• OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    348
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    We legalized marijuana too!

    I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus, but I voted to protect both and I’m glad we won!

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus

      Same and I’m personally anti-abortion, but that’s my personal stance and I have no right to try to force that on others.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.

        Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I’ll admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I’m sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)

        Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women’s lives in danger.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.

    From the ballot:

    • Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
    • Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
    • Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.
    • Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.
    • Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
    • Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.

    This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person’s reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person’s reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.

    To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person’s reproductive rights

      Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.

      • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state’s rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn’t make actual sense.

        It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn’t go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.

        They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress’ business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (that it is the state’s prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government’s), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.

        It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.

        TLDR; it’d be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state’s the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!

      Right?

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t live in Ohio, but I’m right on the state border. So many “vote no on issue 1” signs around here. I was worried that it would fail. Glad to see otherwise.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          68
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s been polling consistently strong. Those signs you were seeing on the border are not representative of where the majority of Ohioans live.

          What people need to take away from this is that the majority very often want things that are denied to them by a minority of voters who have been given disproportionate control.

          What were seeing is direct democracy in action. No gerrymandered districts, just the people voting for what they fuck they want, and majority rules.

          If we had more of that (not full direct democracy 24/7 but more than we have now) you’d see a lot more popular things actually get done.

          There’s danger there, populism is a double edged sword, but the opposite extreme is what we have now: a majority of people consistently and perpetually having their will undermined by a minority entirely because of their zip code, while the Republicans the minority gives power to continue to make this even worse.

          When you actually look at national polling, the majority of people want a lot of things that have no hope of ever making it through Congress any time in the near future because of obstruction from red states that get disproportionate power entirely because of geography. This is untenable.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          My polling place is right next to a sizeable Catholic church, and the amount of “vote no on issue 1” signs I saw in front of it was almost comical

        • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I drive primarily in the country and it’s been interesting to see how deep the divide is between rural and urban areas.

          Maga flags above American flags everywhere. No on issue 1 signs everywhere. A couple handmade signs who’s message is summed up with “keep potheads out of Ohio”.

          Four houses in particular amuse me when I pass. Two had one sign out from each, then the NO sign multiplied into 3,spaced along the road. So YES put up 3 more signs for 4 total. NO put out a few more scattered around the yard, and in response YES put up what looks like 30 or so randomly scattered over the yard.

          Similarly in a different county, a YES sign went up, and in response the neighbor put up a NO THINK OF THE CHILDREN sign big enough to block the YES SIGN. Maybe 6ft wide. So YES put up a 10ft tall banner mounted on a 20ft scaffold in the middle of the yard with bullet points about the issue under the VOTE YES stuff.

          Honestly given a couple of the areas I’ve been through, I wouldn’t put it past some neighbors to put a brick through someone’s window or a bullet through a wall just for having the YES sign out front.

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When Kansas and then Ohio thoroughly shoot holes in your platform and you’re the dominant party in those places, maybe you should start re-thinking your platform.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Greene’s takeaway was literally "we’re losing because we’re not extreme enough on abortion.’

        I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.

        Then, they’ll wonder why they are losing even worse!

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are already states that have been trying to criminalize miscarriages unless they can be “proven” to not be the result of an abortion.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dare them to push for a federal abortion ban. Make every Republican vote on it. Let’s get it on record so voters know exactly who to replace.

    • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s ok, Ohio Republicans have already signaled that they intend to put it on the ballot again to reverse the will of the people.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana for people over 21, is also projected to pass.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Psychedelics need to be next. That step will take a bit, but it’ll be awesome if that happens.

      Colorado did good in setting the example, I believe. There wasn’t a huge push to monetize it and the most common psychedelics were made fully legal to produce, use and give away.

      In some ways, I don’t really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already. It’s just a different kind of drug, s’all.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they’re all branded and clean looking

        It’s legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it’s illegal disgusts me

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I read up on those, and (generally speaking, YMMV) the amount of active ingredient is ineffectively negligible, if there’s any detectable at all. Not what I want to spend my money on.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            A couple of the brands I’d agree with you on as I ate an entire bar of one type and felt nada, and another brand regularly felt much weaker.

            However, as someone who grows their own as well, there are brands that aren’t fucking around and will have you tripping hard on just a few pieces, and it’s definitely psilocybin.

