Trump Blames Extreme Pro-Lifers for Republican Midterm Defeats
By Ramesh Ponnuru
January 2, 2023 2:02 PM

"It wasn't my fault that the Republicans didn't live up to expectations in the MidTerms," Trump posted yesterday. He added:

Quote:

---

I was 233-20! It was the "abortion issue," poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters. Also, the people that pushed so hard, for decades, against abortion, got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, & just plain disappeared, not to be seen again. Plus, Mitch stupid $'s!

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-blames-extreme-pro-lifers-for-republican-midterm-defeats/

Nothing is ever his fault. Truly disgusting.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump Blames Extreme Pro-Lifers for Republican Midterm Defeats
By Ramesh Ponnuru
January 2, 2023 2:02 PM

"It wasn't my fault that the Republicans didn't live up to expectations in the MidTerms," Trump posted yesterday. He added:

Quote:

---

I was 233-20! It was the "abortion issue," poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters. Also, the people that pushed so hard, for decades, against abortion, got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, & just plain disappeared, not to be seen again. Plus, Mitch stupid $'s!

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-blames-extreme-pro-lifers-for-republican-midterm-defeats/

---

He's too stupid to realize that the very reason he was ever elected was because so many evangelicals pinched their nose and voted for that ape for the Supreme Court appointments.

Trump is a Loser.

Also, being a constitutional orginalist is not culture war. Using the Supreme Court to pass legislation you could never get through the legislatures IS.

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

I'm waiting on whiterock & 4th

Osodecentx said:

---

I'm waiting on whiterock & 4th

---

dont wait on me.. My opinion isnt worth listening to, maybe JR will bless us with knowledge

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, and it was worth the price that was paid.

He Hate Me said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, and it was worth the price that was paid.

---

Will be curious how some of the TDSers weight in ...

He Hate Me said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, and it was worth the price that was paid.

---

Agreed

It was the single biggest issue for many voters .

And it was worth the price .

But I wonder how long it will remain in effect .

Canada2017 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, and it was worth the price that was paid.

---

Agreed

It was the single biggest issue for many voters .

And it was worth the price .

But I wonder how long it will remain in effect .

---

For a long time. The baby killer extremists cannot agree on a framework. Our resident pro-abortion here even favor post-birth abortion, so no way any regressive will agree to anything less ... and still not enough baby-killing-worshipping Democrats that would like zero regulation ... but once you've adopted "my body, my choice" and "no regulation of health care" then you can only support post-birth abortion.

A slight majority of Americans favor limited abortions, so the baby-killing fetish of the regressives still is very unpopular among most people.

Imagine if Americans didn't have to go to Asia, Africa or Russia to adopt children at great personal cost?

Another amazing creation of the Dems

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great.

Also no question that it increased the right kinds of turnout in the blue coalition. Dems used corporately funded 501c3 GOTV entities to hyper-focus on (among others) unmarried women voters, who are a lower-turnout demographic which that is STRONGLY pro-choice. Notably, they are not a "swing voter" demographic. IF they vote, they vote blue. They just have traditionally very low turnout rates. They are also not a terribly large demographic. But they can be a 6 digit number (a decisive number) in some swing states. Dems used the GOTV entities to ensure that very high percentages of those voters were identified, registered, and got ballots, then nagged them into voting via mail. It worked. And they voted blue by a 43 point margin. That, alone, was enough to cost the GOP the Senate, a governorship, etc.....

Now, IF, the GOP had mounted a similar type of effort focused on religious conservatives and pro-life voters.....well, the GOP turnout would have been elevated by 5-to-6-digit numbers in some swing states, and we'd be in celebration rather than castigation mode. But as it is, the need to blame Trump alone for the 2022 mid-term disappointment rules uber alles, so you gentlemen carry on with your stick & pinata routine for as long as you wish.

You're time would be better spent offering to help out with GOP mail-in voting operations, though.....

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, but I don't believe the people who pushed so hard against Roe v. Wade just plain disappeared.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, but I don't believe the people who pushed so hard against Roe v. Wade just plain disappeared.

