Right to LifeBoard

Maybe people are talking about this or will, but what I'm finding shocking, and what will hand Trump the popular vote, is how he effectively made New Jersey, Virginia, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico all possible swing states. New Jersey was decided by 4%. That's about the margin in North Carolina. This without ads or many rallies there. I also heard an estimate of 1 million Biden to Trump voters in New York.

how do you like our new constitution

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

So freaking close. Sitting at 52%, which is no great mandate for a sweeping constitutional change. Especially one that was narrowly allowed on the ballot by a 4-3 state supreme court decision. I hope this can be undone or moderated with later measures.

I hope so too. It seems so clear that actual Constitutional amendments should require a higher threshold than 50%+1 in a single year, on any topic.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I do hope that the Governor and administration do everything in their power to circumvent or neutralize this. I do not see propriety as a sufficient justification for surrender here.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Maybe people are talking about this or will, but what I'm finding shocking, and what will hand Trump the popular vote, is how he effectively made New Jersey, Virginia, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico all possible swing states. New Jersey was decided by 4%. That's about the margin in North Carolina. This without ads or many rallies there. I also heard an estimate of 1 million Biden to Trump voters in New York.

I am waiting to see how the numbers end up settling out in some of those states, I have been particular perplexed by Illinois's oddly close numbers through the night, but there are still ballots left to count and apparently reports right now are inconsistent, NBC has Harris at 51.3 and Trump at 47.1, shockingly close, with c. 91% in, while Politico has it as 53.3/45.3, with 93.3% in, yet the counts are off, NBC has 2.483 million votes for Trump with less ballots counted than Politico which gives him only 2.351. It looks like that may just be Illinois, though, Jersey/Virginia/etc. appear to be more consistent between sources.

We will see whether or not closer results had any positive effects on the down-ballot, and with that any hints of more lasting political shifts. It looks like, while the GOP will probably still take the House, they are not exactly thriving, and state legislative results will be some time in coming. It seems there is a chance that, contra 2016, Trump may be running ahead of the generic GOP ballot in some areas rather than behind it, which certainly raises questions about just what the party is going to look like going forward.

It seems there were not enough coattails to get a Senate win in Wisconsin though, disappointing. I had really hoped to see Baldwin voted out, but it looks like she is going to continue in office with a c. 1% margin and <50% of the vote.

Also does anyone think it's weird that the Vice President hasn't conceded or made any statement? This isn't like 2020: the result is clear and it came quickly. Biden hasn't said anything either. I'm not suggesting they won't concede or hand over power, just that they are breaking with tradition.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Also does anyone think it's weird that the Vice President hasn't conceded or made any statement? This isn't like 2020: the result is clear and it came quickly. Biden hasn't said anything either. I'm not suggesting they won't concede or hand over power, just that they are breaking with tradition.

I think it is just trying to prepare and maximize exposure for the speech. Harris almost certainly is going to want to run again, and use this as as much of a springboard as possible for a probable-2028 bid. I think it is in part putting together the rhetoric and talking points, (for others in the party as well as her) and in larger part waiting for a news micro-cycle that she can dominate. A concession the night of is a footnote while everyone is talking about the winner, one a day/afternoon after after the initial surge of reactions gets more people talking about you, gives more airwaves to a narrative. Cynical, it certainly a delay that, if Trump did it, would be considered an atrocious 'attack on democratic norms', but I think it is just self-interested politicking.

When I saw Wayne County was at 34% last night around 11 pm I was pretty sure Michigan would go for Trump. When has a Republican ever done that well there? Traditionally that's how Democrats win the state: a slow trickle of votes from Wayne set off Republican gains everywhere else.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Also does anyone think it's weird that the Vice President hasn't conceded or made any statement? This isn't like 2020: the result is clear and it came quickly. Biden hasn't said anything either. I'm not suggesting they won't concede or hand over power, just that they are breaking with tradition.

Maybe she's just crying in denial that she lost.

Just saying.

Teresar wrote:

Maybe she's just crying in denial that she lost.

Just saying.

Vice President Harris is an adult loved by God, and she should be treated as such by those who call themselves pro-life. If you had looked up the question of when Harris will officially concede the race, you might have found something like this:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-trump-harris-11-06-24#cm362gwd2000y3b5vbld6eikq

Or this:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/2024-presidential-election-results-news

Roborian wrote:

I think it is just trying to prepare and maximize exposure for the speech. Harris almost certainly is going to want to run again, and use this as as much of a springboard as possible for a probable-2028 bid. I think it is in part putting together the rhetoric and talking points, (for others in the party as well as her) and in larger part waiting for a news micro-cycle that she can dominate. A concession the night of is a footnote while everyone is talking about the winner, one a day/afternoon after after the initial surge of reactions gets more people talking about you, gives more airwaves to a narrative. Cynical, it certainly a delay that, if Trump did it, would be considered an atrocious 'attack on democratic norms', but I think it is just self-interested politicking.

