Why Abortion is costing the Dems their votes

[Jeansi]

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).

If it wasn't for parties, politics might even be interesting.

[genocidal]

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

Prove it. I've seen it as a direct quote from Twain.

[Fallen Angel]

Prove it. I've seen it as a direct quote from Twain.

Mark Twain attributed the quote to Benjamin Disraeli in his autobiography.

[Vykromond]

I don't get it. What's the point of this thread? That Democrats should stop supporting abortion?

Retarded topic of the century

[Jerome Scuggs]

whoops

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.

Look, you're being dumb. You can't evaluate proven, factored statistics 100% wrong just because they're statistics. They have a base in reality. They're a line into the right direction. To argue this one, you would have to pretty much prove that children would NEVER vote for the same party as their parents- which is proven wrong by the fact that I'm republican, as are my parents. At the point where there's a 0.1% risk of the aborted person voting democratic, then the vote is skewed.

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.

From the article:

The question arises: Who would these Missing Voters have been if they had reached voting age? What would their values have been? How would they have voted? What impact would they have had on the great debates in America, including the abortion debate? Here's what we know ***from several generations of social science research*** about children:

They tend to absorb the values of their parents.

-They tend to have the same political views as their family (parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views on political causes.

-They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.[/b]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/prg/king/polar.htm#Changes in Party Allegiances Since the 1960s
This might not be what you wanted, but the data concludes that more people have change'd to republican. Too bad those dems killed off what might have been more votes. And before you go off saying "that's mean to just think of them as votes!" I'm not the one supporting their deaths.

http://www.international-survey.org/...s/Pol_Educ.htm
^that one shows that political influce is derived from education- If a parent is more conservative, they send their child to a private school. The private schools are also more conservative, so the child is influenced tremendously. So, indirectly but still linked, Parents influence their children.

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).

Whoops, You win this one,they do switch parties- to Republican, see above. My bad!

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

Alright, I'm happy that black people are voting more, but what the hell is this .pdf saying? All it's talking about is how many people voted, and by age.

Oh, whoops:

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.

This is a crucial piece which you forgot. What this evidence concludes is that no, even if the potentiality is gone, the real delimna is: they're killing themselves off. Since conservatives have less abortions, then they have more offspring. Now if these offspring become liberal, then they have a more risk of having an abortion- whereas if they were more conservative it was less likely.

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.

Once again, you fail to argue this point- this one is saying, the children they kill outnumber the people they've converted to Liberalism. They're losing voters. And since voters are becoming more and more independant (which you can find tons of articles on, google it), that also makes them more and more vulnerable to the Liberal persuasion.

Look, lets bring this to SS terms. Let's say you want Warportal, Talon, Windreaper, Mantra-Slider, Lemon, and Dock> to join Pallies. Now, there's not a 100% chance that they will join, but what if i killed them? Then the potential is gone. And that's what this article is saying. It's saying, the dems are fucking themselves over by killing potential voters.

Ya sorry for the late response there. Had to pull my shit together, bacardi undoes that :P

[Ha! Sheesh.]

And yet still many factors/thoughts/counters lie in the background, such as to-be/would-be parents planning to have (a) child(ren), but accidentally reaching impregnation earlier than planned and choosing to have an abortion and still have a child later instead of having it now while being "fixed" later. And even if you try and say, "But no, now they've created a delay in the voting population.", many more factors appear in said case as well. But I shant get into "delays" vs "existing in the first place"... Other things to consider include sexual habits and how they may have changed or been influenced by the abortion legislature. Would we count those who never even came to be fetuses, from abstainment from certain sexual practices or occurances if legislation were different? Of course there are innumerable other factors that come into play here...(and we all know just because a law states something, this does not necessarily mean it is followed. In many, many instances, laws are broken and greater harm results from the breaking than what would have occured if the law was not in place from the start.)

On a slightly different topic, here is something regarding (over)population, resources, food supplies, and whatnot. EVERYONE should read this.

How great we will be with a voting population of 0!

[Epinephrine]

There are a lot of things wrong with the supposed 'facts' and 'statistics' of that article. Simply put, because of the way the article presents it's figures, it shows a large bias obviously towards 'don't support abortion'. What are these errors?

1) Abortions happened before the supreme court allowed them. How many were there? No one really knows, but not even an estimate has been factored in.

