Everyone knows that Donald Trump can’t be trusted on abortion policy (or many other things). But his particular lies on abortion are worth noting, as I explained at New York.
There is no exercise more exhausting and probably futile than examining a Donald Trump speech or social-media post for lies, half-truths, and incoherent self-contradictions. But it’s important on occasion to highlight some very big whoppers he tells that are central to his political strategy. It’s well known that Trump’s own position on abortion policy has wandered all over the map, and it’s plausible to suggest his approach is entirely transactional. Now that he’s staked out a “states’ rights” position on abortion that is designed to take a losing issue off the table in the 2024 presidential election, he’s telling two very specific lies to justify his latest flip-flop.
The first is his now-routine claim that “both sides” and even “legal scholars on both sides” of the abortion debate “agreed” that Roe v. Wade needed to be reversed, leaving abortion policy up to the states:
This claim was the centerpiece of Trump’s April 9 statement setting out his position on abortion for the 2024 general election, as CNN noted:
“In a video statement on abortion policy he posted on social media Monday, Trump said: ‘I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.’ Later in his statement, Trump said that since ‘we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,’ states are free to determine their own abortion laws.”
This is clearly and demonstrably false. The three “legal experts” on the Supreme Court who passionately dissented from the decision to reverse Roe are just the tip of the iceberg of anguish over the defiance of precedent and ideological reasoning underlying Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Society of American Law Teachers immediately and definitively issued a “condemnation” of the Dobbs decision. When the case was being argued before the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association filed an amicus brief arguing the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis required that Roe be left in place. None of these views were novel. Back in 1989 when an earlier threat to abortion rights had emerged, 885 law professors signed onto a brief defending Roe.
Sure, there was a tiny minority of “pro-choice, anti-Roe” liberals over the years who claimed resentment of the power of the unelected judges who decided Roe would eventually threaten abortion rights (not as much, it turns out, as the unelected judges that decided Dobbs). And yes, there have always been progressive critics (notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of the particular reasoning in the original Roe decision, but by no means have any of them (particularly Ginsburg) favored abandoning the federal constitutional right to abortion even if they supported a different constitutional basis for that right. So Trump’s claim is grossly nonfactual and is indeed not one that any self-respecting conservative fan of Dobbs would ever make.
The second big lie that Trump has formulated to defend his latest states’-rights position is that he’s just supporting the age-old Republican stance on the subject, as he has just asserted at Truth Social:
“Sending this Issue back to the States was the Policy of the Republican Party and Conservatives for over 50 years, due to States’ Rights and 10th Amendment, and only happened because of the Justices I proudly Nominated and got Confirmed.”
Yes, of course a growing majority of Republicans have favored reversal of Roe as a way station to a nationwide ban on abortion, but not as an end in itself. The GOP first came out for a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortion from sea to shining sea in its 1980 party platform, and every single Republican presidential nominee since then has backed the idea. There have been disagreements as to whether such a constitutional amendment should include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. But the last GOP presidential nominee to share Trump’s position that the states should be the final arbiter of abortion policy was Gerald R. Ford in 1976, as the New York Times reported at the time:
“[Ford] said that as President he must enforce the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that forbids states to ban abortions. But he has come out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn that ruling and return to the states the option of drawing up their own abortion laws.”
Ronald Reagan, who challenged Ford’s nomination in 1976 and was already a proponent of a “pro-life” constitutional amendment, and the GOP formally adopted that position in 1980; four years later, it adopted its long-standing proposal that by constitutional amendment or by a judicial ruling the protection of fetal life under the 14th Amendment should be recognized and imposed on the country regardless of what states wanted. Anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser noted this well-known history in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Trump’s revisionist history, as NBC News reported:
“’Since 1984, the GOP platform has affirmed that 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn babies and endorsed congressional action to clarify this fact through legislation,’ Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to NBC News. ‘Republicans led the charge to outlaw barbaric partial-birth abortions federally, and both chambers have voted multiple times to limit painful late-term abortion. The Senate voted on this most recently in 2020. In January 2023, House Republicans also voted to protect infants born alive during an abortion.’”
