The gallup poll is an outlier... (4.00 / 2)

Their party ID for the poll was 32% republican and 32% democrat.  Three weeks prior, democrats had a 9 point advantage...

If you believe that currently, the party ID's of both parties have suddenly, without warning, become EXACTLY EVEN, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Sadly, we won't be able to see another Gallup poll on this issue for another year.

Hopefully, it will turn out to be fools gold for the right, and they will once again overreach on this issue...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:39:05 AM UTC

not just gallup (4.00 / 2)

as i noted in the post, there was a shift in the other polls on the subject, too.

you are correct that tthe gallup party id numbers show thta poll is flawed, and that the preponderance of polling evidence still shows a pro-choice nation. However, all polls show movement toward the pro-life / anti-choice position.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:15:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Increasing polarization? (2.00 / 2)

...this trend is a sign of increasing polarization, in that differing ethnic, religion, and partisan demographic groups are moving increasingly far away from each other on this topic.

So Obama has given away the store to Republicans on virtually every issue, under the pretense of promoting "bipartisanship," and after so many concessions, including the largest tax-cut in the history of the United States, the outcome so far is...

Increasing polarization?

Harharharhar!!!

It really makes you wonder why some of us were so worried about the prospect of Obama in the White House, as in...

"Can't sleep, clowns will eat me."

But we fell asleep anyway, and clowns immediately ate us.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:50:22 AM UTC

I think this is a bad issue to think of in binary terms (4.00 / 1)

I suppose part of that is because it's not easy to digest info like cross-tabs over time.  There's a tendency to do as the cited study does and lump "legal in all cases" with "legal in most cases" and put "illegal in all/most cases" together.

I was pointing out elsewhere that they do the same thing with polls on torture.  It's put as people who think that torture is sometimes/often justified vs. people who think that torture is rarely/never justified because that makes the numbers work out to make the population divided.  But if you are someone who believes torture is "never" justified, do you think that someone who believes that torture is "rarely" justified is more like you or more like someone who believes that torture is "sometimes" justified.

When I look at numbers for public opinion on abortion, I don't think of it as pro-life vs pro-choice, I think of it as a mushy middle majority that believes in legal abortion with some restrictions, between the extremes of abortion being always or never illegal.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:53:33 AM UTC

Well I never thought of myself as "mushy" (4.00 / 1)

"bloviating" maybe, but not mushy, LOL.

Anway, abortion is one of the few issues on which I clearly digress from progressive doctrine. I think it should be banned sometime in the second tri (and without question the third tri), and the gov't can hand out RU486 like it's vitamin C in the first.

And you're right, most people in America are somewhere in the middle of the debate, and have been for decades. Despite war & peace, boom & bust, generational change, the rise and fall of Barry Manilow, etc, most Americans have come down the middle on the issue of abortion.

Now I can't comment on these polls, but I suspect there are two trends that are strengthening that middle ground even further: 1) the growth of Hispanics in the US, and 2) the generation of women who (in their youth) viscerally equated abortions with equality is slowly losing its political clout (already moving into the golden years). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a ban in the third tri sometime in the next 10 or 15 years.  

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:28:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should have put "mushy middle" in quote marks (4.00 / 2)

It's a wide middle.  I can say that most believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.  I suspect a majority think it should be illegal if you wanted an abortion for sex selection (say you were pregnant with a girl and wanted a boy), but I haven't seen any numbers on it.  In general, I think the majority supports a right to abortion for health reasons, but not for non-health reasons.  One can probably affect public opinion towards abortion by changing public perception of what percentage of abortions are done for "non-health" reasons.

I would be surprised if there were any major changes in abortion law anytime soon, though, considering that parental notification for minors tends to poll at 70+% and that isn't law as far as I know.  The pro-choice diehards have been a lot more effective than the pro-life diehards at getting their way.  Of course, that's because the pro-choice side has legal precedent on its side, which trumps public opinion.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:20:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (4.00 / 2)

When it comes to forced childbirth, like torture, there is no "mushy middle."