            Smoke shop owner actively gets reviews from those of us who buy and has been filtering out the duds over time, it’s been one of the most wholesome illegal drug experiences in my life tbh

            • Nougat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was right to qualify my statement, then! I can see where if you had a shop owner who was on their game, that would be a fantastic place to buy from. The vape store that sells Delta 9 and happens to have some rando shroom products, I’ll pass on that.

                • remotelove@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll take my home grown gourmet shrooms over any chocolate bar that is sold under the counter.

                  While the common phrase is “a cube is a cube”, I am finding that different mushrooms can have very distinct trip characteristics. (My Stormtroopers give me a really “fluffy” high and everything feels like a pillow, for example. It’s weird, and I compare it to being inside a vagina. It’s… a unique experience.)

                  Grinding up rando shrooms and shoveling that into a candy bar doesn’t seem that appealing after having felt the nuances of different strains.

          • stella@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s anything like the weed edibles market, steer clear unless you know who’s making it.

            Otherwise you’re just going to be ripped off.

      • 𝕽𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖙@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In some ways, I don’t really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already.

        In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as “gifts” since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to “sell”

        So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.

        From what I’ve seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.

        They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn’t cause competition for other drug companies.

        There simply isn’t a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.

        I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to ‘wake up’ to what they’ve been ignorant of. There’s also the “I don’t do it and so neither should anyone else crowd,” but I don’t think they’re plentiful in Colorado.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And this is after they tried very very hard to rig the election to put obstacles in the way of people voting for the measure.

    Actually getting abortion bans in place is the “dog that caught the car” moment for Republicans. The world is so complicated and people have so little attention to spare, that the GOP can get away with blaming “the economy” or “jobs” or “crime” on the Democrats, and for the most part, people who support them will go with it, even though they spend most of their time being in power making the problems worse and stealing money for themselves and their friends.

    Abortion is dead simple. If people know someone who’s suffering in a terrifying way, and it’s because of something the Republicans have been banging their fists on the table about how bad they want to do it for the last fifty years, it becomes a lot harder to shift the blame.

    Edit: I backwards

    • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You mean the part where they held a special election in August after writing rules to BAN special elections in August (unless they involved budget crises)? The supermajority 60% of the Aug Issue 1 would’ve tanked this if they had their way (or kept it from hitting the ballot with the 80~ county petition requirement).

      THEN they had the gall to change the language on today’s Issue 1 text.

      I’m so proud right now, big win for a state that’s had a lot of fails lately (i.e. literal train wrecks that got swept under the rug).

      Also: how well do you all think the inclusion of Issue 2 here REALLY brought out the voters? I heard a lot of pot smokers got out of bed early today for it - had to add some extra push for Issue 1.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are talking about an earlier, even more out of cycle ohio constitutional amendment that would have made it much, much harder to pass any amendments. They force marched it into its own election as soon as the abortion and weed amendments hit the necessary thresholds to be on the upcoming November ballot. It would have gone into affect immediately. It was a very transparent attempt to derail abortion rights by the state GOP.

        It had its own special election, after they banned the exact type of election a year earlier. It shifted the burden of “yes” from 50% +1 vote to 60%, and most nefariously, shifted the requirments to get an amendment on the ballot form "X voters in half of all districts (44 of 88) to “X voters in all 88 districts,” i.e even the tiny 1k ones that lean 90% Republican. They tried to basically give veto power over all future constitutional amendments to tiny, very, very conservative counties.

        Voters rejected it 57% to 43%, which ironically would not have passed it under its own requirements, but would have under the current requirements if the numbers were inverted. If they had a legit bone in their body, they would have imposed a one time “60%” threshold for it as that’s what they were forcing all future votes to, but we all know their bulllshit.

        • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This happened in early August 2023, for anyone trying to follow along. The last few months have been a hell of a ride in Ohio.

    • nick
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      We did. And it pains me to say too. But we did.

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        For at least a couple more years we will. It took us a bit to set up our system. Probably will take you a couple as well. Takes time to build a distribution network too, since you can’t really import it from growers in other states, so for a while ours will probably be cheaper.

        But it’s still a huge win and it’s better for us all to have more states legalize it. And in the meantime we can just both suck Indiana dry of marijuana money.

