Mediaboss Marketing

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

In the week since the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to abortion, President Bidenurged people to vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said abortion rights are on the ballot. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said electing more pro-choice Democrats would help restore abortion rights.

But none of the top Democrats who control two of the three branches of government acknowledged their own power to do much of anything now, including confronting the democratic failures that have brought the United States to this unprecedented place: Justices appointed by presidents elected by a minority of Americanstaking away a popular right essential to equality and autonomy for half the population.

Only a handful of progressives are placing the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the context where it belongs: Americas fraying democracy. The ruling is Roe, but the crisis is democracy, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted Saturday. Leaders must share specific plans for both.

Several additional progressives in Congress have called for expanding the Supreme Court and abolishing the filibuster to restore abortion rights with federal legislation. Yet no one in Democratic leadership seems to betalking publicly about these possibilities. Despite the dire consequences of Roe v. Wades demise for millions of Americans, theres almost no urgency from those at the top to propose much of anything other than yet more requests that people vote in November.

To understand the Democrats political response to the end of Roe, I spoke with Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive messaging consultant, about how to talk about abortion in this new era. Shenker-Osorio has advised both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the House Democratic Caucus, and also helped craft messaging for campaigns in both Ireland and Australia to repeal abortion restrictions. We spoke just a few hours after the Supreme Courts ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization on Friday about the politics of abortionand how Democrats are failing to connect abortion rights to other freedoms. (The conversation has beenedited for length and clarity.)

As someone who studies messaging and advises Democrats, how are you thinking about what needs to happen next?

One of the things that we learned from the [2018] Irish campaign to repeal the ban on abortion in Ireland, which was massively successful, was someone you love. Someone you love will need an abortion someday. And that idea that actually, Guess what? This is going to impact you, whether your physical body or you via the connection that you have with a sibling, with a co-worker, or with a friend. Someone you love. This is your issue.

And then the other [message], which is not contradictory, is that abortion has to be situated inside of a broader framework, which is the idea that Trump Republicans want to take away our freedoms. From our freedom to vote and pick leaders who represent us in free and fair elections to our freedom to decide for ourselves whether and when we have children, to our childrens freedom to learn the truth of our history, to our freedom to not be plagued by gun violence. They want to take away our freedoms and rule only for the wealthy white few. We have to draw this exceptionally stark contrast in November between the worlds that the majority of Americans of different political affiliations desire and what this right wing authoritarian faction is doing.

So what youre saying is basically that people should be talking about the end of abortion rights as part of a larger agenda?

Completely. And I think that what were seeing right now, for example, with the January 6 [hearings], is this effort to essentially rule over and not represent us. And so thats another rhetorical way to draw the connection for people. We see in our research that this is something that people understand: that [the right wing] is hell-bent on overturning the will of the people, whether that be through violent insurrection or through five secretive people in black robes, or through state legislatures that are silencing peoples voices and taking away their votes. They want to overturn the will of the people.

There are some people in the Democratic tent who have been talking about democracy and the connectedness of all of these things. AOC is an example. But it doesnt seemlike the party more broadly or its leaders have wanted to describe this as an issue of democracy. Youre saying they should push further into that territory?

The word democracynot the concept, but the wordis not a particularly helpful one. Its far too abstract for people to feel any kind of visceral attachment to it. And lets just be honest with ourselves: For many, many people in our country, including core elements of the Democratic base, theyve never experienced a democracy. We dont live in a democracy.

So when people say things like, We need to step up and protect our democracy or, We need to ensure the future of our democracy, that both rings hollow for a great number of audiences and, thats just not true. You cant protect the thing you dont have. You can say things like, realize the promise of our democracy, or finally have the democracy that we deserve.

But democracy is not that particularly helpful of a word, because democracy never bought anybody dinner. It doesnt connect back to the things that are top of mind for people. And so what do you need to do? You need to draw these broader connections, but you need to attach it back to what feels tangible to people. [Democrats] need to bring it back to what is this going to mean for what I need in my life, and thats not what the word democracy does, unfortunately.

Do you find a receptive audience when you talk about constructing these broader narratives? Or does it feel like the Democratic Party is doing thispiecemeal?

