I hope your take is correct. As a volunteer canvasser in a swing district, I spoke to an independent voter just this past weekend who brought up abortion at the very beginning of our conversation, and who said he recognized (what he saw as) both sides of the issue. To voters like this, might Graham's proposal (in ridiculously simplified terms, and rounding 15 weeks up to 20) simply seem like a "reasonable" proposal to "split the difference" between liberal and conservative positions? I should note that, while he admittedly leaned Republican, this voter remained open to the idea of voting for the Democratic candidate in the race. With such a voter, a deeper dive into the nuances of the issue may be called for: to explain the deep cynicism and cruelty inherent in Graham's proposal, and why a 15-week ban is NOT in fact a "reasonable compromise."
Perhaps the answer is, as you suggest, to message broadly in very basic terms, but to be prepared to offer more granular arguments when they're called for.
I hope your take is correct. As a volunteer canvasser in a swing district, I spoke to an independent voter just this past weekend who brought up abortion at the very beginning of our conversation, and who said he recognized (what he saw as) both sides of the issue. To voters like this, might Graham's proposal (in ridiculously simplified terms, and rounding 15 weeks up to 20) simply seem like a "reasonable" proposal to "split the difference" between liberal and conservative positions? I should note that, while he admittedly leaned Republican, this voter remained open to the idea of voting for the Democratic candidate in the race. With such a voter, a deeper dive into the nuances of the issue may be called for: to explain the deep cynicism and cruelty inherent in Graham's proposal, and why a 15-week ban is NOT in fact a "reasonable compromise."
Perhaps the answer is, as you suggest, to message broadly in very basic terms, but to be prepared to offer more granular arguments when they're called for.