"Running someone who favors abortions would turn off millions of Evangelical, Catholic, Hispanic, and working-class voters who came out for Bush in the last two elections, and also turn off many of the most energetic volunteers."
They're not going to vote Dem, and 89% won't stay home. Those that do will be offset by the surge of moderate black and women voters thrilled to finally have a winner on the presidential ticket
89% ? How'd I get that number? Actually, I meant to type 80.
They might very well stay home, but it isn't wise to assume the numbers to offset would automatically flow to Condi.
Pro-Lifers/Christians are the base and necessary to win. The Dems pulled out everything they had in their arsenal this year, and will do it again if not more in '08. Everyone needs to be onboard. If people cannot accept the her current views as outlined, it would make it all that much harder to win if possible at all.
However, I differ with some in that I don't find her position -yet- to be at odds with the goals of pro-Life believers. And I would ask those that do find it at odds with our goals, to articulate how.
-doesn't believe in partial birth
-doesn't want government in the business of endorsing or funding abortion
-doesn't believe it should be encouraged
-possibly state rights advocate.
If the last is true, Would someone please move beyond the emotional to explain how this position damages the cause of pro-Life coalitions? Otherwise it's my summation that some are of opinion that constitutionalists are at odds with pro-life advocates. Patently untrue. IF proven to be an advocate of state rights, I don't find her unqualified as a candidate.
I'm not stating I'd vote for her. I will not pledge myself to that opinion without observing her in a primary process as well as her challengers and the environment of the country at the time. But I would not rule out a candidate that I could be assured was strongly in favor of state rights.