      • Blackout@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well you still have a legislature that has to put the laws into place and setup the system. I bet they do everything they can to slow it down.

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thank you, genuinely! I know there’s a lot of bad blood but Michigan is stunning and my last few visits have been spectacular (yes even before any cannabis).

      I hope you all can find the beauty in Ohio too. I recommend Kelly’s Island for the glacial grooves. Also the Cleveland Metroparks; there’s a good reason it was once called the Forest City.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t say “antiquated” so much as “broken.”

      The concept of polling is perfectly reasonable and sound. But today, it’s just physically hard to do. You’ve got to reach a representational sample, but if you’re under 50, you’re probably not answering unknown numbers calling your cellphone.

      This results in oversampling of populations you can actually reach, such as older Americans with landlines, and then trying to weight the results with other information sources, like demographics data.

      The more weighting you have to do, the more opportunities there are for problems to creep in.

      If we could solve the sampling problem, polling would be easier and more reliable.

      • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live in a swing state, in a purple county, which has recently flipped back to blue. Last week polls were saying it was likely to go red.

        I get multiple texts and phone calls from pollsters and have never answered any of them. I doubt anyone in my age group ot demographic are doing differently.

        I truly believe that, like the economy, polling on paper is so divorced from the reality on the ground that it is useless.

        • cheesymoonshadow@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same here. I never answer political calls, and my phone automatically flags the texts as spam and hides them.

          If they did the polling with a quick tap-to-answer UI and there were reassurances that they won’t sell your info so you get even more solicitations, that might work better for the present day. This whole business with calling people is so 1950s.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I truly believe that, like the economy, polling on paper is so divorced from the reality on the ground that it is useless.

          Oh, definitely. All I’m saying is that the concept of polling is sound, but the current situation “on the ground” makes polling damn near impossible, and that probably won’t be a permanent state of affairs. Pollsters have run into new technology that broke their methodology before, and figured out ways around it.

          But yeah, right now? Polls are pretty goddamn unreliable.

          • iquanyin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            as a concept, sure, polls can show things. i think they are a bad idea tho. they just give azzholes time to shape their words so they can win. anyone in office who actually is trying to do their job properly is going to use their knowledge and desire to do good work. what if polls show that to be “losing?” how does it help society in anyway? i don’t see benefit, only harm (or nothing).

            plus pollsters clog up phones and so on. just more marketers, people blabbing and asking questions for a paycheck. seriously, i see zip good about polls, esp political polls.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To get a poll representative of a population, you need an SRS – simple random sample. The people you poll are chosen completely at random from an unbiased list.

        That’s incredibly difficult to do when the person chosen can decline. And as far as getting an unbiased list, good luck. Landlines are lol. Texting doesn’t work either.

        I think when everyone had landlines it was probably less biased. But with the state of technology today and the country becoming more diverse? It might be falling apart. They need a new methodology.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The general impression I get is that most people don’t. I actually got one myself the other day, and I actually answered because I didn’t want to make sampling problems worse.

      • iquanyin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        polling is a scoursge. it doesn’t benefit society. notice how everything went well with broken polls. voting itself is the only poll that matters.

  • lutillian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone else notice how the “why do you want to kill babies” crowd has fallen mostly silent on these posts? It’s almost like they never had any real horse in this race, and now that most of them aren’t being paid to stir people up they’ve got nothing to say.

  • Zealousideal_Fox900@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    FUCK YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! This is some great fucking news for everyone with more then a single braincell.

  • Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    The right wing fought SO HARD to prevent his from happening.

    But it’s not like the loss is going to do anything to change their beliefs or actions.

  • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fuck yeah! You love to see it!! I was a poll worker today and the turnout was incredible. I obviously don’t know who voted for what but it was great to see.

      • iquanyin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        unwanted kids aren’t a good thing, but dead mothers who aren’t treated for ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies are even worse. there is no “future kid” there aren’t “potential people” deprived of anything. there are living people and that is who votes and who counts. people as a concept in some dude’s head aren’t real.

        • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Came up in a discussion about it yesterday, “The loss of the potential is a shame, but the loss of a reality is worse”. You can argue that fetus is a potential life sure, but to sacrifice an actual in progress life with hopes and dreams is a waste, versus one that currently only knows instinct if anything.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do realize not all pro choice folks would choose to do it themselves most of the time right?

