We all know that abortion rights tend to be popular at a nationwide level—even more so following the Dobbs decision. Most polling suggests that around 60% of Americans think abortion should be legal all or most of the time.
But nationwide doesn't matter since Dobbs made abortion a state matter. Abortion is now banned, or mostly banned, in a dozen states throughout the South plus a handful elsewhere.
But are abortion bans popular even in these states? This is where things get curious. We don't have a lot of state polling, but we do have one comprehensive poll: a survey of all 50 states done in February by PRRI. Here's what it looks like:
I can't say for sure how reliable these numbers are, but they sure seem to suggest that abortion bans are not especially popular even in deep red states. In only four states is there even a bare majority that thinks abortion should be banned all or most of the time.
Other states are even weaker. In Texas, one of the most aggressive states to ban abortion, only 40% of residents think abortion should be illegal all or most of the time. In Florida it's only 33%. No wonder Ron DeSantis dithers so much about acknowledging the abortion restrictions he signed into law.
In all of these states there are conservative Republican majorities against abortion, and obviously that's the only thing extremist Republican legislators care about. Nevertheless, this polling explains why pro-abortion referendums often succeed even in red states: when everyone votes, they have pretty clear majority support. It's only when the zealots can ignore half their constituents that abortion bans have a chance. Unfortunately, history suggests they can keep ignoring them for a good long while.
Of the 20 states listed in that chart, in the instance of Texas vs Pennsylvania (sought to reject 2020 Electoral Votes of 4 states), 15 had attorneys general filing amici curiae briefings supporting Texas. Those which did not were
Texas - the plaintiff,
Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa - which did not file either way, and
Georgia - which was one of the 4 states targeted by the suit
I think you will often see an activist base try to pull an entire party to extremes most members don't really want. I've seen it in all countries where I lived for ten years or more, particularly France. In the latter the two traditional big parties are shadows of their former selves as they went too far (under Sarkozy and Fillon for the right, under Hamon for the left). Moderates had other places to go, and did. (Not that they won't ultimately return to the fold, particularly to the traditional right which didn't radicalize as much as the left.)
There is no such third option in the two-party system of the US, and that's why the GOP dares play with fire. It's also why it keeps screaming that the Dems are commies: to make moderate conservatives think extremists rule both parties, not just their own. This is why, as a progressive myself, I think progressives in the USA should shut up for a while and let people like Biden be the Democratic face. Or, if Biden's too old, Klobuchar. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to mop up the Republican Party, and not just on the abortion issue.
Israel, too.
Good advice but they seem to love the sounds of their own voices shouting into the wind.
The question is: Why does the GOP govern in such a radical way (i.e., extremely out of line with the public, even its own voters)? It's not just abortion, btw. It's guns, rights, economics, and a host of other issues.
I doubt that what leftist activists do matters that much. I blame media for gross malpractice all the time, but I don't know if that's decisive either.
The Republican Party is a radical party because it can get away with it. There is no symmetry between the parties. We are not split 50/50 as a country. The playing field is not level. It is lopsided in favor of the GOP.
When the structure of government tilts to your advantage to such a degree, you abandon efforts to win the median voter. You don't need to win majorities. You just need to win in the right places.
It helps that the GOP does not have ambitious goals for its agenda. It'll settle for a big tax cut every 15 or 20 years. Other than that, all it wants to do is stop the other side from getting anything done. Even in the minority and without the White House, the GOP has virtual veto power through Congress and the courts.
A few of the built-in advantages for the GOP:
-Electoral College (3 WH wins despite losing pop vote 7 of 8 times)
-Senate (82 of 100 seats from states making up < 50% of US population)
-Senate filibuster (40 votes can block anything)
-House (gerrymandering; a bipartisan problem but GOP edge)
-Supreme Court (last time a D-appointed majority: 1969)
-States (labs of autocracy where the map is red)
And our new recurring precedent (if approved):
-Debt ceiling hostage-taking (tyranny of the minority)
Dems' advantage is its majority, but voting habits are spotty and all of the above negates most of what Ds can do.
The optimistic view is that the GOP is so extreme that it has lost the young and future generations of voters will turn against it.
The pessimistic view is that the GOP won't need new voters. It controls enough levers of power to achieve its goals -- to obstruct progress when in the minority, and to take more power when the other party gets blamed for GOP sabotage.
>The Republican Party is a radical party because it can get away with it.
Yup - this. Don't know how to get away from this. I fear it will get worse.
Here's the deal though, wouldn't matter one wit if the more progressive party members kept quiet, and actually they are for the most part when the circumstances call for unity. The GOP's typical modus operandi is to nutpick the craziest things they can find and pin them on the entire party no matter how tenuous the connection is. Meanwhile being super cautious turns off voters who get frustrated that the party doesn't care about the issues important to them. What used to work in the 1970s and 1980s even into the 1990s doesn't work as the parties have neatly aligned into their current states.
