« End World Apartheid | Main | McCain's Day at the Beach »

July 16, 2007



I don't think a Democratic pro-life alternative would peel off a significant number of pro-life voters unless the bloc was already upset about things outside of that single issue. As a party, Dems are clearly worse for pro-life voters than Republicans, whatever the individual candidate's position.

That said, Santorum was indeed the archetype of the divisive candidate.

Nathan Smith

I would agree that pro-life voters probably wouldn't vote for a Democrat just because he's pro-life, since Santorum was also pro-life. Though there would be a case for it: if you can set a precedent that pro-life candidates will make headway in the Democratic as well as the Republican Party, the cause could have bipartisan support and go forward even if the Republicans weaken. A pro-life Democrat is more useful than just another pro-life Republican.

The point is, though, that pro-life voters have no particular tendency to be conservative on other issues, especially welfare-state issues. I've known a lot of people who were all about a kind, caring government, very much in favor of the welfare state, etc., and who would have been automatic Democrats but for the pro-life issue, but who on that issue alone felt they had to support Republicans. Pro-lifers are often Catholic, for one thing, and Catholics have historically leaned Democratic.

If you assume that being pro-life is uncorrelated with being strong on national defense, pro-free-market etc., then about half the pro-lifers are ready to jump ship the minute a Dem switches sides on their wedge issue. I think that's basically what happened in Pennsylvania, and why Bob Casey had such an easy time winning his Senate race.

concerto de pára-brisas

It didn;t matter what the community believes on them. I just hope they would be right for this big decision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Only use a payday cash advance as a last resort.


Blog powered by Typepad