Lindsey Graham trying to intentionally sabotage the midterms?

[Stoic]

You tell me.

A guy known by the right as an obvious RINO, as establishment as they come, and a fan of Biden (you can see a video of him crying like a little baby over how much he admires Biden), obviously hates populist Reps, knowing full well how much of a hotbed topic abortion is to the left and how close the polls have become apparently because of abortion, introduces a bill like this he knows doesn't have a chance (which was also a change of a view he previously held), and I'm supposed to believe he's not trying to throw the midterms in favor of the Dems?

Or is he really just that dumb? You be the judge.

Graham's proposed near-total national abortion ban quickly meets GOP resistance

(bold emphasis mine)

It is kind of hard to square Graham's proposal with the idea that he wants the Republicans to be in power.

Perhaps he's afraid of the Democrats getting rid of the filibuster, and wants to show them what will happen the next time Republicans are in power if they do. Or maybe he wants the Democrats to be in power for another two years in order to benefit the Republicans in 2024. Or maybe he just didn't realize the impact his proposal would have on this year's election.

[seer]

It's got to be one of the two: Either Graham is extraordinarily dumb or he's intentionally trying to give Dems the advantage. What say you?

I don't know his motive, but it is hard to believe that he is this stupid.

[Teallaura]

Or it's just a little base fiddle - how's Graham looking back home?

[Starlight]

Schumer would be insane to not progress Graham's bill to a full Senate vote between now and the election. If the Republican senators vote for it, independents will be upset, if they vote against it, their base will be upset. It's win-win for Dems.

[KingsGambit]

Abortion is the holocaust of the unborn. There is no wrong time to criminalize it.

Any party not willing to spend even significant political capital on this does not deserve power.

[Juvenal]

Abortion is the holocaust of the unborn. There is no wrong time to criminalize it.

Folks are objecting because they believe there is no right time to lose a battle to criminalize abortion.

[Mountain Man]

Abortion is the holocaust of the unborn. There is no wrong time to criminalize it.

Any party not willing to spend even significant political capital on this does not deserve power.

What if spending that significant political capital causes the party in question to risk losing an election and thus become powerless to criminalize abortion?

[KingsGambit]

What if spending that significant political capital causes the party in question to risk losing an election and thus become powerless to criminalize abortion?

Because the same argument will come up as an excuse after the election as well, with only two years in between elections. It's not for nothing that the GOP has frequently been accused of refusing to act on abortion because doing so would remove a talking point.

[seanD]

Because the same argument will come up as an excuse after the election as well, with only two years in between elections. It's not for nothing that the GOP has frequently been accused of refusing to act on abortion because doing so would remove a talking point.

It's not like we're talking years. We're talking months, a difference of September '22 versus December '22. And what would have been accomplished by it other than being symbolic? it wouldn't have budged in the senate at the time.

[KingsGambit]

It's not like we're talking years. We're talking months, a difference of September '22 versus December '22. And what would have been accomplished by it other than being symbolic? it wouldn't have budged in the senate at the time.

The millions of the lives that would be saved upon the bill's passage. But more realistically, the separation of the wheat from the chaff. Upon it's realistic failure, let those in opposition go on record as those who need to be purged from political life.

[seanD]

The millions of the lives that would be saved upon the bill's passage. But more realistically, the separation of the wheat from the chaff. Upon it's realistic failure, let those in opposition go on record as those who need to be purged from political life.

Well, unfortunately, there's a good chance the bill may never pass for quite some time now thanks to Graham.

[Terraceth]

Abortion is the holocaust of the unborn. There is no wrong time to criminalize it.

Any party not willing to spend even significant political capital on this does not deserve power.

If there was even the slightest chance the bill would pass, you might have a point. But there isn't. It would have to somehow get past the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, even if it is by a narrow margin. Setting aside questions about the filibuster, you not only have to pick up at least one Democrat, you also have to convince Murkowski and Collins (two pro-choice Republican senators), who would be hard sells on this. That's not happening.

Even if somehow you manage to pass it in the Senate (I don't know, maybe a bunch of pro-choice Senators suddenly die or something), you face the even more Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to pass which would manage to be even harder.

And then, if you somehow manage to accomplish all of that, then you have to either have Biden have a total and spontaneous change of heart on the subject to sign it into law. If he doesn't, then you have to repeat steps one and two, except with the already impossible requirements made even harder.

I would sooner bet on Xi Jinping proving he has no intention of ever taking Taiwan by giving them strong weapons for defense and offering to personally fund the next Winnie the Pooh movie than I would this bill passing right now.

[Teallaura]

What if spending that significant political capital causes the party in question to risk losing an election and thus become powerless to criminalize abortion?

While I normally agree with picking your battles, there was no better time than this. Frankly, I doubt it moves the needle at all. Shy of running the Buffalo Guy for the Senate, I'm not sure the Republicans could screw this up. it takes a LOT to get people that PO'd and it's not easy to get them to shift targets.

Graham did this way too early to do any real damage anyway. All he might have done is energize their base but he did it too soon. This won't get out the vote the Dems need to survive.

[Teallaura]

If there was even the slightest chance the bill would pass, you might have a point. But there isn't. It would have to somehow get past the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, even if it is by a narrow margin. Setting aside questions about the filibuster, you not only have to pick up at least one Democrat, you also have to convince Murkowski and Collins (two pro-choice Republican senators), who would be hard sells on this. That's not happening.

Even if somehow you manage to pass it in the Senate (I don't know, maybe a bunch of pro-choice Senators suddenly die or something), you face the even more Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to pass which would manage to be even harder.

And then, if you somehow manage to accomplish all of that, then you have to either have Biden have a total and spontaneous change of heart on the subject to sign it into law. If he doesn't, then you have to repeat steps one and two, except with the already impossible requirements made even harder.

I would sooner bet on Xi Jinping proving he has no intention of ever taking Taiwan by giving them strong weapons for defense and offering to personally fund the next Winnie the Pooh movie than I would this bill passing right now.

I don't disagree. I'm not sure if Graham is just pandering to his own base as I suspect or really trying to throw in a spanner. He did it too early for the latter to matter much.

He might, possibly, be floating the idea for a later attempt to actually pass something. It's actually not bad timing for that although the optics still stink.

I still think he's just padding his votes for the midterms.

[Teallaura]

It's not like we're talking years. We're talking months, a difference of September '22 versus December '22. And what would have been accomplished by it other than being symbolic? it wouldn't have budged in the senate at the time.

True, but it also didn't matter. Abortion can't save the Dems despite their delusions to the contrary.

What he might have been doing (this is not my own suspicion though) is floating the idea to get it out in the open. This helps when trying to pass something more 'reasonable' down the line. And the timing is about as perfect as it can get for that kind of stunt - it plays to the base, and doesn't have the staying power as an issue since McConnell didn't back it.