Barack Obama’s re-election is a tragedy for the country–and the latest in a series of missed opportunities for the Republican Party. So says Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
“It is also the voters overwhelmingly disagree with the extreme positions on abortion taken by President Obama and the Democrats Mitt Romney, the Republican Party, and their Super PAC allies never highlighted this vulnerability, despite the fact that our polling of likely swing voters revealed it to be a persuasive line of argument. What was presented as discipline by the Romney campaign by staying on one message–the economy–was a strategic error that resulted in a winning margin of pro-life votes being left on the table,” she says.
SBA List polling of likely swing voters found that a majority (54 percent) would be less likely to vote for President Obama after learning about his extreme abortion record–including that he voted against a law to give equal treatment to babies born alive after a failed abortion (35 percent much less likely). Key voter groups were also negatively impacted including independents (46 percent) and pro-choicers (43 percent).
During the 2012 election cycle, the Susan B. Anthony List spent $11.2 million nationwide in pursuit of three goals: 1) ensure the presidential challenger made specific pro-life commitments, 2) combat the “war on women” narrative, and 3) expose the extreme abortion agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party of abortion on-demand paid for by the taxpayers.
“The Romney campaign and its Super PAC allies failed to challenge the incredible and objectively false statements made by President Obama and Vice President Biden regarding America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, as well as the HHS Mandate which forces religious employers to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs,” Dannenfelser says.
“These are issues that could have changed the outcome of the election.This election is a tragic reminder that when the Republican Party ceases to hold fast to an integrated, three-legged stool approach, uniting social, economic, and national security conservatives, it cannot win. Critical pro-life votes were left on the table. Victory was handed to the opponent.”
Could a stronger focus on President Obama’s pro-abortion stance have changed the outcome of the election?
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