There may be people who lack the courage of their own convictions (for example, they support forced childbirth but can't bring themselves to think through the implications of that position) but that only means they wish they were on the side of the angels, not that they actually are.

The way to prove this is simple, just ask them exactly what are these "restrictions" they believe in? They quickly show their true colors since the "restrictions" always boil down to only a handful -- the government should force women and girls through pregnancy and childbirth when it is non-fatal, when they are underage or they consented to sex.

Like I said, most definitely not on the side of the angels.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my gut feeling (4.00 / 7)

is that the anti-choice movement has become more savvy in their messaging.

They no longer put lots of resources in protests outside abortion clinics (according to many friends who work for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa).

I don't know about other parts of the country, but "Pro-Life Across America" has paid for tons of billboards in the Des Moines area during the past year. These all have photos of an adorable baby, along with a simple slogan, such as:

FRAGILE

Fe-tus (Lat.) Little one

Embryos are tiny babies!

ADOPTION: 2 million couples wait

At the bottom of every billboard, it says "Pro-Life Across America" and "Heartbeat 18 days after conception"

In my opinion, this is effective messaging. I could easily see a small percentage of people becoming more likely to identify themselves as "pro-life" after repeated exposure to this kind of advertising.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:06:46 AM UTC

In which case, if true (4.00 / 1)

then it further confirms my believe that whether or not we're getting more conservative, we are definitely getting more stupid. And, I'm guessing (but don't have any number to back it up), that stupid tracks with conservative. Or authoritarian conservatism.

Not that "smart" people aren't susceptible to slick marketing and messaging, or can't be conservative--even of the authoritarian sort--but "stupid" people, I think, tend to be much more are much more susceptible to slick marketing and messaging, lacking the critical skills or even awareness that makes smart people smart.

There's a reason that the likes of Reagan and Bush II won, and part (but certainly not all, e.g. inherited racism, selfishness) of it is, I think, how we've gradually become collectively and individually dumber--i.e. less intellectually sophisticated, critical, knowledgeable and curious. Which made us susceptible to nonsense like "Morning in America" and "Compassionate Conservatism". Which, I think, would translate into specific policy areas, like abortion, or torture (hey, it works! it kept us safe! tastes great! less filling! we do it to our troops!).

Sometimes the stupid is so vast, it literally hurts.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 07:47:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama did the same thing (4.00 / 1)

His campaign was far more about branding and framing than it ever was about ideas.  Hence why, when he was elected with a massive mandate, he didn't in fact have a mandate to do anything.  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:19:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure he had a mandate! (0.00 / 0)

He had a mandate for "change"! Dude, why are you such a hater?!?

Heh.

/snark

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 21:13:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plus the semantics are in favor of "pro-life" (4.00 / 2)

To oppose such is...what? "Anti-Life"?  

The "Pro-Choice" term is far less distinct. It doesn't even convey a sense of the issue. Less effective, despite the highly negative "Anti-Choice" option. Abortion rights supporters began to lose the battle of language when they started to use the "Pro-choice" term.

Given my preference, I'd like to use words that actually describe the issue. You know, Pro- and Anti-abortion rights.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 13:12:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I prefer (4.00 / 1)

forced childbirth versus consensual childbirth.

It has the advantage of putting the issue into context with the larger arc of progressivism and history. Just like we had to fight for consensual sex (making rape illegal) and consensual marriage (despite what the wingnuts say about gay marriage, consensual heterosexual marriage was actually a far more radical step) the fight continues for consensual chidlbirth.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:39:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see your point (0.00 / 0)

But, unlike the other issues (rape and forced marriage) it is more difficult to see the women as the victims of an "unenlightened" society in the abortion debate. There's no simple way around the idea that there is another living being involved in this debate. The fetus. Its not like our society does not have the capacity to accept death as a "positive" thing. Soldiers kill in our name, but we don't refer to such as "murder". Our society sees a value in sending our soldiers off to kill other soldiers. Even capital punishment has been accepted (however grudgingly) by our society. Few call the juries, laywers, and judges "murderers".

