If You Haven’t Voted Yet, Please Take A Look At These Clips Before You Do

Get Out Of My Bedroom, You Creep

Progress Action Fund put up a strong series of ads this cycle. The two most recent and the most compelling— the one above and the one just below that can't be embedded and can only be watched on YouTube— are about abortion, though they seem to be at least as much meant to reach and move young men as they are meant to reach young women. And young women are probably all set with this message anyway.

On Sunday, Bill Kristol reminded Bulwark readers that “abortion rights is the issue that could decide this presidential contest.” I’d like to add that there are dozens of congressional races it could decide too— from Senate seats in Ohio and Nebraska to House seats held by anti-Choice GOP incumbents like Tom Kean, Jr (NJ), Brandon Williams (NY), Juan Ciscomani (AZ), Mike Garcia (CA), Zach Nunn (IA), March Molinaro (NY), Don Bacon (NE), Anthony D’Esposito (NY), Michelle Steel (CA) and more than a dozen others.

Kristol was most exercised over this weekend’s presidential polling in Iowa, “with the shocking result of Kamala Harris up 47-44 over Donald Trump in Iowa, a state with a six-week abortion ban. But it has been evident all along, of course. If there had been no Dobbs decision, if the question of reproductive rights had not been thrust front and center into our politics in 2024, would Kamala Harris be running a bit ahead of Donald Trump? Wouldn’t she be trailing thanks to general disapproval of the Biden-Harris administration, due to retrospective approval of Trump’s performance on the economy, due to concerns about immigration and the border? I don’t think January 6th would be enough to sink Trump by itself. I do think Trump would be winning if reproductive rights weren’t at stake. Trump has given the indication that he believes this, too: from his deliberate efforts to muddy his position on the topic to his proclamation that women won’t be ‘thinking about abortion’ if he’s elected, as he portrays himself as their ‘protector.’”

The issue of abortion rights is critical to analyzing and understanding this election. But it makes mainstream commentators uneasy. Not because they’re not for abortion rights— I imagine most of them are. But because it somehow doesn’t seem as momentous or as suitable in deciding a crucial election, compared to issues like the economy, or democracy, or even immigration. It’s also a little personal and, rightfully, emotional. And so I think my (mostly male) counterparts are a bit shy about discussing the issue. [What about this issue, also highlighted by Progress Action Fund?]

But you know what? Dobbs really was one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of modern times. Real lives have been affected and are being affected by it. As Selzer noted, in Iowa, it was the state ban that got people interested in voting. As Steve Kornacki observed, the saturation coverage around the abortion ban has been evident in Iowa polling— with massive opposition correlating into major Harris gains.

That’s just Iowa. But the ripple effects of Dobbs can be seen far beyond there, as well. The issue of abortion remains in question in several major states, and perhaps nationally. The next president will make judicial appointments, could sign legislation, and will have the power to take executive actions that will actually affect abortion access and other related issues.

Reproductive freedom is a real issue that separates the two presidential candidates and their two parties from one another. Voters are entitled to vote on it. Many are.

I’m sure that within the Harris campaign, and allied Super PACs, there’s a fair amount of internal mansplaining going on about how they have to end on a positive, upbeat, message of unity and the future. Perhaps they’re wondering: What kind of a closing message is something so divisive, so discomforting, as abortion rights? 

In fact, it’s a powerful closing message. Let the mansplaining political commentators wring their hands. Reproductive freedom is a crucial issue, and a winning one, and the Harris campaign would be foolish not to make it a closing one in these last couple of days.

Jerrad Christian is a progressive running in aa district slowing turning purple but still represented by an old fashioned lock-step reactionary, Troy Balderson. “The GOP’s assault on a woman’s right to abortion and medical care,” Christian told us yesterday, “reflects a broader trend: Republicans chipping away at individual freedoms and controlling personal choices. By rolling back reproductive rights, Republicans are doing more than attacking healthcare; they're undermining the autonomy women have over their own lives. This isn't an isolated issue— it’s part of a playbook that prioritizes political ideology over personal freedom. We see the same tactic in voting rights, where restrictive laws and reduced access to polling stations disproportionately affect communities likely to vote against them. Their stance on LGBTQ+ rights, with attempts to restrict gender-affirming care and limit who people can marry is dangerous and backward.”

Christian concluded that “Each move is about dictating who gets to make decisions about their own lives. Each freedom they erode becomes a stepping stone toward taking away the next one, leaving less room for Americans to live their lives on their own terms. The Democratic party is the party of freedom.”

In the end all of these issues are intensely personal. And people don't appreciate conservative politicians reaching into their decision-making, not even in red districts. The role of teh congressman in this one could have easily been played by Troy Balderson, the extreme right, extreme anti-freedom Republican running against Jerrad.