Have you considered that, although abortion bans aren't popular, protecting abortion rights isn't very high on the priority list of those who are in the soft middle of the political spectrum?
Recent voting rates suggest abortion rights ARE high on many folk's lists. That, and Trump-backed candidates, which have definitely mobilized the opposition.
This is pretty much what Kevin is pointing out. People who really opposed abortion will crawl over broken class to reward/punish politicians on that issue, whereas those who tend to be more pro-choice are more middle-of-the-road types who will tell pollsters they want fewer reproductive restrictions, but are either 1. less likely to vote, or 2. have other political priorities, like taxes or the environment.
If we were governed by polls, we'd be Sweden. But as it is, we're governed by the people elected by about 30-40% of the most motivated voters and the corporations/PACS that fund them. Not exactly the healthiest democracy, imho.
"If we were governed by polls, we'd be Sweden."
In the US, polls consistently show people think the government is too big and has too much power. So we diverge from Sweden here.
I'm with Salamander - there's been ample evidence that the soft middle got very riled up and scared about abortion bans when they realized what they meant for getting appropriate healthcare. Numerous elections since the overturn have tilted towards candidates promising to protect abortion rights.
That's a hard thing to discern from voting, however, because voting is often a matter of turning out your base, more than anything else, especially in midterms.
In a bunch of elections since in Virginia it's been front and center - in the special elections turnout for Democrats was of the charts not even close and the special caucus to replace the late rep McEachin the conservative pro-life Democrat lost big time to the current rep Jennifer McClellan who is very much pro-choice.
Nevertheless, this polling explains why pro-choice referendums often succeed even in red states
FIFY
Most of the South does not allow initiatives or referendums. Florida is an exception.
I just checked and to my surprise there are 24 states with no statewide initiatives, though they may allow local initiatives. Many Southern states, but liberal stalwarts like NY and VT as well.
Initiatives and referendums didn't become popular in the US until after a bunch of states had already joined the Union with constitutions that didn't allow for them. (You have to remember: originally the US didn't trust "regular people" to even vote for their own representatives... restricting the vote to just white landowning men. In a world where the state legislature doesn't trust a good 3/4 of the population to vote, it's not shocking that the state legislature also didn't trust the remaining 1/4 of the population that did have voting privileges to override its lawmaking and budget-setting prerogatives either.)
Almost every state east of the Mississippi doesn't allow them, or only allows them in limited circumstances.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum
Maryland at least does allow them. Among other things that's how SSM passed In 2012, and last year, recreational marijuana.
Abortion bans are popular when they don't apply to you, just like tax increases and spending cuts.
When the need arises, abortion is much more popular.
Looking at that list, it's like seeing a list of "which states do young non-Mormon people not want to end up living in?" You have to get all the way down to maybe Texas or Georgia to find a state that actually isn't experiencing brain drain.
About that brain drain in Texas. Their state legislature passed a ban on DEI efforts at their public universitates. Fewer out of state students. More local students choosing to get their education in another state..
Yeah I'm not saying young non-Mormon people should be looking to relocate or stay in Texas. I'm just saying that Texas (and Georgia) still seem to be attracting young non-Mormon people there, despite all their efforts to make their states as inhospitable as possible to anyone who isn't already a white cisgender heterosexual Christian, perhaps because The Powers That Be are (for now) still creating good paying jobs in Austin, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc.
Support for restrictions on abortion varies dramatically based on the question asked. Pew has some very informative polling. For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
In general, very few want a complete ban - but most want some restrictions. The whole "legal all or most of the time / illegal all or most of the time" dichotomy is misleading, because the true believers on both ends of the spectrum make a relatively small proportion of the whole.
With respect to the FL ban after 6 weeks, per the Pew link above, about 50% say abortion at 6 weeks should be legal (either because they don't think timing matters or because they think 6 weeks is too early). That percentage is almost certainly much lower in FL. So this notion that when everyone votes, the bans lose, is just horseshit.
I really believe that polling on this is misleading because folks do not have a clear understanding about abortion due to the fire hose of misinformation being put out. Now that groups wanting to protect women's rights are speaking up and women are telling their stories folks might realize that later abortions are all due to tragic happenings where the fetus isn't viable and the mother's health is in danger.
As it becomes painfully apparent that the choice is all or none, more and more folks are getting onboard with the realization that the state should not be involved in banning abortion at all, just regulate it as you would any other medical procedure.
The issue is the non fanatics are not single issue abortion voters. They might disapprove of the bans but voting in Democrats will bring a bunch more stuff they don't want
I think the great resorting of voters into the modern day coalitions mean there's very, very, very few voters who are against abortion bans yet for the other white supremacy nonsense of the modern GOP. Both the voter of which you speak and the candidate they would vote for are rapidly vanishing.
When the population is evenly divided, legislators have little choice but to "ignore half their constituents". They can either ignore the half that want abortion tightly restricted, or the half that don't want abortion tightly restricted.
The dynamic here very much goes in the 'arguments for top-two elections' column.