Well she should at least have called earlier, and the speech ought to have already been ready or essentially ready. Numerous world leaders called. And yes, the NYT is making the delay sound traditional: "It is customary for a losing presidential candidate to concede almost immediately after the race is called. The process typically unfolds in two stages: First, the losing candidate privately contacts the winner; then, he or she makes a public concession speech hours later. With her concession today, Vice President Kamala Harris has followed this tradition."
They are basically saying: "She has not followed this tradition. She has followed this tradition."

Kamala Harris has delivered her concession speech, using the word "fight" 18 times in the address (plus one 'keep fighting'). It was the single most used non-basic word in the speech by far, used nearly twice as often as any other.

A call to violence? No, not really, but after literal years of breathful fervor among the media about 'incitement' a speech packed with more references to fighting than commentators at a boxing match should get some actual blowback if there is even an ounce of principle among the mainstream commentariat.

Roborian wrote:

Kamala Harris has delivered her concession speech, using the word "fight" 18 times in the address (plus one 'keep fighting'). It was the single most used non-basic word in the speech by far, used nearly twice as often as any other.

A call to violence? No, not really, but after literal years of breathful fervor among the media about 'incitement' a speech packed with more references to fighting than commentators at a boxing match should get some actual blowback if there is even an ounce of principle among the mainstream commentariat.

is it weird that the "nah I'd win meme" goes through my head reading this then it pans to sukuna cutting Gojo in half in JJK.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Well she should at least have called earlier, and the speech ought to have already been ready or essentially ready. Numerous world leaders called. And yes, the NYT is making the delay sound traditional: "It is customary for a losing presidential candidate to concede almost immediately after the race is called. The process typically unfolds in two stages: First, the losing candidate privately contacts the winner; then, he or she makes a public concession speech hours later. With her concession today, Vice President Kamala Harris has followed this tradition."
They are basically saying: "She has not followed this tradition. She has followed this tradition."

Oh, she absolutely should have conceded earlier, and there is no excuse for her not to have. For all my disagreements over Trump's conduct in 2020, the election was not called until days after the fact, and even critics should admit to the state of chaos and uncertainty in the interim. No such confusion or excuse existed here, and it is made worse, not better, after years of lambasting Trump's 'norm-breaking' conduct to refuse to make the traditional and basic step of an immediate concession. People ought to the standards they propogate.

1984 reference are very much worn-out (and, hot take, the book is overrated), but it is hard to think of a better term than 'doublespeak' for making a truth claim immediately after giving information that admits its falseness. Par for the course.

The results last night were mixed but promising.

--

Referendums: Three states with pro-life laws rejected proposals to put a "right to abortion" in their state constitutions: Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. This is good news. Six states with legalized abortion approved proposals to put a "right to abortion" in their state constitutions: Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, and New York. This news is bad but also not surprising.

Only one state with a pro-life law, Missouri, voted to overturn that law and legalize abortion. In Missouri, abortion lobbyists outspent the pro-life movement $31 million to $5.5 million (nearly a 6:1 margin), yet they prevailed only 52-48. Notwithstanding a concerted effort to misinform the public, 48% of Missourians voted for life. Just imagine if the pro-life movement were fighting on an even playing field.

--

Exit polls: According to the multi-network exit poll, 32% of voters believe that abortion should be legal in all cases, 33% of voters believe that abortion should be legal in "most" cases, and 31% of voters believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. The media portrays this an an overwhelming "pro-choice" majority, but I don't think that's true. Less than a third (32%) of the voting public expresses support for abortion on request (i.e., the abortion lobby's position), and I think many Americans who hold the middle position (most cases) have been misinformed about the reasons for abortion.

I don't have polling data to back up my intuition. However, I suspect that if you interviewed the "most cases" voter, that voter might tell you: Yes, I support abortion in most cases. If the mother's life is at risk, if there's a health issue, if she was raped, or if the child is seriously disabled, an abortion should be permitted. But I don't support abortion just for the heck of it. There should be some extenuating circumstance.

These voters, I think, are reachable. The only reason they express "support" for abortion is the misinformation that's rampant in our culture. The kinds of extenuating circumstances just mentioned account for only one in ten abortions. The overwhelming majority of abortions -- about nine in ten -- are performed for social or economic reasons. I think most "most cases" voters are essentially pro-life. They just don't know it yet. The abortion lobby and the media keep them in the dark about abortion's true nature. If the culture falsely and repeatedly tells you that every woman who procures an abortion is suffering from health complications or is a rape victim, then you're bound to err on the "pro-choice" side. Abortion on request, as a system of subjugation, is built on a false and persistent narrative about the reasons for abortion.