It seems to me that we, as a society, have to step up a support those women that choose to end their pregnancies by aborting the fetus. Its a deeper issue than simply saying, "yeah, OK, you can choose to do what you want concerning childbirth.". Those who choose not to participate in forced childbirth need to know that such a decision is supported by their community.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 15:08:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I've learned as a political consultant (4.00 / 5)

is to never ever trust polling on the abortion issue.  I truly believe its the issue area when people are most likely to lie to pollsters.

---

by: Marylander @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:09:41 AM UTC

Especially when it's the sort of issue (4.00 / 4)

Where they might hold one position in theory, but in practice might hold the exact opposite, if it affected them personally, as this issue has.

Slightly OT, but not entirely, but I happen to also believe that a lot of people who claim to be in favor of torture, especially only in "special cases" and only reluctantly, would, if confronted face to face with its reality, immediately reverse their stance. Our society has become very good at shielding people from the reality of certain policies, through language, images and ideas. No doubt more than a few people on the right have focused grouped "Acceptable Torture", like "Clean Coal" and "Compassionate Conservative".

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 07:52:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also (4.00 / 3)

they ask the question backwards.

Instead of asking "under what circumstances should abortion be legal" they need to do a poll that asks "under what conditions should the government be able to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their wills?"

Put ti that way, and people start to get it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:18:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Or maybe: "under what circumstances is a woman's physical body public property over which she has no control?"  

Really, the underlying premise of not allowing women to make their own private medical decisions is deeply disturbing. What are we, the Taliban?

Abortion without apology or justification. Don't need no stinkin' permission, especially by mob rule. Obama's call for "middle ground" is silly, meaningless la-la meant to appeal to X-tianists and other authoritarian fetishists with an interest in denying full agency to women.  

---

by: CMYK @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 22:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Same argument can be made for overturning the ban on trans-fat (0.00 / 0)

in NYC. Who is the government to tell me what I can, and cannot, ingest?  Certainly, this argument can be extended to illicit drugs, too. Its my body, I should control what chemicals are put into it. Same argument can be used for people who want to refuse medical treatments on the bases of their religious beliefs.

I like it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 13:28:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing to see here ... (4.00 / 2)

Voters express roughly a fourteen percent preference now for Democratic party, over the Republican party. Gallup still polls Republicans and Democrats equally. Republicans have become seriously polarized, which means they are much more likely to vote against choice than Democrats are, which firms up the anti-choice vote without firming up the pro-choice vote.  This is like taking a shotgun to salt a played out goldmine you want to sell to the local rubes.

I can see a minor argument for a possible opinion change: Abortion rates have apparently declined over the last ten years. Out of sight; out of mind -- and our opinions tend to moderate a little, when not as many of us see a public problem. I can imagine that some of us who have come of age in the last ten years, might hold more moderate opinions than they would if birth control weren't as readily available as it is.

"Out of sight out of mind" is the real reason that Bush didn't reinstate the Draft. Since draft-age men weren't called to fight in Iraq; they didn't protest the war. Without protests, the anti-war movement took longer to make itself heard.  This extended the time that Bush had to steal everything that wasn't nailed down. If Bush had instituted a new draft, the Iraq war would have lasted six months and his administration would have lasted two years.

I know a lot of this is obvious, but our problems today happen to be obvious.

b73

---

by: scribble @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:10:30 AM UTC

this is not true about the anti-war movement (0.00 / 0)

the biggest mobilization in world history happened on the eve of the iraq war.  then, when the war started, the movement petered out.  why that happened is an interesting question, and may have a lot to do with the fact that we didn't have a draft, but the idea that it 'took longer' for the movement to 'make itself heard' doesn't square with the facts.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:28:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Independents and moderate/liberal Republicans (0.00 / 0)

One thing I noticed is that you say "non-Democrats" and I'm not sure if you're doing that just to avoid saying outright that there was a shift among "independents".