There are state-based groups and even state-based parties that have absolutely embraced this kind of overarching connective tissue. For example, Stacey Abrams obviously does this brilliantly. Does it happen more broadly? There are leaders in the Democratic Party who do it some of the time, I think that its increasingly on display in the discourse from and about the January 6 criminal conspiracy. But generally speaking,when were talking about abortion, were talking about abortion. When were talking about education, were talking about education. When were talking about fill in the blank, were talking about fill in the blank. And yeah, thats completely a mistake.

Thats something that the right has demonstrated and perfected. They have an overarching concept, like Make America Great Again, and that is a signaling mechanism with which they can talk about every single issue. Make America Great Again is a discourse that has something to say about taxes, has something to say about schooling, has something to say about work, has something to say about immigrants, etc. So having an overarching message or an overarching value proposition into which we can then slot our arguments about every particular issue is incredibly important.

Coming back to abortion, a majority of Americans support Roe and support access to abortion care. The fact that Roe has been overturned is not because people dont approve ofit. Its not because a majority of the people voted for the president who appointed the justices who overturned it. It must be frustrating trying to get people to vote on an issue that shouldnt even have to be a thing because the majority is already there for it.

You just handily, compactly explained how we dont live in a democracy.

Is that why it has to be discussed as a democracy issue? Because the majority is already there and exists?

Its a very hard story to explain to people. The casino is rigged. The house always wins. And yet we need you to come back to the casino and place another bet. And were going to explain to you how you need to place another bet by giving you an explanation of just how thoroughly the casino is rigged.

What we have to do is draw this exceptionally stark contrast between what [voters] believe in, what they want for themselves, for their country, for their children, etc and this authoritarian faction that is hell-bent on taking away our freedoms. So we cant make an abstract argument about democracy itself. We have to highlight the democracy concept by talking about things like your freedom to decide who governs in your name, your kids freedom to learn the truth of our past, your kids freedom to be who they are without intimidation, and their freedom to go to school without fearing theyre going to be shot in some mass killing.

With Roe gone, do you see an opportunity to talk about abortion in a different way? While, again, acknowledging the futility that you shouldnt have to be talking about it in a different way because a majority of people already support abortion rights.

There was a choice made once upon a time to argue Roe on privacy grounds and not equity grounds. What that sounded like in messaging was US, out of my uterus. Keep your laws off my body. My child, my choice. That was the second wave feminist refrain: a privacy argument that relies upon a libertarian framework that says, in essence, that government is an interfering terrible force.The reproductive justice critique that was made long, longago by Black women scholars and leaders was about the inadequacy of that approach. [The privacy approach] delivered us the Hyde Amendment. If youre making the argument that this is an issue in which government doesnt belong, then, alright, well, were not going to force insurance companies to pay for it. And were not going to provide it as part of any kind of national programs. And were not going to make state-based medical schools train practitioners in how to do this.

Without relying on this libertarian framework, how can you discuss abortionas a right?

You say: Someone you love will need an abortion some day and what will you do then? What will they do then? We need to turn out in record numbers to ensure that Trump Republicans cannot take away our freedoms and the freedoms of our loved ones.

A majority of people have supported [abortion rights] for a while. And that got us here. So in order to make this a turnout issue, Democrats have to convince people that turning out actually will manifest in some change. [Showing them that] when Democrats retain the House majority and grow the Senate majority, these are the ways that we are going to ensure care for your family, and have your freedom and rights respected.

Read this article:
Democrats Need to Realize That the End of Roe Is About More Than Abortion Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Data: FactSet, Bureau of Economic Analysis; Chart: Jacque Schrag/Axios

A key indicator of the financial health of Americans has declined steadily for the last 14 months, in yet another ominous sign from the economy that Democrats will face tough midterm elections.

Driving the news: Real per capita disposable income the money consumers can spend after accounting for taxes and inflation is dropping sharply, according to government data released Thursday.

Why it matters: Pollsters, political scientists and economists consider this measure of the household buying power to be, perhaps, the single best economic predictor of election results. Rising real incomes tend to predict rising vote share for the president's party during the midterm elections, and vice versa.

By the numbers: Real meaning inflation-adjusted per capita disposable income fell to $45,490 in May, down 3.6% from the previous year.

The big picture: In a recent note attempting to ballpark the outlook for Democrats in the November elections, Goldman Sachs analysts found that "real disposable income is the strongest predictor of election results among the economic variables we consider."

Longtime Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said on the political podcast "Hacks on Tap" earlier this year that "people look at all kinds of economic indicators unemployment, GDP, growth. The one that is most important politically that people never look at, is change in real disposable income."

