Much of political coverage in a presidential election year tends to focus on polls, personalities, and intrigues, with issue and policy differences taking a back seat. In some ways, this is understandable. By this time in the political calendar, likely voters have decided who they are going to vote for based on a whole set of factors both tangible and intangible, and policy platforms put out by the rival candidates and parties are unlikely to sway many people away from their original choice. Furthermore, any new policies that are proposed tend to be those designed to enthuse supporters to vote and even work for the candidate and to shore up support among groups that are disaffected for some reason. It is not at all clear if they have any chance of being implemented if the candidate gets elected. The party platforms that are adopted at the conventions are usually just wish lists designed to appeal to as wide an array of voters as possible, and have no real bite in terms of requiring specific actions.
For those who really want to know where the candidates stand on some of the most talked-about issues, the Associated Press has helpfully summarized the positions of the Harris and creepy Trump campaigns on 10 issues: Abortion, Climate/Energy, Democracy/Rule of Law, Federal government, Immigration, Israel/Gaza, LGBTQ+ issues, NATO/Ukraine, Tariffs/Trade, and Taxes.
In terms of galvanizing voters, abortion seems to be a big issue. Here is where both stand on this issue.
HARRIS: The vice president has called on Congress to pass legislation guaranteeing in federal law abortion access, a right that stood for nearly 50 years before being overturned by the Supreme Court. Like Biden, Harris has criticized bans on abortion in Republican-controlled states and promised as president to block any potential nationwide ban should one clear a future GOP-run Congress. Harris was the Democrats’ most visible champion of abortion rights even while Biden was still in the race. She has promoted the administration’s efforts short of federal law — including steps to protect women who travel to obtain abortions and limit how law enforcement collects medical records.
TRUMP: The former president often brags about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion. After dodging questions about when in pregnancy he believes the procedure should be restricted, Trump announced last spring that decisions on access and cutoffs should be left to the states. He said he would not sign a national abortion ban into law. But he’s declined to say whether he would try to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone. He told Time magazine that it should also be left up to states to determine whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor their pregnancies.
Republicans have enacted strict restrictions in those states where they control state legislatures and the governorships. As a consequence, several states are having referenda on the issue. These ballot issues are aimed at going directly to the people to get the laws relaxed. And since these ballot issues are popular, they have the potential to bring out voters who may not have voted otherwise and who may vote for Democratic candidates. This could play an important role in swing states like Arizona and Nevada.
Arizona was the latest state to get enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot, despite heavy opposition from Republicans who tried to throw roadblock after roadblock to prevent the measure being put on the ballot. In that state, the state supreme court ruled that an 1864 law that banned abortion almost completely could go into effect. Some Republicans, alarmed at how extreme that was, joined with Democrats to repeal the old law, keeping in place a 2022 law but this ballot issue will further relax restrictions.
Arizona’s ballot will include a major reproductive rights measure this fall alongside the presidential, Senate and other battleground races, putting a key issue directly before voters in the swing state.
JP Martin, the deputy communications officer for the Arizona secretary of state’s office, told NBC News on Monday evening that the Arizona for Abortion Access Act will go before voters this election cycle, after organizers shattered the record for the number of valid signatures gathered for a ballot initiative in the state.
The secretary of state’s office estimates that 577,971 valid signatures were turned in by Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition of reproductive rights organizations that includes the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona. The signature haul far surpassed the 383,923 signatures required to make it onto the ballot. The Arizona for Abortion Access Act will go before voters under the title “Proposition 139.”
The problem for Republicans is that they are the party that is viewed as seeking to highly restrict access to abortion and even ban it outright, some even calling for a federal ban. That has alarmed some Republican leaders who have tried to waffle on the issue, trying to not antagonize their hardline supporters while not angering even further those who support abortion rights. They are clearly on the defensive.
Depressingly, so many people choose candidates depending on charisma and the “feeling” they get from the candidate. Others just vote for the same party they always voted for.
While voters can be passionate about their choice they rarely invest as much careful consideration as they invest emotions.
(But sometimes the choice *should* be obvious…)
“Republicans, who tried to throw roadblock after roadblock to prevent the measure being put on the ballot. ”
This right there should be a huge red flag for undecided voters. But apathy is king.
I’m not sure about that. Policy platforms are unlikely to change voters’ views on specific issues (such changes typically take a long time, so should be attempted between campaigns, insofar as there is any “between campaigns” in the USA), but they may change the salience of particular issues -- the relative importance of those issues in voters’ minds -- and hence, in at least some cases, change their votes, or whether they vote at all. So strategically, policy platforms should stress the issues on which a party or candidate knows they are on the side of public opinion, and downplay or ignore altogether those issues where they know they are not. And rather than arguing with their opponents over the latter issues, do their best to change the subject. As an example, Harris has just proposed increasing the tax on corporations. This is, I believe, widely popular. Various right-wing outlets will feel obliged to denounce this as communism, claim that it will cause economic disaster, etc. -- but I doubt they will do Trump any good, because every mention of the policy will tend to increase its salience.