One possible interpretation is that the shift came among independents and moderate/liberal Republicans and that caused shifts among white and Protestant demographics, if independents and mod/lib Republicans are disproportionately white Protestants.  Does anyone know if that is the case?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:14:08 AM UTC

The shift amongst republicans was more pronounced (0.00 / 0)

than the shift amongst independents.  There was a shift in both, though.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:21:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems plausible to me (4.00 / 10)

that one component of the shift is the tack taken in recent times by many pro-choice Democrats to talk of abortion as if it is something very much to be avoided if at all possible, and to suggest that it should be entertained only after a woman consults their family and clergy. Isn't the underlying message that abortion is morally very suspect?

While that sort of talk is great for making social conservatives comfortable with a politician, it basically leaves no one on the political scene who is willing to speak up for the positive virtue of abortion in many circumstances.

Years ago, pro-choice advocates were not so mealy-mouthed in their support of abortion as an alternative. On an ambiguous issue like abortion, if one side is calling it murder, and the other side is pointing out how it can free a woman's life in certain circumstances, then the center is defined in one way. If the pro-choice side is only saying, yes, abortion is a really terrible thing, but sometimes a woman with the full support of her family and clergy might nonetheless choose to have it performed on her, then the center is set very much more toward the pro-life side.

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:12:59 AM UTC

thank you (0.00 / 0)

that one component of the shift is the tack taken in recent times by many pro-choice Democrats to talk of abortion as if it is something very much to be avoided if at all possible, and to suggest that it should be entertained only after a woman consults their family and clergy. Isn't the underlying message that abortion is morally very suspect?

---

by: dblhelix @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 10:55:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i agree that democratic politicians should be more unequivocal (4.00 / 2)

in their messaging on abortion.  but i think the 'non-parliamentary left' (to use a european term) is also majorly dropping the ball on this issue.  why isn't the pro-choice movement more of a grassroots social movement?  why aren't we putting advertisements out like the anti-choice folks?  and don't say that it's because abortion is legal, because it is severely restricted / unavailable in huge swaths of the country, and for large numbers of people.  why aren't we telling the story of what it was like when abortion was illegal?  why doesn't the whole country know the story of the jane abortion service?  

we can't just pin all of our hopes on democratic politicians on this issue.  the anti-choicers certainly don't rely on republican politicians to get their message out. heck, bush, perhaps the most anti-choice president since roe, talked in vague terms about 'a culture of life.'  even he wouldn't say that abortion should be illegal because it was tantamount to murder.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:34:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is nowhere near as much money (4.00 / 1)

backing NARAL and NOW as there is backing the churches pushing the pro-life crap.  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:50:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mmhmm that is true -- but where does all their money come from? (0.00 / 0)

middle class individual donors.  there are lots of people in this country, women in particular, who would put a few dollars a month down to keep abortion legal and accessible.  and there is plenty of money in wealthy suburban communities for this issue.  

NOW and NARAL are mostly playing an insiders game on abortion at this point.  either they need to change their tactics, or we need new grassroots organizations to take over organizing on the outside.

granted, a lot of the grassroots money out there goes to abortion service non-profits.  and that is money well spent.  but i think we need to be seriously considering a public relations push-back as well....    

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 21:34:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the risk of pulling stuff out of my own ass... (4.00 / 2)

I have to wonder whether such polls, to the extent that they aren't outliers, indicate that Americans are becoming, however marginally, more conservative or more authoritarian. I mean, is this more a reflection of these peoples' sincerely-held beliefs that abortion is wrong but should still be allowed, or that abortion is wrong and should not be allowed, because their own moral code is the correct one and should be imposed upon those who don't share it?

And seeing as the bulk of the shift appears to come from Repubs and conservatives, I have to wonder to what extent this is just a further reflection of the increasing rightward shift of the right, upon having lost two successive elections so dramatically and humiliatingly, and the resulting state of near-hysteria within its ranks. Are even moderate Repubs, who might previously have been somewhat ok with abortion, moving further rightward, as a way of asserting their difference from the left and indicating their displeasure?

