No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like democrats they followed a systematic approach to overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L

> Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L

I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.

Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see

As a libertarian, analyzing the information flow of the political parties in reverse of how it's normally assumed is illuminating - how good is each party at building support for the policies that their sponsors have bought? In this sense on the national stage, the republican party does a much better job convincing its members that the party's policies are their own interests. Whereas democrats are more likely to begrudgingly but pragmatically vote for their party's candidates while actually disliking their policies. See also the quick about-face dynamic of "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" when the larger cognitive dissonance ends up collapsing in a very personal way.

This downplays the GOP’s role. Their decades-long plan, including stacking the courts, reveals just how hateful and ruthless they are in pursuing their agenda.

While Democrats could have done more, obstacles like the filibuster and narrow majorities made passing protections difficult. The bigger issue is the GOP’s deliberate and depraved effort to strip away rights. Don’t give them a pass on it by blaming others.

I'm sorry but this is such a loser take. You're mad at your opponents for playing the game? I would hate to be on your team in any kind of competition

When playing a game, I wouldn't want to be on a team with someone who views the struggle for basic human rights as a game.

It's fine to be mad at an opponent whose goal is making people miserable.

Ruthless? Sure. Hateful? No. Kindly stop furthering the societal division in our country.

Yes, hateful. Restricting human rights oppresses, controls, and dehumanizes people.

The filibuster makes this basically impossible to do without some degree of Republican support. Overturning the filibuster is problematic because Democrats either haven't had the votes to do so or it would have required the votes of moderates who want to use it for cover. The senate is so constructed that the senators voting can represent 2/3 of the population and not even have 50% of the votes in the senate.

In the last 24 years the Democrats have had more than a bare majority in both house and senate while holding the presidency exactly 2 years between 2009–2011. The backlash for daring to do anything at all lost them both and they haven't had this since.

Did Democrats have a filibuster proof majority since 1970? IIRC that has not been the case since at least 2000 (perhaps going back even further). Passing such a law would require a filibuster proof majority. I agree to the sentiment of uselessness, but some fairness should be payed. Congress is kinda dysfunctional with any serious legislation requiring a super majority in congress and the presidency.

Yes, twice.

95th Congress in 1977-1979 there were 61 Democrat Senators

And briefly in 2009-10 at the beginning of Obama's first term.

Ah, I forgot the 2009 period - thank you for looking that up!

I personally feel the Democrats were not moving to pass that legislation in 2009 because it "felt" that Roe was solid after having been challenged so many times. Therefore the legislation would have been unnecessary and (arguably) bad politics.

I don't mean to shift goal posts. This is where I agree with the sentiment expressed and (as pointed out) there was opportunity. It is quite damning, the democratic party has the problem of not playing hardball.

There was 1 time in the past 50 years when that might have happened during Obama’s term for a couple of months, as opposed to republicans polices that want to send women back to the 1850’s for going on decades now. I’ll be fine with blaming dems 1% vs 99% of the repressive efforts of the GOP

Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to instate abortion access in national law and declined to ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are true but downstream of that.

Democrats would need a super majority to pass abortion and the last time that happened was 09.

Yes they should have done it in 09 then or one of the many other times. It's been half a century since roe they've had opportunity if it had been important to them.

Formally codifying abortion was not a popular issue among voters in 09. In other words, you're somewhat right, it wasn't important to them because it wasn't important to voters. People seem to think that this issue has always had the support it has now.

This is not even close to what I'm saying and I'm sure you know that.

Come on it's kind of close.

It's funny that you are making this argument due to this execution (which I'm against) while arguing for voting for a party that currently is in power and actively supports, almost unconditionally so, a state that is committing a genocide that killed tens of thousands in Gaza. The most ironic part is your last argument: "None of this affects me so I don't bother voting", which is funnily enough better than voting for a party that actually enables genocide because said genocide does not affect you. The other funny thing is that I know that the usual counter to that from the Democrats is to claim that "both sides are bad, Trump would've done the same!". Which is again, extremely ironic.

(And I'm not here to argue if it's a genocide or not. Let's say it's not. It's still an administration that de facto unconditionally supports and arms a war that has killed 50 000 civilians).