Yes, but: This isn't a foolproof predictor of election outcomes. Goldman analysts, for example, note that other key economic indicators such as the still-low unemployment rate historically would suggest that the Democrats should fare well.

The bottom line: Unless something drastic happens and the recent Supreme Court decisions and Jan. 6 hearings could qualify the Democratic party could be up against a whopper of a midterm wave.

Continued here:
Why declining disposable income could spell trouble for Democrats in the midterms - Axios

House Democrats are grumbling their way into the July 4th holiday, dubious that President Bidens proposed gas-tax moratorium would help consumers and frustrated that its highlighted internal party divisions heading into the final months of the midterm campaign.

Withgas pricesapproaching and in some cases topping $5 per gallon across the country, Democratic leaders are scrambling for ways to provide real-time relief for exasperated consumers. Last week, with July 4th looming, Biden used his bully pulpit to champion one such strategy,urgingCongress to suspend the federal gas tax for three months to help ease the financial burden on drivers through the busy summer travel season.

The idea landed like a lead balloon on Capitol Hill, where even some of Bidens closest Democratic allies including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) gave it a cold reception.

From a practical standpoint, the presidents Democratic detractors are wary that oil companies will simply siphon off the savings for themselves rather than passing it along to consumers. And politically speaking, the critics are irritated that Biden would push an idea he knew to be unpopular among Democratic leaders in Congress, creating an internal rift just as the party is hoping to show a united front heading into Novembers elections.

I think he was trying to send a message to the American people [that] he was listening. But he sure wasnt listening to the congressional leadership, said one House Democratic leader, who spoke anonymously in order to criticize a White House ally. It didnt make things better.

The internal tensions illustrate the frustrations swirling within the Democratic Caucus as inflation has pushed the cost of a host of consumer goods steadily higher since the start of last year, defying the Democrats efforts to keep prices in check, pushing Bidens approval rating well underwater and complicating the Democrats chances of keeping control of the lower chamber in the midterms.

Gas is among the staples that have seen a precipitous cost spike, rising from a national average of $2.33 per gallon in January 2021 to $4.93 last month,according tothe Energy Information Administration. The trend prompted Biden last weekto urgeCongress to suspend the federal gas tax currently at 18.4 cents per gallon and for states to do the same with their local levies.

I fully understand that a gas tax holiday alone is not going to fix the problem, he said, but it will provide families some immediate relief just a little bit of breathing room as we continue working to bring down prices for the long haul.

The idea has won support from some moderate Democrats facing tough reelection contests in November, particularly in the Senate, where a number of vulnerable lawmakers are endorsing legislation to suspend the gas tax until January.

Yet the broader sentiment appears to align Democrats squarely against their White House leader.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) said Bidens objectives are on target, but like many Democrats shes doubtful that the consumer benefits would be anything but paltry.

Im concerned that the gas-tax holiday, which is well-intentioned, would not really make a great deal of impact on individual people. My fear is that we wouldnt feel it, Dean said. The 18.4 cents, the gas companies I think would probably skim off half of it. And so people would see just pennies on the gallon.

I want us to find a solution that actually makes a greater difference, she continued. So were looking at other alternatives.

Among those alternatives is legislation to apply a one-time windfall tax on the major oil companies that have reported record profits this year, even as consumer costs have soared.

Thats one way to go to make a difference to return those excess profits to the American people directly, Dean said.

A senior Democratic aide said Friday that there are no updates on leaderships potential plans to consider either proposal. But if the reaction from party leaders is any indication, the gas tax holiday is going nowhere fast.

Pelosi, who hadoutright rejectedthe tax holiday earlier in the year,put outa tepid statement on Bidens proposal,vowing only to see where the consensus lies on a path forward.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has ranked among the loudest critics of the tax break, warning that it would provide only minuscule consumer savings while depleting the Highway Trust Fund, which underwrites roads, bridges and other crucial infrastructure.

And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said hes sympathetic to DeFazios funding concerns.

The challenge on the gas tax is: Is the savings really going to flow to the consumer? Or is it going to be pocketed by the oil companies? echoed Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Those are legitimate questions.

Throughout the debate, administration officials have defended their anti-inflation strategy, arguing that many of the factors driving the painful trend including Russias invasion of Ukraine, supply-chain snags caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and the Federal Reserves decision to keep interest rates at historic lows throughout 2021 were outside of their control.