        Just because I think someone should be able to get gender affirming care doesn’t mean I only want it so I can get 10 gallon bag mommy milkers.

        It’s called being able to empathize beyond your own horizons.

      • Corhen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just had a son 2 months ago, i love him dearly, and enjoy spending every day with him.

        I completely respect my wifes autonomy over her body, and she could have chosen to abort the clump of cells which became my son. Its her body.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we detect a debilitating birth defect in the third trimester that meant they’d only live for a few hours in pain? Yes. I’m not subjecting my children to torment like that. It’s inhumane and child abuse.

      • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you really believe that? That future children exist? Why do corn producers not care about all their dead children (seeds) and only care about the corn fields? Did they “abort” those “children”?

          • Adramis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was true in KY. The hardest anti-trans candidate got shit on in the GOP primaries, then Cameron lost too. We still have issues with state representatives because gerrymandering but at least governor went well.

            • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s a fringe of the fringe issue. They can blast it from the rooftops, news, air whatever. It’s the first time in a long time where I’ve felt it’s just pure hate speech. Not hiding it in an omnibus bill or spending cut out any other tactic. Anti trans/gay/etc rhetoric is just pure hate and mostly off putting to the general population.

              The good news there is when issues are presented and left to actually stand on their own and not propped up by being attached to healthcare or education, they crumble so quickly. Line item veto should be a thing and this is clearly an example of why.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I believe Beshear recently vetoed an anti trans law too, didn’t he? His election is a bellwether for LGBT rights, and it certainly seems like the majority are pro LGBT.

          • iquanyin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            things are definitely trending away from all the hard right nonsense. most people aren’t that stupid, believe it or not. it’s a small, loud minority. always was, a,ways will be. most of the “wins” far right gets are thru cheating, closing off other choices, and deception.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can someone who isn’t rabidly pro life win a Republican primary at this point? I don’t think so. And until they can win, the party is going to be incapable of moderating its position on abortion.

        Every time they go for new leadership, they pick more and more extreme people. They can’t win without the bigots at this point, and so they let bigots set the policies.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Republicans were a healthy political party, they’d drop abortion and the LGBTQ stuff. They’d focus on “we need to be fiscally responsible” and “protect people’s rights.” They might get more traction with this.

        But they aren’t a healthy political party. Instead of changing to suit the voters. They’ll demand that the voters change to suit the Republican party.

  • macisr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I am from another country. I have to say that in your movies and shows they have always painted Ohio as being a backwards state. I guess that this goes to show that everything changes. Now Ohio seems to be more civilized than a lot of other states that were the “modern” standard. I love change, it’s so refreshing to see new generations at last making a change statewide.

    • Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ohio as being a backwards state.

      The People that LIVE in Ohio are not nearly as backwards as the gerrymandered elections elect representatives from.

      Clearly, this result is absolute proof that the gerrymandering of Ohio is ABSOLUTELY NOT properly representing the WILL of actual Ohio Voters .

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, nearly half are. You still need a shit load of people to vote Republican, just simply declaring “it’s gerrymandered” isn’t enough. They still need the votes, and they get a lot in Ohio.

    • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ohio has more complex political environment than a lot of states. It sits on the border of a number of major geographic features, and host a relatively large, diverse population. It’s swung hard right over the past decade as the Republicans embraced populism, but has always been more left-leaning than many of its neighbors. This state is a political and cultural circus, but I wouldn’t have it any other way (well, a bit bluer would be nice).

      • Kyrinar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It also features both some well populated cities (which trend left), but also a large rural population (which trends right). Between that and the gerrymandering, makes sense it’s often a bit “confused”.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not quite. It’s just that abortion is such a powerful issue that it activates the left to actually get out and vote. Any time it has been on a ballot, it wins, and democrats tend to win other positions on that same ballot.

      • Uncle_Bagel
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also not a coincidence that recreational marijuana passed with nearly identical support. I think Issue 2 helped bring out another demographic that was already likely to support abortion access.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’ll likely see similar tactics in 2024. Especially as Biden is looking more and more like a weak candidate and that the DNC should have ran a proper primary…