Winning independent suburban women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Me: here’s good, normal campaign advice
Someone: only access to abortion matters
Me: ok well that can matter, but also…


I’m sorry someone asked you an irrelevant Q. None of their business.

+1. Yes, there is a regular poster here who only votes on her daughter’s access to getting abortions. She’s very vocal about it. (I am guessing the poster is a female because I cannot imagine a father would post the type of comments she does.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you think it would be powerful for a candidate to say, there are 63 weeks until the election. “Spouse and I sat down weekly for a dinner with our own family. And we sat down weekly for a dinner with a family here across the states. We wanted to hear about healthcare, your money, your outlook on education. We got a sense of what’s going on.”

And,
“I instructed my VP and their spouse to do the same. They have, since nomination.”

No. This sounds stupid.

Aww now use nicer words, PP. And, elaborate.

Dp- summed it up fine. No need to elaborate. There is only one question I need an answer to, “do you think women have the right to make their own medical decisions with their doctors?”
Everything else is superfluous crap. No about of dressing up the wrong answer is going to help that candidate.

How many abortions have you had so far?

DP... What a misfire of a question. One could have ZERO abortions and several healthy children already born in happy circumstance, yet still want to have the option on the table due to medical and personal circumstances. Whether someone has or hasn't had an abortion is completely irrelevant to anything.

[Anonymous]

My priority is someone who pronounces nuclear as Nuke-u-lar.

Ha ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My priority is someone who pronounces nuclear as Nuke-u-lar.

Ha ha.

+1. And “aks”. (Instead of “ask”.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you think it would be powerful for a candidate to say, there are 63 weeks until the election. “Spouse and I sat down weekly for a dinner with our own family. And we sat down weekly for a dinner with a family here across the states. We wanted to hear about healthcare, your money, your outlook on education. We got a sense of what’s going on.”

And,
“I instructed my VP and their spouse to do the same. They have, since nomination.”

No. This sounds stupid.

Aww now use nicer words, PP. And, elaborate.

Dp- summed it up fine. No need to elaborate. There is only one question I need an answer to, “do you think women have the right to make their own medical decisions with their doctors?”
Everything else is superfluous crap. No about of dressing up the wrong answer is going to help that candidate.

How many abortions have you had so far?

DP... What a misfire of a question. One could have ZERO abortions and several healthy children already born in happy circumstance, yet still want to have the option on the table due to medical and personal circumstances. Whether someone has or hasn't had an abortion is completely irrelevant to anything.

Abortions are healthcare. They should be unlimited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me: here’s good, normal campaign advice
Someone: only access to abortion matters
Me: ok well that can matter, but also…


I’m sorry someone asked you an irrelevant Q. None of their business.

+1. Yes, there is a regular poster here who only votes on her daughter’s access to getting abortions. She’s very vocal about it. (I am guessing the poster is a female because I cannot imagine a father would post the type of comments she does.).

In light of the Dobbs decision, I think that access to appropriate healthcare for women, and politicians staying the hell out of it, will continue to be a dominant topic, if not THE dominant topic for the vast majority of women (and a not insignificant % of men). I seriously doubt that videos of candidates chit chatting with 63 different families over their pain points will move the needle in any sort of significant way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me: here’s good, normal campaign advice
Someone: only access to abortion matters
Me: ok well that can matter, but also…


I’m sorry someone asked you an irrelevant Q. None of their business.

+1. Yes, there is a regular poster here who only votes on her daughter’s access to getting abortions. She’s very vocal about it. (I am guessing the poster is a female because I cannot imagine a father would post the type of comments she does.).

In light of the Dobbs decision, I think that access to appropriate healthcare for women, and politicians staying the hell out of it, will continue to be a dominant topic, if not THE dominant topic for the vast majority of women (and a not insignificant % of men). I seriously doubt that videos of candidates chit chatting with 63 different families over their pain points will move the needle in any sort of significant way.

Do you think it would be helpful for Democratic candidates to show a video of them taking their daughters/granddaughters to abortion clinics would move the needle and attract more voters? Maybe a series of videos showing the before, during, and after of abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Highlander: there can be only one.

Republicans: You're running, you're probably not going to win. Drop out early if Trump gets serious. We need it to be Trump v. ONE (or maybe two); and for Trump to lose big and early in the primaries.