Biden has already released millions of gallons of oil from the countrysemergency stockpile, known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, in an effort to curb the price at the pump. And the president isplanning a much-anticipated trip to Saudi Arabia this month, though he has said he wont use the visit to press Saudi leaders to increase production.

In that context, officials say, the proposed tax holiday is just one piece of a larger strategy for getting fuel costs under control.

Its one of our highest priorities as an administration, Vice President Harris said this week in an interview with CNNs Dana Bash.

Such sentiments have not won many converts to the gas-tax holiday concept. But even some of those Democrats critical of the proposal said theres value in the fight.

The administration is signaling [that] they realize the pain at the pump, they realize the pain in the grocery stores, said Dean. Were trying to do everything we possibly can.

See more here:
Ahead of July 4th, Democrats frustrated with Bidens gas-tax holiday push - The Hill

Roe v. Wade has always been a kind of devils bargain for American liberalism. As I explained in my 2008 book, The Cause: The Fight for American Liberalism From Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama:

Feminists rejoiced at the news, but perhaps what the decision best illustrated was the degree to which liberals cultural victories would be won in the courts rather than in voting booths, thereby inspiring backlashes against them and the courts that had ruled on them, wherever they took place. For many people, Roe implied allowing recreational/nonprocreational sex, which they linked to other changes in the culture that further fueled the antiliberal backlash. Rising divorce rates and the increased availability of pornographyespecially its permeation of the larger culture through increasingly explicit movies and magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse, and the much raunchier Hustlerturned millions of economic liberals into cultural conservatives.

Undoubtedly, the loosening of sexual ethics, and simply suggesting that women experienced sexual pleasure as much as men, constituted a cultural victory for liberalism. The Germaine Greer style of feminism concerned itself less with equal access to education or professional advancement than with orgasms, while Erica Jongs 1973 Fear of Flying celebrated the fantasy of the zipless fuck, one based on anonymity and lack of commitment. But such sexual liberties also presented a danger in crudely equating individual pleasure with liberation. The ERAs failure provided sufficient warning about a general popular uneasiness with the side effects of the sexual revolution and the difficulty of politically legislated and/or judicially mandated cultural change It also created a whipping boy for conservative critics who suggested that liberalism, when it moved into cultural territory, was little more than mindless tolerance and permissiveness, ready to embrace a zipless fuck in virtually every aspect of public life.

The anger inspired by such reactions to Roe (Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed a parallel, though more legally based, set of concerns about the decision) led to the movement that eventually packed the Court with five justices who were not only wiling to overturn settled law on abortion and lie about it during their confirmation hearings. We now know they were willing to do so much more, rolling back the clock on half a century of racial progress, gun control, separation of church and state, gay rights, workplace protections, honest government, the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment, and who knows what in the future. (This to say nothing of the fact that this reactionary political movement was also able to somehow elect a dangerous lunatic to the presidency in 2016.)

Since the early 60s, liberals relied on what Samuel Moyn, in a prescient and tightly argued 2020 essay in Dissent, termed juristocracy rather than democracy to win their political battles. Now it has come back to bite them in the ass. Victories in the courtswhich were reflected in the popular cultureled to complacency about winning elections. One could easily name a whole host of issues in which liberals enjoy a supermajority in opinion polls but cannot get anywhere in terms of legislation or even much in the way of presidential action, even when one of our guys is president.

Read more Altercation

Obviously, a big part of the reason for the chokehold on popular progressive legislation is the power accorded to money in our system (thanks, in significant measure, to the Supreme Court; I sort of wrote a book about this, too). That explains why billionaires pay virtually no taxes and why corporations can despoil the planet without sanction. But that does not explain everything, and it does not particularly explain the loss of legal abortion, nor the absence of far stricter gun control law, which both enjoy supermajority support.

The silver lining in the Dobbs decisionlikely the only oneis the fact that, because it reaches so clearly and directly into the most intimate aspects of the lives of so many millions of people in a way that perhaps no other issue does, it may inspire the kind of passion on the progressive side that the right has consistently successfully ginned up for the past half-century. This is especially true in a period when both the Democratic Party and the resistance to Trump wereand arefemale-driven. It also turns the tables on the juristocracy, with Republicans in the position of using the courts to subvert popular opinion.