It’s pretty clear that anti-abortion activists know Trump is lying about both Roe v. Wade and the GOP tradition and will support him anyway. But the rest of us should take due notice that the once and perhaps future president’s word on this subject, including his current pledge to leave abortion policy to the states, cannot be trusted for even a moment. Absent the abolition of the Senate filibuster (which, lest we forget, Trump backed as president out of impatience with the Senate’s refusal to bend the knee to his every demand), there isn’t going to be a complete federal ban on abortion in the foreseeable future. But Trump can be counted on to use the powers of the presidency to make life miserable for women needing abortion services, among the many “enemies of the people” he wants to punish.
Marcia,
Not to be a contrarian, but I fail to see how either FL or NH is out of play in ’04. Nor have I seen any justification from you for this position, other than “but they are.”
I believe discounting either FL or NH in ’04 is a strategy upon which Democrats embark at their own risk. The simple truth is, Gore lost FL (officially) by 537 votes, notwithstanding the fact that a third-party candidate running to the left of Gore pulled some 94,000 votes. As a matter of simple math, I think FL HAS TO BE in play in ’04. And as I previously mentioned, FL in recent elections had been trending more Democratic — in addition to Gore, Clinton carried FL in ’96. More northeastern retirees (who tend Democratic) are continuously moving into FL, and second-generation Cuban-Americans are less likely to be Republican than their parents were.
As for NH, that was another state where Nader pulled more votes than Bush’s margin of victory. And Clinton carried NH twice. NH has more entolled independents than either Republican or Democrats, so if courting the independent vote is important, NH is a state we can’t overlook.
I would also posit that TN is in play, in addition to the states already mentioned.
I disagree with Wishful’s statement that “historically, self-described Independents are Democrats in disguise.” As you can see from my two previous posts covering 7 different states, the Gore-Bush breakdown among Independents varied widely, from about even in Nevada and Arizona, to a Bush margin of better than 2-to-1 in Arkansas. In the key states of Ohio and Missouri, Bush’s margin among Independents was 16 or 17 points.
One thing I think that is getting overlooked is the fact that a good portion of Republicans are seriously annoyed with the Bush administration and it’s policies.
Fiscal conservatives, foreign policy multilateralists, moderates, libertarians, and pro-privacy pro-civil liberties christians all have some level of disgust.
The main problem is most of these people believe that another 4 years of Bush is preferable to any potential democrat. The question is what are their objections to voting for the democrats and can any of the issues where they object to Bush be wedged effectively enough to peel them off?
One thing to remember is regionalizm effects the Republican party just as much as it does the Democrats. For example the Western states are mostly libertarian and fiscal conservatives. Social and Religious issues don’t play nearly as well in Arizona as they do in Louisiana.
The Republicans have been using wedge issues to peel off various portions of the Democratic base for years, I think it is time we fought back. While this may not gain many percentage points it has the same effect as grabbing independants and will probably get some of them as well.
This is not to say I don’t think attempts to increase participation overall via voter-registration, youth and minority outreach, and GOTV efforts isn’t worthwhile. Single women and latinos are probably the best sources of new votes for Democrats. Both groups lean heavily our way at rates of around 2-1 and both groups have such low rates of turn-out that if even only a few can be convinced to participate that still translates into a lot of new Democratic voters.
With respect to Colorado, Californians are the problem, not the solution. The ones who left California are Republicans; the ones who stayed are Democrats. These influxes have just made Colorado a more conservative state. We used to elect Dems as Governors and Senators. No more. The only Dem holdouts are in the Denver and Boulder area. The rest of the state is red, red, red.
Historically, self-described independents are democrats in disguise. They prefer the “independent” label for vanity purposes because it avoids the stigma associated with being a talking-point following partisan. Winning this “independent” vote (whose “independence” isn’t determined by willingness to swing their vote but by their own arbitrary determination) therefore is rarely the accomplishment it seems.