Democrats: What is going on? Someone at the DNC, encourage Biden to quit. We need someone else.

Biden is the incumbent. When was the last time an incumbent didn't run? (LBJ)
Other than Trump, when was the last time an incumbent didn't win? (Bush 1, Carter before that)

There is nothing wrong with the DNC. They are running a candidate who has had the most consequential presidency in a generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me: here’s good, normal campaign advice
Someone: only access to abortion matters
Me: ok well that can matter, but also…


I’m sorry someone asked you an irrelevant Q. None of their business.

+1. Yes, there is a regular poster here who only votes on her daughter’s access to getting abortions. She’s very vocal about it. (I am guessing the poster is a female because I cannot imagine a father would post the type of comments she does.).

In light of the Dobbs decision, I think that access to appropriate healthcare for women, and politicians staying the hell out of it, will continue to be a dominant topic, if not THE dominant topic for the vast majority of women (and a not insignificant % of men). I seriously doubt that videos of candidates chit chatting with 63 different families over their pain points will move the needle in any sort of significant way.

Do you think it would be helpful for Democratic candidates to show a video of them taking their daughters/granddaughters to abortion clinics would move the needle and attract more voters? Maybe a series of videos showing the before, during, and after of abortions.

Why would they need to do this? Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you'd know which party/candidates are supportive of healthcare access for women, and which are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me: here’s good, normal campaign advice
Someone: only access to abortion matters
Me: ok well that can matter, but also…


I’m sorry someone asked you an irrelevant Q. None of their business.

+1. Yes, there is a regular poster here who only votes on her daughter’s access to getting abortions. She’s very vocal about it. (I am guessing the poster is a female because I cannot imagine a father would post the type of comments she does.).

In light of the Dobbs decision, I think that access to appropriate healthcare for women, and politicians staying the hell out of it, will continue to be a dominant topic, if not THE dominant topic for the vast majority of women (and a not insignificant % of men). I seriously doubt that videos of candidates chit chatting with 63 different families over their pain points will move the needle in any sort of significant way.

Do you think it would be helpful for Democratic candidates to show a video of them taking their daughters/granddaughters to abortion clinics would move the needle and attract more voters? Maybe a series of videos showing the before, during, and after of abortions.

Why would they need to do this? Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you'd know which party/candidates are supportive of healthcare access for women, and which are not.

The original poster was asking if voters would be motivated by watching candidates have “dinner table conversations” with regular families. Another poster answered by saying due to Dobbs, the only voting criteria was a candidates position on abortion access. So…instead of “dinner table conversations” as campaign fodder, let’s see Democrat candidates show them with their own family members receiving abortions. Should make for good PR, right?

[Anonymous]

NP. I have had exactly the number of abortions that I intended to have. I don't want to talk about them, see people having them, anything like that. I just want them to be available.

I have voted R in the past and may vote R in the future. Once this abortion issue is past. Every R candidate who swears fealty to banning abortion loses my vote and the large majority of American votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have had exactly the number of abortions that I intended to have. I don't want to talk about them, see people having them, anything like that. I just want them to be available.

I have voted R in the past and may vote R in the future. Once this abortion issue is past. Every R candidate who swears fealty to banning abortion loses my vote and the large majority of American votes.

Weird that you “don’t want to talk about them”. I wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have had exactly the number of abortions that I intended to have. I don't want to talk about them, see people having them, anything like that. I just want them to be available.

I have voted R in the past and may vote R in the future. Once this abortion issue is past. Every R candidate who swears fealty to banning abortion loses my vote and the large majority of American votes.

“Them”. So multiple abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have had exactly the number of abortions that I intended to have. I don't want to talk about them, see people having them, anything like that. I just want them to be available.

I have voted R in the past and may vote R in the future. Once this abortion issue is past. Every R candidate who swears fealty to banning abortion loses my vote and the large majority of American votes.

Weird that you “don’t want to talk about them”. I wonder why.

You're not winning women with posts like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have had exactly the number of abortions that I intended to have. I don't want to talk about them, see people having them, anything like that. I just want them to be available.

I have voted R in the past and may vote R in the future. Once this abortion issue is past. Every R candidate who swears fealty to banning abortion loses my vote and the large majority of American votes.

Do you believe there should be any limits on abortion? Even up to full-term? If so, where do you draw the line? Do you believe they should be unlimited? If not, what’s the limit?