By Denise Ross

I know it’s the big budget day - and I have some stuff to post on that, coming later today - but in the meantime, here’s a bit of counterprogramming.  During the pre-Thanksgiving flurry, I wrote a piece for The New Republic - and it’s up today. (And I quote fellow bloggers Ken Blanchard and Joel Rosenthal.)

The question posed to me was, Why did the 2008 abortion ban go down as hard as the 2006 ban did, since the 2008 ban had the rape, incest and health exceptions that folks told the pollsters in 2006 that they wanted? (In both elections, voters shot down the bans by 10-point margins.)

Good question. I don’t know if I have the answer, but I threw out a few theories.

• A reverse Bradley effect - People simply lied about their intention to vote for the 2008 ban. (A poll done shortly before the election showed the thing at a dead heat, with 12 % undecided. I suppose it’s possible that the bulk of the undecideds swung to the anti-ban camp, but it seems unlikely.)
• Abortion fatigue - Voters, worn out by the emotional debate, tuned the campaign messages out and simply voted the same way they did 2 years ago.
• Sophisticated electorate - For years, DC political operatives have told me that South Dakota’s electorate is highly literate. This means not just that we know how to read, but that we can speak to the details of many issues. This complicates the job of campaign operatives, as glittering generalities (and gutter generalities), distortions and spin are harder to sell here. (I like to say that our BS detectors are set on high.) Anyway, after the 2006 campaign - ‘member that? - we all know a whole lot more about abortion than we ever knew there was to know. And that makes it more difficult for both sides to shape their messages in our modern, sound-bite- and slogan-driven political world.
• The split in the pro-life community - How many otherwise pro-ban votes did SD Right to Life’s official opposition to the 2008 ban cost?
• A low-energy 2008 campaign - This one hit the cutting room floor at the magazine, but I still marvel at how the 2006 and 2008 campaigns seemed to be polar opposites. I have to wonder if the same energy - and probably money - were pumped into 2008, and we had a summer and fall filled with street rallies and press conferences, would the outcome have been different? Legislators going door-to-door report that many voters were surprised (in October) to learn that another abortion ban was on the ballot. And you know how when we don’t understand a ballot measure, we vote no.

Most likely, a combination of these factors - with abortion fatigue being the foundation - could explain the twin outcomes. Without more polling - and really sophisticated polling at that - and perhaps focus groups, it’s anybody’s guess. There does seem to be a consensus amongst the chattering class that had the 2006 ban included exceptions, it would have passed. Again, who’s to know for sure?

But if that’s true, then there’s some dynamic at play here that deserves more study. What factor interceded to turn off voters who would have voted yes on such an emotional and personal issue so much so that they voted no? Or are that many South Dakotans closet pro-choicers?

Would love to hear your thoughts, especially if you think I overlooked something.

Spread the word

Hide Sites