Things have not exactly been looking up for Democrats of late. But on Monday morning, Axios reported two snap polls that followed the Dobbs decision: First, a CBS News/YouGov poll of 1,591 adults found that 50 percent of Democrats were more likely to vote based on the ruling, while only 20 percent of Republicans said the same. Second, an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll of 941 adults found that 78 percent of Democrats said the Courts decision makes them more likely to vote this fall24 points higher than Republicans.

Owing to the fact that at least two members of the Democrats one-member majority in the Senate (including the vice presidents vote) are really more comfortable with the Republicans agenda than their own, they do not have a hope of playing the same sort of dirty pool that Mitch McConnell used to stack the Court with ideologues who would march in lockstep with the conservative movements agenda. They will have to win back their rightsthe ones weve already lost and the ones we are about to lose if Clarence Thomass writings and speeches are any guide (as they have been in the past)in the streets and at the ballot box.

It must be a two-pronged effort: first, to save our democracy from theft by the fascist cult that has colonized the Republican Party and is planning to undermine the majority rule in 2024; and second, to inspire people who previously thought that everythingespecially everything for well-educated, upper-middle-class urban and suburban eliteswas going to be all right without too much effort on our part.

I think AOCs approach is the right one on this, and 82-year-old Nancy Pelosiwho supported the only anti-choice, pro-NRA Democrat in the House against his progressive challengermaybe not so much. (I mean, a poem? Seriously?) I also worry that 79-year-old Joe Bidenwho is, according to sources, apparently worried about Democrats appearing too partisan and potentially threatening the alleged public trust of the very same Supreme Court that is gutting all of our rights and endangering our lives and our democracyis also too much a man of the Democrats complacent past to be a man of this crucial moment. Biden, coincidentally, more than anyone ensured that Clarence Thomas would be shielded from his disgraceful past during his confirmation hearings and thereby approved by the Senate.

Given Bidens poll numbers, and the concerns that one would have about any person of his age in so demanding a job, I do not think it would be such a terrible idea if, say, 54-year-old Gavin Newsom (who, as it happens, has coincidentally just bought advertising time in Florida) decided that the party was ready for new leadership and challenged him in the primaries running on a more energetic, and yes, partisan, platform (though I am still going to need an explanation for that marriage to Kimberly Guilfoyle).

More than 80 years ago, the Frankfurt School theorist Max Horkheimer, still in his more radical phase, insisted that liberalism was an unreliable basis of resistance to fascism, and only socialism would be strong enough to survive its onslaught. If Horkheimer is to be proven wrong, liberalism needs to finally become the fighting faith so many of its partisans have always hoped it would become. Dobbs may very well be the spark that makes that possible. (John Ganz, I see, has something similar to say here. And Michelle Goldberg has another, interesting point to make here.)

Why They Hate Us, Part XXXVI: Shockerthe CIA funded the Colombian military for decades while fully aware that it was directing the killings of leftist activists.

Clever tweet of the week from @jonfasman: The plate-throwing detail is unsurprising. Trump said he would be tough on china.

This guy informs us that Tuesday was National Columnists Day. Isnt that lovely? He suggests you watch C-Spans Brian Lamb interview with Eric Alterman on his book, Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics (1992), which diagnosed that world years before Jon Stewarts more famous takedown of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossfire, here. Smart guy, I gotta say

I saw Baz Luhrmanns Elvis movie this week. I am usually a fan of his work, but not this time. My advice would be to stay home unless you really feel like going to the movies and theres only crap playing. Its entertaining, but far too long, narratively incoherent, and historically useless. Its saving grace is Tom Hankss amazing performance as Colonel Parker. But really, if ever there were an argument for originalism, the actual Elvis is it: Here, here, here, here (with the wonderful Ann-Margret), and finally, here are my favorites of the Kings many magnificent performances. Bonus: Heres the greatest performer of any kind in any medium doing an unrehearsed solo Burning Love during a Paris preconcert sound check by request. And heres an even more impressive one, also by request (and therefore unrehearsed) with the worlds tightest rock n roll band. And finally, here he is again, with the Philly Elvis, in one of the craziest performances you will ever see.