--

Proof of concept: Finally, Vice President Harris essentially ran as a single-issue candidate. Her single issue was abortion. No restrictions, no time limits, no need to provide any reason for the procedure. That campaign strategy failed spectacularly. Only 14% of voters said that abortion was their most important issue, and only 74% of those voters (or 10% of the electorate) voted for Harris. The other "most important" voters were presumably pro-life.

Hopefully, this election teaches the Democratic Party that pro-abortion advocacy is not a winning strategy. It appealed to a very small proportion of the electorate (about one in ten voters), but it alienated many more. Of the 31% of voters who are clearly pro-life, 92% backed Donald Trump or a third-party candidate. That's 29% of the total electorate.

The pro-life movement should take consolation in the fact that only 32% of Americans believe in abortion on request, and only 10% of Americans are abortion extremists (i.e., "I support unrestricted abortion, and that's my most important issue."). Meanwhile, 31% of voters are clearly pro-life, and 33% of voters are likely persuadable -- if only they receive accurate information.

--

So yes, the results last night were promising. The primary obstacle to building a pro-life society is disinformation. The abortion lobby is well-funded, but it's not strong. It's built on a steady flow of lies. Only one-tenth of Americans are committed abortion extremists, and less than a third support the regime of abortion on request. It may take decades (or longer), but abortion can eventually be overcome.

Culture of Life wrote:

Only one state with a pro-life law, Missouri, voted to overturn that law and legalize abortion. In Missouri, abortion lobbyists outspent the pro-life movement $31 million to $5.5 million (nearly a 6:1 margin), yet they prevailed only 52-48. Notwithstanding a concerted effort to misinform the public, 48% of Missourians voted for life. Just imagine if the pro-life movement were fighting on an even playing field

And, sadly, had they invested money in our race like they did in Florida it may have turned the tide. I can speak from experience that we were bombarded with ads on TV and youtube for the amendment, many of which were as manipulative as Satan in the garden (i.e. implying that an ectopic pregnancy would have to go to term and kill the mother under current Missouri law). This and Kunce ads were almost the only thing playing in this state. Meanwhile the 'no' crowd had billboards, some radio ads, and a ton of yard signs. We outnumbered the yes signs everywhere, even in solid blue counties. And there were literally 7 different ones (by my memory), considerable diversity. The Archdiocese preached against it from the pulpit and organized prayer vigils and demonstrations. That it was so close is itself impressive. We voted more pro-life than Florida did.

Roborian wrote:

Interesting statistic from NBC News exit polls as it pertains to the earlier commentary on abortion, voting, and party.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

Percentage of voters who trusted Harris over Trump on the issue, but still voted for Trump

Immigration: 1%
Crime and Safety: 1%
'A Crisis': 1%
The Economy: 1%
Abortion: 5%

Obviously dealing with small numbers, but it seems like Trump sliced away a segment of pro-abortion voters from Harris in a way that he did not in any other category.

The flip side of it is more diverse, it seems that, in general, those who rated Trump more highly on a certain issue were much more likely overall to still vote for Harris. Still, though, abortion is something of an outlier, as it seems people of the more anti-abortion persuasion were the least likely to go to Harris.

Immigration: 8%
Crime and Safety: 5%
'A Crisis': 4%
The Economy: 4%
Abortion: 2%

One can probably speculate in a few different directions from this, but beyond the general trend that split-opinion voting is surprisingly rare (i.e., "I support Candidate Y on this issue but Candidate X on that issue), the anti-abortion side seems notably more willing to stick to their guns, and it seems to make a difference.

This is my favorite bit of news from the election. Thank you for sharing!

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Truly a historic election, first VP/President to have a beard since 1909!

Finally. Bring back beards!

Steel Belt Empire wrote:

Finally. Bring back beards!

I really do think it's a turning point : they are coming back everywhere and politicians are beginning to follow suit (Cruz and Trudeau being two very different examples).

You know, if Congress, with the Republican majority, passed a national abortion ban, it would be the greatest victory for pro Life since the overturn of Roe v Wade.

Teresar wrote:

You know, if Congress, with the Republican majority, passed a national abortion ban, it would be the greatest victory for pro Life since the overturn of Roe v Wade.

Yet Trump claims he wouldn't sign it. And I know Roe was in effect over his first term, but he had control over both chambers of Congress for the first half of it, and I can't recall any particular pro-life legislation passed then. So I'm not optimistic.

Teresar wrote:

You know, if Congress, with the Republican majority, passed a national abortion ban, it would be the greatest victory for pro Life since the overturn of Roe v Wade.

