Four months ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue of abortion to the states, it was an unmitigated disaster for American women.
For the Democratic Party, it provided a political lifeline.
Outraged supporters of a woman’s right to choose turned out in droves in special elections earlier this summer in New York and Alaska, bringing unexpected victories for Democratic candidates. A referendum on a constitutional amendment in Kansas, which would have set the stage for an abortion ban in the state, lost by double-digits. Even in the face of punishing inflation and the historical trend of major losses in midterm elections for the party controlling the White House, polls throughout the summer showed Democratic candidates dramatically overperforming—and buoyed, in large part, by public backlash to the Court’s abortion ruling.
ADVERTISEMENT
But in the words of the Bard, summer’s lease hath all too short a date.
Democrats’ July and August hopes have been replaced by trepidation that the November fall will bring with it a terrifying red wave. If Democrats are to get a treat rather than a trick, voter anger over abortion may be the key—but will it be enough to make a difference on Election Day?
One thing is certain: Republicans would rather focus on the economy, immigration, and crime. But yet, they keep finding themselves caught in the maw.
For example, on Wednesday, Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker was accused, again, of paying for a girlfriend’s abortion (he had been previously accused of the same thing by another woman last month). Though Walker’s opponent, Sen. Raphael Warnock, has not focused on the abortion issue as prominently as other Democrats, any news story that highlights Walker’s hypocrisy on the issue is one that likely benefits him. According to a recent poll, 62 percent of state residents oppose the state’s new law that bans most abortions after six weeks.
To be sure, there wouldn’t be any debate about Democrats holding the Senate or the House if not for the Supreme Court. The incumbent party almost always fares poorly in midterm elections—since 1934, it has typically lost, on average, 28 seats. Those numbers are often made worse by a lousy economy and/or an unpopular president, both of which are currently saddling Democratic candidates.
But the Dobbs decision threw a potential monkey wrench into that historical pattern.
Indeed, if Democrats are to pull an upset in 13 days, it will almost certainly be the result of enraged pro-choice voters turning out in droves. To date, polls have not picked up such a blue wave, but Democratic candidates are doing their part to help test the theory. According to a recent estimate by the firm AdImpact, Democrats ran $73 million worth of abortion ads in September—that was a third of all television ad spending by Democrats that month.
In Michigan, one local Democratic insider joked with me that “90 percent” of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ads deal with the issue. Airwaves in Nevada and Arizona are also blanketed with Democratic ads attacking their opponents’ stances on abortion. Democrats spent more than $10 million in Arizona—over $6 million of which was on abortion-related ads.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro has placed the issue front and center in his race against Republican Doug Mastriano, who supports a highly restrictive abortion ban and has even been caught on tape saying women should be prosecuted if they have abortions.
Shapiro’s ticket mate, U.S. Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, had an abysmal debate performance on Tuesday night but might have been bailed out when his opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, said abortion should not be a federal issue but rather left to a woman, her doctor, and “local officials.” Not surprisingly, by 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, the Fetterman campaign had a new ad up, blasting Oz’s statement and using the specter of a local official like Mastriano making reproductive health choices for women.
What is most striking about the Democrats’ ad war on abortion is its highly personal nature. In South Carolina, an ad for long-shot Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Cunningham tells the story of Fran, a woman raped by two men when she was a child, who says that “Roe v. Wade gave me the opportunity to become an educator, a mother, and grandmother.”
In North Carolina, in one of the most hotly contested races in the country, Democratic House candidate Wally Nickel has made abortion the focus of his campaign. This week he ran a new ad recounting the story of Betty, a woman who had an abortion before Roe v. Wade, and almost died as a result.
It’s still too soon to say whether any of this will sway voters. Cunningham’s ad is powerful, but few political observers expect him to win. Nickel leads in the most recent public poll (by one point), but the seat is still considered a toss-up. There is also the complicating factor that abortion in North Carolina remains legal for up to 20 weeks.
Will voters be motivated to put aside their concerns over the economy and inflation and vote on abortion if they don’t have to personally worry about the procedure being criminalized?
Paradoxically, the weakness among Democratic House candidates in blue locales like New York, California, Rhode Island, and Connecticut could be a byproduct of those states’ leaders stating clearly that they intend to keep abortion safe and legal. Voters in these states can register their anger over the economy without having to necessarily worry about the impact on womens’ reproductive health.
In other words, while Democrats have placed abortion front and center and insisted that this election is a referendum on the issue, success on Election Day (or lack thereof) will come down to a question of whether their voters agree.