2) What would have happened if these parents wouldn't have been able to abort which may affect the results presented in the article?
a) Adoption. Do conservatives adopt more?
b) Child dies. (yes factor in infant and child mortality, and probabilty of car crash deaths and all other deaths before the voting age).
c) Child moves to another country (happens).

3) Poor people are less likely to vote. People from certain races in America vote less. It's a fact. What are the exact statistics? Do abortions happen more for certain demographics (i.e. most people would say it happens most to really poor people who don't know better, but is this fact? I dunno)? If so do those demographics vote more or less?

4) What is the percentage of children that actually change parties and those that stay? What direction do they usually change to? In general is there a bigger chance of people going right wing over their lifetimes then going to left wing? i.e. as a poor kid they might be democrats, but as a rich executive they might turn into republican maybe? Poor people are also more likely to be in the army. People in the army tend to vote Republican don't they?

5) What types of additional strain might these extra 20 million people have had on America's public systems? I assume much more people in schools much more people using health care and so on. Until recently these people would not have had an income. How would this have affected American society as a whole? Maybe with these 'extra' people, the current crisis with the baby boomers outnumbering their children would have been majorly decreased. This might have led to less immigration through tougher policies as immigration would not have been necessary to make sure enough people pay taxes in the future. Immigrants mostly vote which way?

Also with the increase strain on social systems, perhaps more problems would have arisen over time with inadequate schooling, more crime and so on. How would this have effected everything?

6) If 35% of abortions were done by Republicans, would these people have been mad if there were NO abortions? Would this affect their voting if say a democrat suddenly supported abortion in this abortion-free America?

7) And as Ha! Sheesh said, parents who wouldn't have had further children if they couldn't of had an abortion (and thus would have cancelled out the effect in population overall).

There are more than enough intangable factors to show that this article is a mostly meaningless partisan piece of propaganda.

---

As for the idea that there is a group of people called 'Liberals' and a group called 'Conservatives', it's too bad that people think this way. Not only do most people not know what those groups even mean (and what they represent on the political spectrum as by an article I recently read I think on CNN or NYTimes which said that the Republicans were wasting their time by bashing 'liberals' cause most people don't know what that is), but from those who do, the idea that these groups exist at all is something that bugs me.

People should vote based on policies that they think will help their country or where they live. Not some abstract idea about 'liberals' which I'm sure many 'Republicans' would think as tree-hugging lazy poor people who want to live off the public purse, and 'liberals' think all 'republicans' are money hungry jesus-toting warmongers. But such is politics I guess. People would rather vote Republican, support tax cuts which are damaging the country (and really only benefitting 1% of the population), and damaging foreign policy than actually look at the facts because they hate 'tree-huggers'. Oh well.

-Epi

[Epinephrine]

Once again, you fail to argue this point- this one is saying, the children they kill outnumber the people they've converted to Liberalism. They're losing voters. And since voters are becoming more and more independant (which you can find tons of articles on, google it), that also makes them more and more vulnerable to the Liberal persuasion.

Look, lets bring this to SS terms. Let's say you want Warportal, Talon, Windreaper, Mantra-Slider, Lemon, and Dock> to join Pallies. Now, there's not a 100% chance that they will join, but what if i killed them? Then the potential is gone. And that's what this article is saying. It's saying, the dems are fucking themselves over by killing potential voters.

Liberalism? Liberal persuasion? Geez you talk as if it's a cult or something. Scary.

And as for your analogy what the hell are you talking about. Sure if you kill them there's a 100% chance they won't join Pallies, there's also a 100% chance they don't join Disoblige either.

-Epi

[Brink]

If democrats are dying, it must be a good thing. Hooray for abortion.

[Fit of Rage]

I hate the Republicans because of their slanderous political advertising, and the Democrats don't have an agenda that strikes me as beneficial.

!register=independent

[Cylor]

You might as well throw your vote away if you're going to do that, Fit.

[Richard Creager]

We should make a supspace party and pick two people to vote upon and get more votes than Mickey Mouse.

[dchao]

Think of how many more kids could be playing SS

[Squeezer]

We should make a supspace party and pick two people to vote upon and get more votes than Mickey Mouse.

WHATTTTTTT!!!!!???? *SPLAT* that was the noise of me having and Anuerism

[Fit of Rage]

We should make a supspace party and pick two people to vote upon and get more votes than Mickey Mouse.

Yeah, unfortunately about 66-70% (yes, that's a random figure out of my ass, I still don't care) of the American SS population is under 18 and can't vote.