---

but if they turned out normally, or maybe a few percentage points below normal while Dems figured out a way to over-perform in key pro-choice constituencies in key swing states........that pretty much fits what we see. We win the national vote, but narrowly lose a small number key races in swing states.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

Yes, but I don't believe the people who pushed so hard against Roe v. Wade just plain disappeared.

---

but if they turned out normally, or maybe a few percentage points below normal while Dems figured out a way to over-perform in key pro-choice constituencies in key swing states........that pretty much fits what we see. We win the national vote, but narrowly lose a small number key races in swing states.

---

That's true, but it doesn't mean much unless they turned out in lower numbers than other Republicans. I would expect the opposite, pro-lifers being highly committed in my experience. So it looks like he's just singling them out for blame arbitrarily.

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

I believe it had a huge impact as the youth vote went for Dems at a larger percent and a larger turnout than ever before. Without that decision the R's win going away.

Trump is fundamentally correct with his assessment.

Yet politically tone deaf to say out loud .

The guy simply can't stop tripping over his own mouth .

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Note that the poor performance in the midterm elections is now the fault of Independents, Never Trumpers, moderate Republicans, pro-life Republicans, and Mitch McConnell, but not Trump.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the Dobbs decision energize a lot of pro-abortion voters - not only in absolute voters but also in the energy of the grassroots campaigns. Given all the other headwinds, there might have been some voters stay home or much less energy focused on the mid-terms by the Democrat activists.

Ironically, I think the differences in places like Georgia between Kemp and Walker demonstrate the average voter's ignorance as well as the Republicans mis-handling of the issue. Who was the Senator that for completely irrational reasons proposed federal legislation that would have outlawed abortion federally? That was political malfeasance of epic proportions and just poured gasoline on the pro-abortion energy.

Ninety-percent of voters are stupid and think Dobbs outlawed abortion nationally, and their ire was at the federal government. Hence, most would take out their pro-abortion passion on federal not state candidates. Which is why the correct - intellectually and politically - position and messaging for the GOP should have been: "abortion is a state issue and should be decided by state legislatures. We do not support federal legislation and rely on the states to do the will of their people."

I think it is not unreasonable to think without Dobbs the GOP does markedly better in the mid-terms. I may be wrong, but I do not think Trump lives rent-free in the heads of the average voter like he does here and with regressives and regressive media.

That does not mean Trump's comments were not stupid, especially since that dumb**** hardly spent a dime supporting the idiots he endorsed.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

---

Yet the accusation tends to stick better when it's true.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

---

Bingo. Nailed it.

Wish whiterock understood this.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do you believe the Dobbs decision had an impact on the 2022 mid-terms?

---

double whammy.

Trump's comment was that pro-lifers, having gotten in Dobbs what they'd worked on for decades, didn't turn out as robustly as needed. There is some truth to that. GOP turnout was good, not great..

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible.

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

---

Yet the accusation tends to stick better when it's true.

---

the accusation becomes "truth" when enough people report it as such.. "truth not facts"- Biden

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

---

Bingo. Nailed it.

Wish whiterock understood this.

---

Whiterock does understand this. That's why he gives Trump credit for all the endorsements he made, this cycle and others. DeSantis was EXACTLY the kind of candidate which fell short this cycle - a right wing nut in a crowded field up against a statewide elected official endorsed by establishments. Trump endorsed him. DeSantis won a squeaker - 30k votes. Then he went on to prove the endorsement was well worth the risks. And what about another notable name in the news now? (check out second on the list). Another very Trumpy guy who went onto success. (but how we forget......)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-we-know-about-trumps-2018-midterm-endorsements-so-far

The Nevada candidate? That would be Adam Laxalt, a former statewide elected official IN NEVADA. The grand-son of a long time Senator OF NEVADA, and son of a longtime Senator of New Mexico. Laxalt was no Maga-head and only lost by 8k votes. If only McConnell would have used that $11.5m he dumped in to Alaska, where a Republican was gonna win no matter what, and put it all in NV, it would have likely made a <8k vote difference. Money moves needles....... McConnell OWNS Nevada, not Trump. Laxalt does not at all fit the "terrible Trump candidate" template. Neither did Henry McMaster, who won. Or a longish list of others who have won.