Or is Obama also responsible for this, in how he's basically captured much of the left, and is now slowly shifting it rightward with his center-right policies and speeches about faith and responsibility and civility (i.e. stop being so mean and polarizing, you DFH's, it's so uncool)?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 07:34:55 AM UTC

I would call my self "anti-criminalization" (4.00 / 2)

rather than "pro-choice".

Abortion-as-contraception is another example of unrestrained id; but much like ruining one's life with drugs, I wouldn't send the police after those who did.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:02:50 AM UTC

But anti-criminalization would lead to a major difference betweeen the options (4.00 / 2)

given to rich women and poor women. Might as well make abortion illegal, since it is the same difference. Abortion should be medically available to all. The specter of women having abortion after abortion shouldn't rule the debate. To my mind, the legal status of abortion should be left up to women to decide. The lack of reproductive freedom has too long been used by men to oppress women.

---

by: jcr @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 18:10:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think this indicates a failure in polling (0.00 / 0)

Update: Gallup's party identification numbers (an even amount of Democrats and Republicans) do not affect the other three polls. While that flaw in the Gallup poll confirms that the nation is still more pro-choice than pro-life (as the other three polls all show), collectively the four polls discussed here do show a trend toward the pro-life / anti-choice position.

This does however give a basis on which to question the other polling.  

It looks like people are shifting on labels and the polling is trying to correct based on the wrong amount.  They probably underestimated the shift.

So all the polls overstate an increase in abortion numbers because the Republican party has become more pure and the Democrat party more moderate.

Thus instead of an increase in polarization it is actually the opposite.  The moderates of the Republican party are now independents because Republicans don't want no moderates.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:08:31 AM UTC

yeah, but the shift is in the wrong direction amongst (0.00 / 0)

independents as well.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:38:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my theory on the numbers (4.00 / 1)

With Obama in office, Americans have the assurance that the right to choose won't be taken away so they also have the luxury of being pious on the subject.

I'm pretty much an absolutist on abortion.  There are many things worse than not being born.  Take this, for example:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/20...

---

by: Susan S @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:34:20 AM UTC

That's a dangerous assumption (4.00 / 2)

I could see Obama getting blindsided by his SC choice on this issue.  His non-partisan approac could easily lead to him making an anti-Souter mistake.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:24:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree more (4.00 / 2)

Sometimes I think we need to go backwards in order for people to appreciate having choice.  I especially see it as being necessary for women under the age of 50.

---

by: Susan S @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:29:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the idea that a center-left female judge (0.00 / 0)

would decide to become the 5th vote against roe is pretty hard to believe.  

i'm all for trying to make people understand how fragile abortion rights are right now, but i don't see the point of raising unrealistic fears.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:41:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Souter was supposed to be the center-right judge (4.00 / 1)

that would solidify the Scalia/Rehnquist cabal on the court.  Taking these things for granted and playing a nonideological game of qualifications is a dangerous prospect.  Maybe Obama won't.  But he hasn't exactly engendered a ton of confidence in me thus far.  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:47:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok. i guess i can only say, 'we shall see.' (0.00 / 0)

but i don't see him 'playing a nonideological game of qualifications.'  that is what all the hoopla about 'empathy' is about -- he signaled that he wasn't going to leave ideology out of the equation.  

i still hold to my question, though -- are you seriously proposing that a center-left female SC nominee is going to up and become the 5th vote against roe?    

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 21:37:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All I'm saying (0.00 / 0)

Is that i'm  concerned that we might not end up with someone who is actually center-left. People's behaviour changes when they get a lifetime appointment.  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 22:23:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't think people's behavior changes much at all ... (0.00 / 0)

souter was an unknown, and the right was widely skeptical of him as a result. it is only because the court is so far right that he was such a reliable vote for the left side.  

but you still haven't really addressed my main question: are you really saying that a woman who is known to be center-left (as all of the proposed candidates are) is going to decide after getting  a lifetime appointment to become the 5th vote against roe?  because that really borders on the absurd, if you ask me.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 23:38:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"given that... non-whites did not shift pro-life at all"? (4.00 / 1)

according to this poll, the entire population shifted -8%.

whites shifted -8%.

