an 11 point lead among women. So there is no evidence that Obama “continues to struggle” with women. None that he has struggled, none that the struggles continue.
Also, why would you think ” if we are going to edit out both liberal and conservative partisan polls, that number would be less?” You think so-called “liberal” polls and so-called “conservative” polls are both overestimating Obama’s strength? [And for what it’s worth, I cited the Fox News poll, which, again, shows Obama winning men by 6, and women by 11.
You say ” the point of the post is to show that Obama’s attempt to win back the women he has lost .” Then the point of the post if founded on a false assumption, because there’s no evidence he needs to win back women he’s lost, because there’s no evidence he’s lost women.
Oh, sorry Dana…I did misread you…I think you’re right. As I peruse the data, things seem to have shifted from 2-3 months ago where many polls had Obama doing much worse with women…and I’m sorry for not checking the latest figures. However, as I said in my previous comment this is only an ancillary point to the thesis of my post–Obama needs women, Catholics, undecideds and young people to turn out for him. Going big on abortion rights hurts that cause.