Well, I guess we sort of knew this was brewing. The Democratic Party’s question about whether to support anti-abortion candidates in order to win rural, red-leaning areas was settled this week and it has created a firestorm among the pro-aborts in the liberal bastions of the country. First, as Lauretta noted, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said they would not cut financial support to candidates who did not adhere to the party’s national platform stance on this issue. This is critical to win in states like Nebraska, and other areas where the party used to represent prior to the 2010 Tea Party wave. You can’t be a pro-abortion, anti-gun hippie in these areas. Even Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, knows this to be a reality, which was seen when he supported the failed mayoral candidacy of Heath Mello in Omaha, Nebraska. Mello supported an ultrasound bill when he served in the state’s legislature. That made him persona non grata with the far Left. That was in April, it’s now the official DCCC strategy. Even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) knows this is an issue where some latitude is required. Two of the most left wing members of Congress pretty much said that this isn't the hill for Democrats to die on for 2018 and beyond (via The Hill):
“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”
In taking the position, Luján and Democrats risk alienating liberals, as well as groups dedicated to promoting access to abortion and reproductive health services that represent the core of the party’s base.
“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”
“To pick up 24 [seats] and get to 218, that is the job. We’ll need a broad coalition to get that done,” Luján said. “We are going to need all of that, we have to be a big family in order to win the House back.”
Yeah, liberals are infuriated. You have Rosie O’Donnell saying that women should form their own party. Good luck with that pipe dream. Former DNC chairman and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said he might withhold support. That is not surprising, as he believes that the Democratic Party has no room for pro-lifers, though roughly 30 percent of Democrats identify as such. Democratic strategist Lis Smith knows that her party purity experiment is a fool’s errand.
Smith feels that this path will render her party to one that can only win elections in states that touch salt water. So far, the application of this attempt at liberal purity has yielded defeat after defeat for Democrats. While the Left may tout polls about abortion showing voters more favorable to the Democratic position, a) it doesn’t mean voters like it; b) voters may support the Roe v. Wade decision, but they favor stringent restrictions on the matter, including a ban on late-term abortion; and c) adding to the restriction part, they support, like Europe, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks into a pregnancy. That includes 60 percent of women. It’s not difficult: American voters really don’t like killing babies, but they’re pragmatic. Roe v. Wade may be the law of the land, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be regulations, nor does it mean that support for abortion has rabid-like enthusiasm, like in the hyper-progressive areas of America. Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews noted that the Democrats have moved way too far left on cultural issues, abortion being one of them. I doubt that this will change, and that Democrats are serious about retaking some parts of rural America back to retake Congress. The urban professional left is just too dogmatic.