Therefore, non-whites also shifted -8%.  If they "did not shift" then the general population shift would be less.

if blacks shifted by +1%, that just means hispanics, asians, etc, shifted harder against abortion.

---

by: interested @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 14:21:20 PM UTC

Polarization (4.00 / 2)

Nate Silver has a similar take, although he shrugs the poll off in the end:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

After eight years of constant excitement among right-to-lifers about getting that fifth vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, that prospect is now pretty distant. And instead, Americans have been exposed to a constant wailing of alarms about Obama being "the most pro-abortion president in history," determined, somehow, to expand abortion rights. That Republicans and Republican-leaning independents might polarize on the subject isn't terribly surprising or necessarily significant.

Tea parties, gun shows, and the hysteria of talk radio are signs the far right is becoming radicalized.  On social issues, the hysteria may spill over to more moderate Republican leaners, who are bracing themselves for a prochoice initiative from the White House.

Some shifting in polling amoung Republican demographics is to be expected.  Right now, the tea party, gun crazy paranoia is pretty limited in effect, despite the huge promotion of these themes over talk radio and Fox News.  The overall effect is increasing marginalization.  Whether these themes spread to more voters is probably in large part dependent on the long term success of the administration in righting the economy.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 15:25:49 PM UTC

What Silver's analysis (0.00 / 0)

as well as Chris Bowers' fails to take into account is that, on virtually all other issues, in this election cycle, the trend has been in the liberal direction, precisely because the right and what it stands for has been so discredited. Where is the like movement on economic issues, or other issues, given that Obama has also, quite absurdly, been accused of being a "socialist" and of being soft on terrorism?

As for the movement being among Republicans and Republican leaning Independents, well, where else would you expect to see such movement so far to the right? Silver's and Bowers' "explanations" explain nothing.

The basic fact remains in need of an explanation: more people are pro-life today than pro-choice; this is unique in history since, I gather, Roe v Wade itself. The shift is very considerable. And it is a shift to the right that stands in great contrast to the apparent shifts to the left on all other issues.

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 18:03:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nate Silver (0.00 / 0)

I mistakenly linked to Silver's site, and identified the poster as Silver.  Here is Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

He thinks there is no shift.

If there is a shift, it is occuring among conservative voters.  It is possible that the consolidation among conservatives is offset by a liberalization of other demographics on other issues.  The same consolidation could be occuring among conservative voters on gay marriage and economics, but it is offset by bigger shifts leftward in other groups.  We can't determine that unless we look at the same groups, and how they shift on these other issues.  The fact that abortion hasn't been much in the news, except in the echo chamber, may explain a one-sided shift, where other issues that have had greater coverage have shifted in both directions.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 18:24:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your reply makes little sense (0.00 / 0)

according to the recent polls, there has been a very real shift toward the pro-life side of the debate. It doesn't so much matter where that shift has taken place; on balance, in aggregate, the public has shifted on this point.

That is what has not happened on other issues -- issues on which Obama and the Democrats have been as much subject to attacks from the right as on abortion.

The only differentiating feature you offer up for the abortion issue is that it hasn't been so much in the news. But if it hasn't, why speculate that sentiment has shifted because of some supposed attack on Obama as the most pro-abortion President?

You talk as though there's some natural compensation on the issue of abortion because on all the other issues the public has shifted left. That's just a mechanism you're just contriving for the occasion. There's no reason to believe that these issues should naturally "compensate" for one another, achieving some kind of cosmic balance. In general, it would seem to make far more sense for the public to shift on all issues in the same direction, as they start to listen to the other side of the aisle. I believe that that is mostly what polls have shown in the past.  

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:48:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Logic (0.00 / 0)

First, the shift has been in conservative-leaning demographics, and there has been no movement among other groups.  That is undisputed.