… several states are having referenda on the issue.
Sfaik, all the states voting on abortion rights this year are doing so by initiatives (processes initiated by citizens), not referenda (in which legislatures explicitly refer the question to a popular vote).
The Republicans controlling the states where abortion has been (effectively) banned do not want the people to have any say about this, any more than they want women/people with uteri to have any power over their bodies.
Pierce R. Butler @4: yes, and we’ll have such an initiative on the November ballot in Missouri. Whether it passes in this deep-red state remains to be seen.
Haven’t all the states who have had initiatives by the people to make abortion legal, passed those initiatives? I mean, the majority of people always voted it in?
I might not have heard of one that failed to pass, but are there any?
billseymour @5, sorry, didn’t see your comment before I posted. I didn’t mean to imply that, in MS, there was a good chance of it passing: as you say, we’ll have to see.
I would have added “I hope that Missouri isn’t the first.”
KFF has a list of abortion-related questions that are, or could be, on the November ballot.
<pedantic>The Postal Service’s abbreviation for Missouri is MO. MS is Mississippi.
</pedantic>garnetstar @ # 6 -- per The Center on Reproductive Rights,
Oopsies on my # 9, both for not refreshing before posting and for html foo!
Sorry! I grew up in Ohio, it’s easy, there aren’t many other states that start with O, and there are a lot of M’s 🙂
Correction to my # 4 -- according to my link @ # 9, the Maryland abortion rights ballot measure is a referendum.
Huh -- how did I manage to make four comments in this thread (not counting this one)?
@ ‘
Mano said “violation of this rule will result in banning”. So he hasn’t done anything to disable a fourth comment, he’s asking people to abide by his rule.
(Reckon you’re safe though.)
As a non-American I’m not qualified to comment, but for the record as I read the 10 points the response is generally:
Dem: “Hmm. Okay. Could be better.”
Rpb: “Are you fuckin’ kidding me!”
X-D
@ ^
I guess that means I’m a “liberal” whatever that is. X-D
Pierce,
Now, more than ever, might be a time to strongly recommend hitting preview before post! I now pledge that I will finally begin following this advice myself.
…Hopefully.
@Pierce R. Butler, 13
Because it’s not automated.
https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2024/08/18/new-policy-on-comments/#comment-5369789
Specifically: ” it allows me flexibility to ignore accidental or occasional overstepping of the boundaries. I am really trying to stop the extreme cases”.
So the “policy” stated in the last thread (quote: “No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning“) doesn’t in fact apply as stated… except when it does, for those people pre-identified as targets. They may know who they are, they may not. I suspect they won’t be told in advance. Yay for clear boundaries, and the three days they lasted. Your gaffe, your rules though. Be interesting to see how it pans out. I don’t really understand, if you’ve got a shortlist of people you clearly already regard as “extreme cases”, why you wouldn’t just ban the buggers and have done. Do you need the clicks that badly or something? (I don’t really know how blogs work from that point of view, clearly). It would reduce the NUMBER of comments under posts by (some days) up to 90%, but it would increase the relevance and quality of what’s down here by at least as much. Depends what you’re going for, but the simple, straightforward “if you post more than three times you’re banned” policy certainly seemed (during the three days it applied) to be aimed at valuing quality over quantity.
One thing is nice, though PRB -- you (and only you) can relax in the knowledge that you are (for now) not one of the “extreme cases”, in case you were worried about that.
@sonofrojblake @18
I interpret the policy as “Use your judgement and if you don’t I will use mine” rather than the literal number of comments
And wouldn’t that be the “told in advance?”
Mano was crystal clear about the reason for a three comment limit in his last post:
He also said he is the sole arbitrator of whether the rule has been broken. Rather than worrying if you might be targeted it seems fairly easy to simply be polite, and limit your remarks to three.
@19 -- you interpret it wrong. At least as it applies to me, that is, although obviously not to PRB up there. I’m subject to a hard three post limit, and have been explicitly told as much. In advance, so i was wrong too. Anyone surprised?
sonofrojblake @21,
I am not going to debate this with you. If you do not like the way I interpret the rules for this blog, you are always welcome to leave the site and never return.
Who’s debating? I already said elsewhere -- your gaff, your rules. I’m comfortable with your (double) standards, not least because they’ve already improved the quality of comment btl. Its working -- good job.