A national abortion ban is, disappointingly, extremely unlikely (though I most admit in fairness that I also thought it was very unlikely that Roe would be overturned). Even discounting the filibuster, the Senate majority, with a number of close losses this cycle, is only just large enough to absorb the defections of the 3 Senators (Murkowski, Collins, and Moore Capito) who are openly pro-abortion with no further margin for any other Senator, large numbers of which have either lost their stomachs or turned their coat on the issue, to vote against, and we have had plenty of talk from Republicans claiming opposition to national bans, including McCormick in Pennsylvania.

My hope, which, while perhaps more likely, still runs an unpleasantly high risk of not happening, would be to possible see action taken on abortion drugs and their mailing. The thing is that technically nothing has to be done, it is already explicitly flat-out illegal by federal law, the Comstock Act, which bans mailing, aiding in mailing, or receiving in the mail: Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion and actually goes so far as to make it a felony punishable by five years imprisonment to even mail a letter telling someone where they can get an abortion. It is written in the most direct, throrough, and undeniable language, and is in force as federal law, never repealed, we simply are refusing to enforce it.

(Side note: Anthony Comstock was not a perfect man, but he may have the highest ratio of 'amount vilified by society' to 'actual good work done' of any historical figure of which I am aware, there is a real hatred for anything representing morality, decency, and restraint in sexuality.)

While the law is indeed literally right there, plenty of Republicans still seem to want to shy away from it, even when abortion drugs are used in a massive percentage, by some estimates more than half, of abortion. JD Vance somewhat infamously expressed support for 'access to that medication', at best one could argue he was using shifty political language.

The best opportunity would then seem to be to get it into the courts, where the odds are not optimal, but better. Gorsuch could be put to the test on his actual commitment to textualism, little is expected from Roberts, regardless of how straightforward the law may be, moving the swing vote to either Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett. Getting an actual case going, though, would probably be dependent on at least some level of federal enforcement, though there may be a sidelong way of bringing a dispute before the court, possibly involving state action, so someone will have to stand up and take action at some point to get the ball rolling. I will say that, for the argument that Vance is more staunchly anti-abortion than his current statements indicate, and he is just politicking, there is a real chance that he ends up President before the term is over, Trump is old, and with no third term, he may well step aside at some point, and we may then get to see just where he stands.

As matters are, the most likely window for pro-life advancement, or, frankly, more of a defensive rearguard action at this point, is in Supreme Court appointments. Trump's legislative actions in his first term, though one should give credit for the small but real little changes that are common to GOP administrations, re-implementing the Mexico City Policy to reduce tax dollars sent to foreign abortions for example, were limited, and that was when he was more nominally actively pro-life rather than devolutionist as he is now. As I noted seven years ago, apparently to the day (makes one feel old), the end effect of the administration is likely to be determined in large part by how many SCOTUS vacancies open up during the term, as one imagines the administration will continue to appoint the same generally-believed-conservative kinds of picks of every GOP presidency. If there is at least one vacancy, even moreso with two, then this term may leave a pro-life legacy if only by virtue of having prevented a loss, rather than creating a gain. If there are no vacancies, unless one sees either major political shifts or, God willing, a change of heart and a stiffening of spines in the administration, I expect to see little in the way of action against abortion besides the marginal.

Hello! Thought I'd introduce myself. I'm only staying here temporarily a few days before moving on, but this seemed a good place to be. May I ask, having played NS a long time ago but knowing nothing about more recent developments, what the current state of WA legislation on abortion is?

US of-A wrote:

Hello! Thought I'd introduce myself. I'm only staying here temporarily a few days before moving on, but this seemed a good place to be. May I ask, having played NS a long time ago but knowing nothing about more recent developments, what the current state of WA legislation on abortion is?

There are, if memory serves, two or three separate resolutions permitting abortion wholesale. I wouldn't even bother trying to change it. The WA isn't representative anyway (and it wasn't really designed to be). Better to put that effort towards real-life initiatives.

Who made money on the election?

Elon Musk...... 26.5 billion
Larry Ellison... 9.9 billion
Warren Buffet. 7.6 b
Jeff Bezos..... 7.1 b
Bill Gates..... 1.8 b
Mark Zuckerberg
80.9m

the other subject:

mifepristone and misoprostol
Pfizer manufactures misoprostol under the brand name Cytotec
Pfizer stock losing 3 points since October.

Danco Laboratories manufactures mifepristone, the brand-name drug Mifeprex, and GenBioPro, Inc. manufactures generic mifepristone.

Do you know how see the financial for them?

Phydios wrote:

There are, if memory serves, two or three separate resolutions permitting abortion wholesale. I wouldn't even bother trying to change it. The WA isn't representative anyway (and it wasn't really designed to be). Better to put that effort towards real-life initiatives.

No, you're right. I get too caught up in this fake stuff sometimes. How was the WA not designed to be representative, though, if you don't mind me asking?