Trump picked a few bad candidates in 2022. He picked some good ones that lost tough races. And he picked some that won. On balance, he did worse than he did in other cycles, but his overall record is very positive. It's politics. You win some, you lose some. For every critique that can be made about him in 2022, there are at least an equal number of offseting "yeah, buts" over time (see para 1). I'm not making anything up here. Just providing perspective, facts for balance instead of spin for effect.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

---

Bingo. Nailed it.

Wish whiterock understood this.

---

Whiterock does understand this. That's why he gives Trump credit for all the endorsements he made, this cycle and others. DeSantis was EXACTLY the kind of candidate which fell short this cycle - a right wing nut in a crowded field up against a statewide elected official endorsed by establishments. Trump endorsed him. DeSantis won a squeaker - 30k votes. Then he went on to prove the endorsement was well worth the risks. And what about another notable name in the news now? (check out second on the list). Another very Trumpy guy who went onto success. (but how we forget......)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-we-know-about-trumps-2018-midterm-endorsements-so-far

The Nevada candidate? That would be Adam Laxalt, a former statewide elected official IN NEVADA. The grand-son of a long time Senator OF NEVADA, and son of a longtime Senator of New Mexico. Laxalt was no Maga-head and only lost by 8k votes. If only McConnell would have used that $11.5m he dumped in to Alaska, where a Republican was gonna win no matter what, and put it all in NV, it would have likely made a <8k vote difference. Money moves needles....... McConnell OWNS Nevada, not Trump. Laxalt does not at all fit the "terrible Trump candidate" template. Neither did Henry McMaster, who won. Or a longish list of others who have won.

Trump picked a few bad candidates in 2022. He picked some good ones that lost tough races. And he picked some that won. On balance, he did worse than he did in other cycles, but his overall record is very positive. It's politics. You win some, you lose some. For every critique that can be made about him in 2022, there are at least an equal number of offseting "yeah, buts" over time (see para 1). I'm not making anything up here. Just providing perspective, facts for balance instead of spin for effect.

---

Your interpretation of the facts is spin, not facts. A perfect example is your attempt to downplay Trump's criticism of pro-lifers, which painted only a partial picture, as you well know. You speak in half-truths, and downplay the bad facts to support your narrative.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

---

Bingo. Nailed it.

Wish whiterock understood this.

---

Whiterock does understand this. That's why he gives Trump credit for all the endorsements he made, this cycle and others. DeSantis was EXACTLY the kind of candidate which fell short this cycle - a right wing nut in a crowded field up against a statewide elected official endorsed by establishments. Trump endorsed him. DeSantis won a squeaker - 30k votes. Then he went on to prove the endorsement was well worth the risks. And what about another notable name in the news now? (check out second on the list). Another very Trumpy guy who went onto success. (but how we forget......)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-we-know-about-trumps-2018-midterm-endorsements-so-far

The Nevada candidate? That would be Adam Laxalt, a former statewide elected official IN NEVADA. The grand-son of a long time Senator OF NEVADA, and son of a longtime Senator of New Mexico. Laxalt was no Maga-head and only lost by 8k votes. If only McConnell would have used that $11.5m he dumped in to Alaska, where a Republican was gonna win no matter what, and put it all in NV, it would have likely made a <8k vote difference. Money moves needles....... McConnell OWNS Nevada, not Trump. Laxalt does not at all fit the "terrible Trump candidate" template. Neither did Henry McMaster, who won. Or a longish list of others who have won.

Trump picked a few bad candidates in 2022. He picked some good ones that lost tough races. And he picked some that won. On balance, he did worse than he did in other cycles, but his overall record is very positive. It's politics. You win some, you lose some. For every critique that can be made about him in 2022, there are at least an equal number of offseting "yeah, buts" over time (see para 1). I'm not making anything up here. Just providing perspective, facts for balance instead of spin for effect.