Terry, Yes, the blue states lost several votes due to the 2000 census. I used as my reference for those numbers the map on John Edwards campaign site. You can find it at:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/
I agree with you that in a two-man race, there would have been no question that Gore took Florida. I think Nader got something like 75K votes from there. But that was in 2000 and this is 4 years later.
Ron, let’s go back to those states I mentioned and talk about 2004, not 2000.
Arkansas is extremely winnable by Wesley Clark. The “native son” thing will take that state out of the red column if he’s the nominee. With Kerry or Edwards, there’s less of a chance, but a chance. Kerry’s military credentials and Edwards’ southerliness will play well.
Bush used the NRA heavily to defeat Gore in W. Va. It’s usually a pretty middle-of-the-road state, but convince them that “da gubmint” is coming to take their guns and they’ll head for the polls to defeat the dastardly creep who would dare such a move. Gore NEVER countered the NRA charges there, just kept going on an on about prescription drugs for seniors. Also, West Virginia has suffered economically under Bush AND that steel tariff fiasco didn’t play well.
Nevada is heartily miffed at becoming the nuclear waste dump for the country’s power plants. Nuff said.
Arizona is fairly conservative but not as right-wing as a lot of the solidly red states. It did go with Clinton in 1996, mainly because of the budget balancing. With the present deficit, Arizona is definitely risky for the GOP.
Colorado has had a pretty massive influx of Californians in the past 4 years. It did go to Clinton in ’92, so who knows?
The point of the whole discussion is that Bush has some vulnerability. What the Dems need to do is figure out where he’s most vulnerable, and get a candidate who can take advantage of it. Because make no mistake, the Bushies aren’t going to give us this one.
If you have some ideas on other states, anyone, feel free to share them. But I don’t believe that either NH or FL is in play. I’d like to be wrong on that, however :-}
Marcia,
Not doubting your electoral vote numbers, but all the Gore states plus Arkansas and West Virginia would have equaled 277 electoral votes in 2000. Did those states really lose 6 electoral votes overall?
Btw, I have to think New Hampshire is also in play. Bush barely won there in 2000, and there’s a pretty good chance that the Democratic nominee will be from a neighboring state (Dean and Kerry).
As for Florida, imho, there is no question that Gore would have carried Florida in 2000 in a two-man race (Bush won officially by 537 votes, whereas Nader, running to the left of Gore, picked up 94,000 votes). Florida had been moving toward the Democratic Party in years up to and including 2000. What’s the source for a reversal of course now?
For the states Marcia mentioned,
Gore got 47.1% of the two-party vote in Arkansas, and lost the 33% listed as Independents 30-62. He would have won by getting 41% of the Independents, so the Democrat needs to improve by 11% among Independents.
In West Virginia, Gore got 46.9% of the two-party vote, and lost the 21% who called themselves Independents by a 34-62 margin. Bush had a slight lead of less than 1% among the 79% who self-described as Democrats or Republicans, so Gore needed to win the Independents by 2 points, rather than losing them by 28. Gore’s main problem in WV was that Bush got 25% of the Democrats.
In Nevada, Gore got 48.15% of the two-party vote, while carrying the 28% listed as Independents 45-43. He would have needed 60% of the Independents to overcome Bush’s advantage among the 75% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
In Arizona, Gore lost the 24% Independent share 44-45. He would have needed over 61% to overcome Bush’s lead among the 76% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
In Colorado, Gore lost the 29% Independent share 39-44 (with Nader getting 13% of Independents). Gore would have needed 66% of the Independents to overcome Bush’s 57-43 advantage among among the 71% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
So of these 5, the only one which would have flipped in 2000 by adding 14% to Gore’s percentage of Independents was Arkansas. That’s not to say they’re unwinnable, but winning any of them probably involves some improvement in the Democratic share of the Democratic and Republican vote, rather than just winning a large share of Independents. In Missouri, Ohio, and Florida, by contrast, the Democratic nominee can win by a relatively modest increase of 10 or 11% among Independents.
