Question: would you support a gun control candidate who was anti-choice?

[brooklynite]

How about one who want to close the border to new immigrants?

How about one who doesn't believe in climate change?

If the answer is "no", you've identified the problem. That 70-80% who support increased regulation/restriction on gun ownership don't support it enough to make it the focal point of their voting choices. Meanwhile, the pro-gun crowd WILL vote for a candidate on that sole basis. And the pro-gun candidates and elected officials know that.

[iemanja]

1. They don't exist.

Republican politicians do not support choice or gun control. They never try to support choice, but when they dry to support gun control they are forced out of office. Democrats are pro-choice and pro-gun control. Parties make a difference.

No one is my district would dream of opposing choice or gun control. They'd never win a seat if they did. Red districts are of course different, but Democrats don't vote red.

[CousinIT]

2. NO. n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Not just no. HELL no.

[Ohio Joe]

4. No - nt

[Just A Box Of Rain]

5. I really don't think this is the crux of the problem

[brooklynite]

7. The 70-80% margin includes Independents and Republicans

There aren't enough votes in Congress to pass meaningful gun regulation. The only way to increase votes in Congress is to win back seats from Republicans. Those aren't safe D seats where Democrats don't have to worry about the results. They're competitive suburban seats where we can occasionally win over moderate Independent and Republican voters. But they won't reflexively vote for a pro-gun control Democrat. So how do you get them to offset the pro-gun vote that will reflexively vote for an anti-gun control Republican?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

11. Failing to understand your logic here.

That 70-80% of voters favor at least some forms of gun control--such as universal background checks, red-flag laws, waiting periods, and age requirements for AR15 style rifles that are in line with current requirements for handguns--is an advantage for Democrats, not a liability.

Especially in suburban seats where frustration with the status quo is peaking

[brooklynite]

15. "Support" expressed in a poll is meaningless unless supported by voting...

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. Okay. But how does that changed the nature of things at the ballot?

If 70-80% of voters support "sensible" gun control measures, how does that hurt Democrats who do the same?

[brooklynite]

18. My point is that it doesn't win the additional seats needed to pass desired gun regulations

Columbine was in 1999. Did refusing to pass desired gun regulations impact the Republican candidates in 2000?

Fort Hood was in 2009. Did refusing to pass desired gun regulations impact the Republican candidates in 2010?

Sandy Hook was in 2012. Did refusing to pass desired gun regulations impact the Republican candidates in November?

El Paso was in 2019. Did refusing to pass desired gun regulations impact the Republican candidates in 2020?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

19. If 70-80% of voters approve...

how does "sensible" gun control not help win seats?

I don't follow your reasoning.

[brooklynite]

20. Because, as I've said, the supporters don't vote that way...

They vote for a Republican who will cut their taxes. Or get rid of business regulations. Or not harp on social issues.

Pro-gun Republicans know that they won't lose votes for remaining pro-gun.

[AZProgressive]

26. Republicans want to stop talking about guns & focus on inflation

I think March for our Lives probably helped in the 2018 midterms. Climate change & gun policy are 2 issues that interest suburban voters.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

30. I don't read it the same way.

I think mainstream voters are increasingly fed up with intransigence over common sense gun reforms and that this will cost the Republicans votes in critical swing districts, especially among suburban voters.

It doesn't need to be anywhere near a 100% shift to affect outcomes.

[LeftInTX]

29. It depends "where" these voters are located and "how important" it is to them

[dixiechiken1]

6. NO.

[Voltaire2]

8. FUD.

If one’s goal is to push paralysis this kind of thinking is definitely the way to go.

[brush]

9. Well we know republicans are against both so it's best to choose...

the Democrat, unless we're talking a primary election.

[brooklynite]

10. My point is that "we" aren't the issue...

I'm using that as an example, but there are non-Democratic activists we rely on in competitive seats that won't automatically support a gun-control Democratic candidate.

[empedocles]

16. Strong point. November is crucial.

[DBoon]

12. a mythical creature like the centaur

such a mix of characteristics does not exist in the real world.

[stopdiggin]

14. I don't consider that a 'problem'

rather an affirmation of rational decision. And the logical progression from your argument - is a non-starter.
----- -----

[LakeArenal]

21. I think yes or no answers to complex issues is a trap.

[relayerbob]

24. I agree 100%

It’s a false dichotomy, and is meant as a litmus test, not a judge of a good or bad candidate, but a test of the purity of who is answering.

[Freddie]

22. NO

Women’s rights is my personal #1 issue.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. +1. A so-called "pro-life" candidate will never get my vote.

The other issues are bonus, but more convoluted in connections from causes to effectiveness.

Pro choice? You got my vote.

[BlueGreenLady]

23. No n/t

[Scrivener7]

27. Can you name a gun control candidate who is anti-choice?

[dpibel]

28. Now, now

Don't be spoiling a perfectly divisive lewnatic hypothetical.