---

Just to clarify, my comment about Laxalt was not related to Trump but that those Republican candidates who lost close races might have won had Dobbs not energized the pro-abortion crowd.

How much did Trump invest in the Alaska, Georgia, N.H., Nevada, and Pennsylvania senate races?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's only part of what he said. He also said that some pro-lifers' decision to provide no exceptions was also a cause, as was Mitch McConnell.

Of course, his claim that pro-lifers didn't turn out the vote is pure speculation, and unprovable. But far be it from Trump to ever accept any blame himself. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

But of this I am certain - we can always count on you to cover for him and spin it in the best light possible

---

Correct. And there is no data showing Dobbs hurt the GOP. Evangelical and Catholic turnout was high. Turnout among those wanting no limits on abortion was moderate and was strongest in strong Dem districts - i.e., wasted votes. Good candidates who ran on strong pro-life platforms did exceedingly well.

---

---

Except in PA Gov, where most observers have cited an extreme position as a big detriment (and I think what Trump probably had in mind making the comment). That was not the sole reason we lost the PA Gov race, but a reasonable place for Trump to spin a defense against endorsing a bad candidate (who was indeed too conservative for the PA marketplace).

No GOP candidate is going to suffer serious problems with the GOP base by adopting a pro-life position allowing exceptions for one or more of: rape, incest, and life of mother.

The larger part of the equation was the way Democrats exploited pro-choice anger over Dobbs. The decision really did not move the needle on the larger issue hardly at all. Thus, many assumed the issue would not be a key factor. But Democrats knew it would be a way to motivate a low-turnout part of their demographic (young, unmarried women) and they worked it very hard. And effectively. VERY high percentages of young unmarried women were contacted multiple times, registered, received mail-in ballots, etc..... Of course, parties always try to drive turnout. THIS cycle, the Dems had a powerful motivator - Dobbs - to make those outreach efforts more compelling. Plus, they had the infrastructure in place for corporate funding of much of the efforts, and they had mail-in voting operations to more easily translate the voter ID and voter outreach into VOTES.

Ex: In GA, there are right at 1m unmarried women under the age 49. if traditional turnout is 40%, that's 400k votes total, which at 2020 split (43% margin) equals 172k votes net to blue. if Dems drive up turnout to 60%, that's 252k votes net to blue.....an improvement of 80k votes, or nearly the entirety of the gap between Walker's general election total and the 50% threshold.
(that's an example. do not have actual GA turnout numbers....... But GA was the example cited to me by a PAC xDir. as a place where young unmarried women may have alone been decisive, possibly a six-digit add to team blue. It's pretty easy to backfill from census data to see the dynamic at play).

We have a closely divided electorate. Any of a number of micro-factors can have outsized impact.

---

I agree with you that voter data analysis is complex. But the fact is actual turnout data and exit polls results show abortion was not a significant factor. In GA, Kemp is a longtime open pro-life advocate. - well before Dobbs and then he consistently praised Dobbs. He won going away, so why would abortion explain Walker's loss? In PA, pro-life turnout was high; single female turnout was average. The #1 issue in PA according to exits was Oz disapproval. And Oz' suburban performance was ok. He came nowhere near is targets for rural and working class votes.

---

and in PA, where Oz had disapproval issues on the GOP side as well, the Gov candidate was so bad that it was a drag on the rest of the ticket.

Part of what we're dealing with is expectations. PA really isn't a purple state. It's a soft blue state. and GA really isn't a red state. It's a soft purple state. Incumbents are hard to beat in a state of any shade. And so on. And as the center fails, polling gets harder. The guys that had been most right the last three cycles, got it wrong. The pollsters that had been badly off (in a few cases possibly fraudulently so) got it right.

Yes, Trump was a factor, too. But are all ills healed were he theoretically not a part of the equation? No. We are a closely divided electorate. That division isn't really about candidates. It's about genuine philosophical disagreements on the purpose of social contract in a context where the left, which now owns most culture forming institutions, has decided that the right is deplorable, to be silenced rather than accommodated despite representing overwhelmingly majoritarian viewpoints. It doesn't matter who we nominate - the left will call them every epithet under the sun. If you disagree with them, you are a threat to democracy.

it's going to be choppy for a while..