I am glad to see that independents have little faith in Bush’s abilities. My concern is that these same independents might have even less faith in those of his opponent. I think that Rove and his crew will address this issue. They realize that they can’t sell Bush using the economy, the war, his lack of concern for anyone but the rich, or anything else for that matter. The possible exception is the spector of terrorism. More alerts will follow this year in an effort to convince Americans that only Bush is capable of protecting America. (I know it’s funny but let’s not try to laugh too much.) They will characterize Bush’s opponent as even less able than Bush. Just in case all else fails, I’m sure that Bush, Rove et alia will be leading services to pray for an attack. If you think that this last point is ‘too over the top’, understand, these are same people who have committed this country to a frivolous war in Iraq and have plans for others if re-elected.
Paul,
I live in Ohio. I live in NE Ohio, which is the most progressive part of the state, and it’s becoming increasingly conservative. Ohio now has a GOP governor, two GOP senators, the majority of House Reps are GOP, and both the State House and the State Senate are controlled by the GOP. And…..look at the bill they passed yesterday in regards to gay unions.
I base my judgement on Florida on what I read. Those articles that have dealt with Florida’s political leanings have pretty much said it’s more Republican. They may not be accurate, but until I see something else to the contrary, I’ll have to take their word for it.
Both states MIGHT be winnable by Dems with the right candidate, but for now I just want a change of administrations and , IMO, the states I listed are more open to move into the “blue column than are either Ohio or Florida.
Aren’t the conclusions (1,2,3) always true? I would submit that any “Independent” that leans conservative is by definition not an Independent. Equivocation is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.
I’m just curious what the numbers are regarding independents perception of Bush as a person. I don’t think there is any question that when you push people who are not hardcore cons on what they think of Bush’s policies, the numbers are bad. But so much of what people seem to dig about Bush is the fact that he seems like a decent and regular guy to many people.
How does that perception play into the mix?
Marcia, Why do you say taht Ohio and Florida are more Republican than they were in 2000? Is that based on registration, polling data or just the results of the 2002 elections?
Ron,
The problem is that Florida is a lot more Republican today than it was in 2000. So is Ohio.
I think Dems need to look to states like W. Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada and maybe even Colorado……..all are pretty much fed up with the Bush policies and are open to listening, at least, to a Dem candidate. Now, which candidate can best appeal to the voters in those states?
Oh, and if the Dem candidate retains ALL the Gore states and picks up only Arkansas and W. Virginia, he wins 271 electoral votes. 270 are needed to be elected.
In response to Longshot, Bush got 51.7% of the two-party vote in Missouri, and Gore got 48.3%. Independents cast 23% of the vote, and broke 55-38 for Bush. The party vote was a wash, so Gore needed to carry Independents, by doing 9 points better among them.
Ohio was almost exactly the same–each candidate got 9% of the other party’s voters, the party vote was 38-37 Democratic, and the 26% identified as Independents went for Bush 54-38.
And of course any improvement at all would swing Florida, where Gore actually carried Independents 47-46.
What was the polling universe? Registered voters or likely voters ?Typically makes a difference– when the sample comes from “registered” voters the results skew more liberal/Democratic, at least marginally.
Longshot has a good point…these overall polls are interesting, but the overall vote isn’t what elects a President. Can Democrats overcome Republicans’ virtual lock on the Southern and Great Plains states and get enough electoral college votes to win?
…then hope. “cynics didn’t build this country. optimists did.”
get people at the company picnic talking politics, and so on.
as for the subject independents, yes, i agree, and clark or edwards or kerry could probably do a better job of it than dean, but, of course, he’s supposed to get all of those young people fired up.
I almost hate reading your posts because they give me hope. Hope is probably not a good idea right now for a liberal, and someone working in a profession that is being carted offshore wholsale. If these new immigration restrictions pass… well… I’m frankly terrified of what that means. And the GOP run the country right now.
So I almost hate reading your posts. But damn, I wanna hope.
Ok — those are the stats today. Assuming the parties motivate their base as well as in 2000, what is the Indy split needed to swing a couple of states to the Democrat nominee — +9%, +2% ?
And which states(s) ?