Why Abortion is costing the Dems their votes

[Richard Creager]

The ice cream truck driver could be driving by twice.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm arguing potentiality. Not hard facts.

And you cant say that murder affects it as well, thats like saying oh, murder shouldnt be illegal, people die from cancer anyways- its not really valid, or has substance.

[triceratops]

You can't argue potentially, it doesn't work when there aren't facts. Therefore your side of the argument is not only invalid, but full of a lot of substance: bullshit.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Alright, then heres the facts.

There were 105,405,100 votes cast for president in the 2000 general election, representing 51.2% of the Voting Age Population. The Missing Voters would have been 6,033,097 based on that portion of the 51.2% represented by (at their lower voting level) 18-24 year olds. This means that Missing Voters would have been 4.48% of all actual voters in 2000.

Given the extremely close result in 2000, these voters could have been a crucial factor in the outcome. This is borne out when viewed by political party as defined in the Wirthlin survey.

Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.

This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings. For example:

There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).

There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).

By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have.

In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes. Missing Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined.

Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.

Look at the results:

Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.

A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.

This means that liberals are having one third more abortions than conservatives.

By combining party and ideology, an even sharper contrast comes into focus.

Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions--and more abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political group--than either of the other groupings.

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

Now, I summed all that up with the title "why abortions are costing dems their votes". And you call me an asshole for, well, stating exactly what the article said.

[triceratops]

Yea, I read the article dude. You didn't have to quote it. What I am saying is no matter what statistics say, they cannot predict the future. To say otherwise is extremely impractical and shortsighted.

How could you be certain (by backing up that bullshit) that 18 years of life experiences could not change your views on anything, especially politics? You're reducing free will to numbers.

I'm arguing that those (projected) statistics are misleading. That barring any form of free thought, the kids will grow up with the same political beliefs as their parents and vote accordingly is outrageous.

Furthermore, 36% of eligible voters 18-24 even did so. 36% who voted, not even splitting up by party. So those numbers are a lot higher than they should be.

[triceratops]

The facts from that article are right. The projected facts are impossible. It's nice to see you take bullshit for fact though.

[Jeansi]

Yes let's take Jeromes sperm and make 89287234 babies with it and then he has to pay for them all.

[Richard Creager]

JUSTIN'D

[Fallen Angel]

The author of this article doesn't seem to be very impartial to the situation.
Also, the statistics mentioned in the article are meaningless.
To paraphrase, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

[genocidal]

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

It's by Mark Twain.

[Vantage]

....

[Jeansi]

i eat babies

And that's Jonathan Swift.



Yes, I am serious.

[Fallen Angel]

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

It's by Mark Twain.

It wasn't a direct quote, and it's (believed to be) by Benjamin Disraeli.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Yea, I read the article dude. You didn't have to quote it. What I am saying is no matter what statistics say, they cannot predict the future. To say otherwise is extremely impractical and shortsighted.

How could you be certain (by backing up that bullshit) that 18 years of life experiences could not change your views on anything, especially politics? You're reducing free will to numbers.

I'm arguing that those (projected) statistics are misleading. That barring any form of free thought, the kids will grow up with the same political beliefs as their parents and vote accordingly is outrageous.

Furthermore, 36% of eligible voters 18-24 even did so. 36% who voted, not even splitting up by party. So those numbers are a lot higher than they should be.

Well, conversely, you're asking me to completely drop those facts, statistics, and projected numbers for your simple "its not predicting the future"? The research is there.

And then you say that kids growing up with the same political beliefs is "outrageous"- how? I know it from my experience- I dont like the government, I believe in a totally different political/economic system, but when people talk about bush, or republicans/democrats, I feel obliged to take the republican side- strange enough, that just ourageously HAPPENS to be my parent's party! O U T R A G E O U S!!!!!!!!! To the MAX! Who would have THOUGHT? Not you! I mean, sure there's a margin of party changeovers, but definitely not enough to change the major facts- and even then, look at the numbers, democratic parents were having what? 45% abortion rate? Republicans had something like 35%. Thats a 10% margin, something like a few hundred thousand people. So you're telling me just because you say so, these people will magically switch parties? Wait, I believe (if i construe this correctly, its 11am and im tired as fuck so sry) you said something like a 36% changeover rate. Well, that still leaves 64%- a majority.

[triceratops]

Well, conversely, you're asking me to completely drop those facts, statistics, and projected numbers for your simple "its not predicting the future"? The research is there.

And the research can only predict. You can predict Sammy Sosa will hit X amount of home runs in a season based off his statistics, but there is a 100% possibility he wont hit one home run and a 100% possibility that he will hit a home run everytime he takes the plate. That is something you cannot argue with, get it through your fucking head.

And then you say that kids growing up with the same political beliefs is "outrageous"- how? I know it from my experience- I dont like the government, I believe in a totally different political/economic system, but when people talk about bush, or republicans/democrats, I feel obliged to take the republican side- strange enough, that just ourageously HAPPENS to be my parent's party! O U T R A G E O U S!!!!!!!!! To the MAX! Who would have THOUGHT? Not you! I mean, sure there's a margin of party changeovers, but definitely not enough to change the major facts

Back up your 'facts'. Show me a chart, graph, or a magic fucking ball, that shows voters by their generations and party stance and then you can argue with me on this point.

- and even then, look at the numbers, democratic parents were having what? 45% abortion rate? Republicans had something like 35%. Thats a 10% margin, something like a few hundred thousand people.

Again, I read the article.

So you're telling me just because you say so, these people will magically switch parties?

I never said people will switch parties. The possibility is there, obviously, just like the possibility is there that you can comprehend that projected statistics are bullshit (I feel like a broken record).

Wait, I believe (if i construe this correctly, its 11am and im tired as fuck so sry) you said something like a 36% changeover rate. Well, that still leaves 64%- a majority.

You got my facts wrong, re-read my (marvelous) last post and try again.