Second, we are all generally aware that the total population has moved leftward on certain other issues.  That is undisputed.  I have not seen a breakdown of the demographics on these other issues, so I can't reach a firm conclusion on which groups have shifted left or right on those issues: however, I would expect at least some rightward shift among certain conservative-leaning groups, given the level of propaganda.

Of course it matters where the shift has taken place.  I don't see how you can just announce it doesn't.

There are only a limited number of ways this could happen:

1.  There are different dynamics affecting the conservative-leaning groups on abortion than on other issues.  In other words, this group of conservative-leaning voters is shifting to the left or remaining the same on guns, taxes, gay marriage, etc. but for some reason, abortion views are changing among this group.

2.  There are different dynamics affecting other groups on other issues which accounts for the fact that total numbers are shifting leftward on other issues, but that conservative-leaning voters are pulling the center on abortion.

Either one of these is speculation.  However, the fact that certain issues have been in the media is likely going to shift public opinion.  For example, the Miss California controversy may have some effect on gay marriage numbers.  That issue might raise the level of passion or commitment on either the pro or anti side.

My hypothesis is that the conservative base is becoming more isolated, and turning even more away from mainstream culture, and that the echo chamber is in hysteria mode.  This may have an effect on conservative-leaning voters, who are not the hardcore base.  If this were true, then it is entirely possible that gay marriage could shift to the left, because a wider audience is moving to the left on that issue, in numbers greater than conservative-leaning voters are moving the the right.  If this is the dynamic, one would expect to see issues that are the unique province of the echo chamber - guns and abortion at the moment - moving to the right among conservatives and staying the same among the general population.  

It is as speculative as any other theory.  However, it does make sense.

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:54:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

can we also add-in here the idea that (4.00 / 2)

the anti-choice message often has a subtle racist component, and that there may be some degree to which white republicans and some independents are starting to think, now that obama is president and people are talking a lot more about the future white plurality, rather than majority, that the possibility of 'white' fetuses being aborted is significantly more troubling?  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:44:59 PM UTC

Tom Delay would agree (4.00 / 2)

Delay blamed illegal immigration on abortion a while back.  I don't remember the exact quote (I'm at work and most of the links are blocked), but he was essentially saying that so many white people were getting abortions it was creating a labor shortage that could only be filled by scary brown people from another planet/country.

---

by: L Boom @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:15:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

exactly my point. there are a lot of anti-choicers (4.00 / 1)

who are freaked out about 'population' issues -- they talk a lot about europe, and how it is about to become a 'muslim continent' if (white) europeans don't start making more babies... the parallel in the united states is immigration from mexico.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:45:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you seen "Lake of Fire"? (0.00 / 0)

Pretty good documentary. One person interviewed spoke about one of the rabid anti-abortion advocates, and she said he doesn't particularly like kids, and doesn't particularly like women. I can't help feeling that the idea of "hating freedom" actually applies to these people.

That being said, the images of aborted fetuses are pretty horrific. Really, I was filled with sadness after seeing them. This doesn't change my stance on the issue, however.  

---

by: jcr @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:32:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course they're horrifying (4.00 / 1)

that's the point. That's why they worship those images and can't get enough of them. They have to excite themselves to get into the frame of mind in which forced childbirth becomes justifiable.

Never mind that the VAST majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, on a fetus no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. And that any late term abortion such as those depicted in the pro-life porn is done only to save a woman's life. Pregnancy and childbirth are still the number one cause of death among women outside the first world, but they're not going to show that in a movie.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:45:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That would fit in (4.00 / 1)

with the "2 million adoptive parents waiting" billboard mentioned above.

Because the something like 10 million adoptable children waiting we already have in America today are proof positive that those those 2 million are only interested in white newborns, or else they wouldn't still be waiting.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:37:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

great point - i hadn't thought about that. (0.00 / 0)

not to downplay the serious difficulties that come with interracial adoption, but yes, this is quite revealing.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 21:41:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]