Excerpt from:
Altercation: The 'Dobbs' Backlash and the Democrats' Choice - The American Prospect

Senator Ron Johnsons political shenanigans have ranged from the absurd (like when he said it may be true that COVID vaccines cause AIDS only to later deny ever believing that) to the potentially illegal (coordinating an effort to serve up fake Donald Trumpsupporting electors to Vice President Mike Pence, allegedly in an effort to overturn Joe Bidens victory in 2020). Democrats are amplifying these issues, but the strategy to defeat the incumbent Wisconsin senator also has another clear target: his record on women. The Supreme Court decision overruling the landmark Roe v. Wade Fridayand Wisconsins 173-year-old state law banning abortions now in effecthas the potential to make this strategy more politically potent than ever, making Johnson a clear test case in Democrats promise to make womens rights a winning issue at the ballot box.

Johnson is an easy target in that respect. The two-term senator said he didnt view the repeal of Roe v. Wade as a huge threat to womens health and that things would be fine. He said anyone who does not like Wisconsins abortion laws can move, has advocated for a federal abortion ban after 20 weeksdespite arguing that the matter was a states issueand supported a Mississippi law to ban abortions after 15 weeks. The Wisconsin Democratic Party regularly blasts out fact sheets highlighting Johnsons work to strip reproductive rights. The states Democratic candidates for Senate have all targeted Johnsons record on women and reproductive rights across various mediums, including paid campaign TV ads (Sarah Godlewski cut an ad outside the Supreme Court in Washington), social media posts, and official statements.

Its a strategy seemingly based on lessons learned from the last three election cycles. In 2018 Democrats energized their base to deliver Tony Evers the governorship, despite Trump winning the state two years prior; in 2020, Biden managed to flip the state from red to blue by siphoning off key votes in Milwaukee suburbsWaukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties notable among themand chipping away at historically landslide margins in traditional Republican strongholds like the Mequon, Elm Grove, and Brookfield suburbs. Alex Lasry, a Milwaukee Bucks executive running in the Democratic Senate primary, stressed in a phone call that to win the state, Democrats need to replicate the victories of Barack Obama, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Evers, and Joe Biden by paying attention to places that Democrats neglect and Republicans take for granted.

Republicans concede this could work; one GOP strategist who has run numerous campaigns in Wisconsin explained that Johnson cant win by plucking from the MAGA playbook alone. The people who are going to walk through walls to vote so that they can vote for Ron Johnson, theyre gonna show up anyway. But that isnt gonna be enough to get him elected, the strategist said. They either have to figure out a way to make him passable to those people that probably would vote for Ron Johnson, but might not.

Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barness campaign for Senate said it received more individual donations on Friday than any other single day in the campaign, including its launch and the day Johnson announced his reelection campaign. Lasrys campaign said it has experienced a notable uptick in online campaign donations. And Friday through Sunday, Godlewski, the only woman candidate in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat, had her best-performing fundraising days since the start of her campaigneach day outstripping the previous. The ruling that came out Friday was a very dramatic moment in the fact that now people in Wisconsin have fewer rights than they did even last week, Godlewski told Vanity Fair. I think thats gonna be a centerpiece because we know Ron Johnson; this is exactly what he wanted.

Barnes and Lasry echoed this sentiment. People are frustrated. Women are incredibly frustratedas they should beseeing their rights being taken away in real time. Things that were fought and won 50 years agoto have to go through those same exact fights, people are fired up, especially maybe those who may not have thought they were political before, understanding just how deeply involved politics is in folks daily lives, Barnes said.

We see what happens when Republicans take over, they continue to make sure that they take away rights for women, Lasry said.

Wisconsin Democrats feel they have a credible case to make against Johnson when it comes to his record on women. In addition to his position on Roe, Johnson has suggested that single mothers choose to have more children in order to receive greater welfare assistance. He also suggested that assisting single mothers with government aid turned them into dependents and that mothers on welfare assistance should work in childcare centers as an alternative solution. He is really a true believer when it comes to the oppression of women and disrespecting women. Hes been doing it for a long time here in his political career, Melissa Baldauff, a Democratic strategist based in Wisconsin, told me. (Johnsons campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Robyn Vining, a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, relied on women voters in 2018, when she flipped a longtime red seat previously held by the likes of former Republican governor Scott Walker in 2018 and held on to it in 2020. We had women who had never knocked doors before, out knocking doors. We had women writing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of postcards, Vining said. It really matters. Women are fed up. Theyre sick and tired of being targeted, of being unrepresented.

Read the original here:
Women Are Fed Up: Democrats See Ron Johnsons Abortion Record as Their Path to Victory - Vanity Fair