• Sergio@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      12 days ago

      This year, Trump voters who supported abortion rights amendments may have decided to take Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban,”

      Trusting that Trump is telling the truth? What could possibly go wrong…

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    I’ve heard this explained before as the selfishness of believing that if you’re protected on a local level, that frees these voters up to vote for other conservative policies on a national level.

    That sometimes with these ordinances, they work the other way. If moderate voters pass the statewide protection, it allows them to rationalize a vote for Republicans to do immigration measures and tax cuts, because they feel protected by the state amendment.

    • adarza
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      12 days ago

      states rights don’t mean a damn thing when the party of states rights (but only when it serves the far right agenda) enacts a federal ban superseding all the local and state protections.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          Nope, not how our system works. A federal ban would override state law.

          The situation would at best mimic legal weed. The feds can 100% legally raid weed stores right now in the majority of states, but doing so is seen as pointless and would be politically unpopular.

          The difference between weed stores and abortion clinics is that while both weed and abortion are popular, abortion is easier to villify and attack. They also don’t make anywhere near as much money as weed and require doctors to operate, so you have a much higher risk and much lower reward to fight the federal law on a local level.

        • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          It’ll probably be like when Trump and the DEA signaled they may want to start going after weed smokers in states that legalized it despite it being federally illegal.

          The response from the states was, “Go ahead, but we’re not helping you in any way.”

          And the DEA dropped it, I imagine because they didn’t have the money or manpower to do pursue further.

          Doctors are licensed at the state level, so the fed can’t (currently) revoke medical licenses afaik. They can threaten to pull federal funding from hospitals and research centers, but that isn’t all funding, and their own voter base has been vocally opposed to anything that makes healthcare worse (and also supported abortion rights at the state level this past election, even in states that went Trump).

          Obviously, I could be completely wrong and they’ve (Trump and his ilk) already got avenues to counteract all of these barriers (and any I’m not thinking of). But I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic that, unless Trump plans on sending federal agents to every surgical suite and pharmacy/drug store in the country, I don’t see a federal ban being enforceable without the help of the states.

          And they will (hopefully) give Trump the finger. Cautiously optimistic.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    12 days ago

    In Michigan we elected two Democratic Supreme Court justices by nearly a million votes although they are in the non partisan section. And we went for Trump.

    And abortion rights are already protected pretty well here so I don’t know how much of a push that was.

    There were about 1.3 million less votes for justices as there were for President (couldn’t link straight to Michigan results but just click the state).

    Meanwhile, the numbers for Kamala are only about 150k higher than for the justices. Meaning nearly all dems voted for aligned justices while a huge number of Trump voters just didn’t bother with non partisan races or there were a bunch of Trump voters who swung left on Justices.

    I’m hesitant to project any of my own analysis onto those numbers, but it’s an interesting discrepancy.

    • adarza
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      12 days ago

      the hackers of the voting computers didn’t code for those races because they didn’t have the answers right next to names or they weren’t paid to care so they were left blank.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    12 days ago

    They believed some of Trump’s bullshit. I suspect this was because they were exposed to more of that bullshit than any counter-messaging. This could be due to isolation from traditional sources of information.

    Ultimately, I have to pin that on the Harris campaign. I wanted the prosecutor to prosecute the case against the criminal. But to do that you have to show up to the courtroom. Where is the courtroom these days? It’s not on CNN or 60 Minutes, it’s wherever the jury is hanging out. That’s online. Trump showed up there a lot more than she did.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 days ago

    It sadly makes sense that the abortion referendums backfired bigly. In midterms and off-years it was different because there was nobody at the top of the ticket to lead to strategic voting.