Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts
Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.
By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.
By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/
I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.
If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.
More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.
But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.
Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.
You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.
The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.
I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.
There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.
Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.
I don’t know ANY
Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.
Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.
I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.
And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.
That’s a reach.
Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...
According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions.
https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/
This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1
The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.
The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.
https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