---

The problem with Trump was not that he was a factor but that he endorsed the worse possible candidates based on nothing but his whims and their fealty to his stolen election litmus test. It would have been one thing if he endorsed arguable the best candidate in every race because of their particular qualifications, but he endorsed a smorgasbord of misfits based on zero consistency other than fealty to him.

As I believe William F. Buckley said, pick the most conservative candidate that can win in the general. Trump endorsed a bunch of odd birds with no experience, no resume, poor public speaking, baggage, etc.

Trump's problem continues to be Trump. He has some decent political instincts; however, he always puts his ego in front of them so his ego always wins and he regularly says and does idiotic things because his ego whispers in his ear.

I think likely the bad candidates endorsed by Trump - Lake, Walker, Oz, Nevada candidate (maybe even Colorado) - likely win without the additional energy created by Dobbs. The GOP had every tailwind in its favor, but Dobbs and the reaction to it energized otherwise crestfallen Democrats.

---

Bingo. Nailed it.

Wish whiterock understood this.

---

Whiterock does understand this. That's why he gives Trump credit for all the endorsements he made, this cycle and others. DeSantis was EXACTLY the kind of candidate which fell short this cycle - a right wing nut in a crowded field up against a statewide elected official endorsed by establishments. Trump endorsed him. DeSantis won a squeaker - 30k votes. Then he went on to prove the endorsement was well worth the risks. And what about another notable name in the news now? (check out second on the list). Another very Trumpy guy who went onto success. (but how we forget......)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-we-know-about-trumps-2018-midterm-endorsements-so-far

The Nevada candidate? That would be Adam Laxalt, a former statewide elected official IN NEVADA. The grand-son of a long time Senator OF NEVADA, and son of a longtime Senator of New Mexico. Laxalt was no Maga-head and only lost by 8k votes. If only McConnell would have used that $11.5m he dumped in to Alaska, where a Republican was gonna win no matter what, and put it all in NV, it would have likely made a <8k vote difference. Money moves needles....... McConnell OWNS Nevada, not Trump. Laxalt does not at all fit the "terrible Trump candidate" template. Neither did Henry McMaster, who won. Or a longish list of others who have won.

Trump picked a few bad candidates in 2022. He picked some good ones that lost tough races. And he picked some that won. On balance, he did worse than he did in other cycles, but his overall record is very positive. It's politics. You win some, you lose some. For every critique that can be made about him in 2022, there are at least an equal number of offseting "yeah, buts" over time (see para 1). I'm not making anything up here. Just providing perspective, facts for balance instead of spin for effect.

---

Just to clarify, my comment about Laxalt was not related to Trump but that those Republican candidates who lost close races might have won had Dobbs not energized the pro-abortion crowd.

How much did Trump invest in the Alaska, Georgia, N.H., Nevada, and Pennsylvania senate races?

---

Great question

read Sam's quote again.

"I was 233-20! It was the "abortion issue," poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters. Also, the people that pushed so hard, for decades, against abortion, got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, & just plain disappeared, not to be seen again. Plus, Mitch stupid $'s!"

As far as spin goes, his are no worse than the spinning against him
here. Remember Kansas? Anyone in this thread dismissing Trump criticize the Kansas GOP for losses over too stringent pro-life initiatives?

And then there are the questions for which I don't have answers. Did the pro-life groups engage as robustly in federal campaigns this cycle as in the past? Or did they redirect efforts to the state level? (Which would make sense for them to do, post-Dobbs.). Did they increase or decrease spending to help save the Senate? Did they bundle for federal candidates at the same level? Or did they do that more at the state level to exploit the opening Dobbs afforded? To the extent any of that is true, wouldn't Trump's comments seem more reasonable?

Think before you slash….

How much did Trump invest in the Alaska, Georgia, N.H., Nevada, and Pennsylvania senate races?