An interesting day today in that the Democrat is on the move. There must be some internal polling data suggesting that her base of women 30-50s are moving away.
To secure her base, Democrat Gina Raimondo is attempting to make an issue where there once was one, but probably doesn’t really exist anymore. Why? To secure the people who were in that fight so many years ago, largely the voting block of women in their late 30s and 50s.
When was the last time you even contemplated that the right to an abortion would be threatened? Really? We have an entire generation who knows of no other option. Is it going to change back? Be honest and you will see how this strategy works.
The threat of the return despite its remote possibility excites the base in that it was an issue they fought hard to secure. Threaten to protect it from phantom removers, you have gained support. It is almost that simple.
Raimondo’s camp wants to rip the scab off of an old issue for political manipulation. It was a somewhat transparent in her pandering, but the bottom line it will motivate her minions. Who cares if it serves to divide a society that had almost put a contentious issue behind them.
The taking this road is usually as a result of internal polling. Why else? Republican Fung has clearly articulated he was pro-choice, and my campaign, believing in personal freedom and personal responsibility, is pro-choice. Who is the one working to take away the right of a woman to control her own destiny?
Raising the bogey man is cheap politics and it works. It puts the opponent, specifically Fung here in that Raimondo is also using the strategy of ignoring Healey in the media so as to not give me free publicity, another good and calculated strategy.
But this leaves her vulnerable. She will inevitably argue with the local bishop and the right to life community, but it goes beyond this, regardless where you are on the issue.
Raimondo professes that she is a practicing Catholic. Regardless of how many people listen to the bishop, his argument is valid. If you say you are a Catholic, follow the rules of Catholicism. If not, renounce your religion (and practice it as you see it), but you are not a Catholic if you are not in line with the tenets of the faith.
In short, Raimondo’s Catholicism is as hollow as her pandering. You don’t have to be a Catholic to be Governor, but I guess polling shows that you can get more votes by saying you are. Rhode Island is a highly concentrated Catholic state in terms of population. It will work. No one likes rules and no one wants to renounce their religion. In short, many can identify with her position, even if it is a mere scare the voter.
It is foolish to engage in this battle other than to make an effort to point out the fact that it is fighting with a straw man and that it is just another move to divide society instead of unifying it. If left alone, it will die of its own staleness.
Good move from a publicity standpoint, and thus a strategy standpoint. Bad move in that it is quite divisive in terms of politics.
LESSON FOURTEEN: PEOPLE GROW OLDER AND WANT TO REMEMBER THE STRUGGLES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH. IT’S HUMAN. IT WILL BE USED IN TIMES WHEN A BASE IS SLIPPING AWAY OR WHEN THERE IS A NEED TO RAISE MONEY AND SUPPORT. A GOOD TOOL IN THAT IT IS CHEAP TO IMPLEMENT AND PROVIDES A SENSE OF FIGHTING FOR A CAUSE, NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY THE CAUSE WILL EVER REAR ITS HEAD.
Tonight I head out to the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns dinner. It was supposed to be a debate before Raimondo-Fung made their alliance limiting exposure of each other. Instead of a debate, Fung and I will be given ten minutes to speak.
Since the debate won’t occur, the questions were released. The questions and the answers will be posted as a document on this page. Check it out if you want to get a sense of how special interest groups explore a candidate’s position.