I don't understand single issue voters.
 

Especially on issues like abortion. How dramatically have abortion laws at the federal level changed since Roe? If you are voting to put a president into office who will "pack the Court" with pro-life justices, how has that vote turned out for you over the past 30 years? Do you think the Court has dramatically shifted on abortion rights in that time period?

In the meantime, how much change has there been on other issues you do care about (albeit less than abortion)?

It seems to me that abortion (on the Court and through federal law) isn't likely to change a whole lot no matter who the president is. Other aspects of the life of Americans are much more likely to change (taxes, health care, foreign policy, etc), so those should be the issues people vote on (with abortion being a factor, just a lesser one).

People vote based on emotions, not on reason. We use our reason to justify our emotional decisions.

Single issue voters have a highly charged emotional impetus to make a selection and then to justify it rationally. The more devoid of emotion one is to make decisions the more likely a plethora of issues will impact a political decision.

I'm a single issue voter and it's pretty simple to state why. I don't care about anything else. The government could force everyone to gay marry, get pregnant and then abort the fetus for the sake of stem cell research and I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep. Similarly they could make my kids pray in school, close the liquor stores on Sunday and make sex for procreation the only legal method of getting one's rocks off and once again I wouldn't blink.

Hell, you could make me host wolves in my backyard and I wouldn't mind.

But you start being stupid about energy (and Obama and his base are very stupid about energy) and I get my back up a bit.

So there you go. One issue voter exposed!

But to your point, why care about anything then? It seems you're proposing we vote based on looks or height or what have you since it's not going to matter anyway. Better to vote your interests, no matter how narrow, than to vote your emotions, no?

I think the point Cali was trying to make was that if you are going to be a single issue voter, at least make that issue something that is still in play.

Abortion as a basis for voting is so stupid.

Personally, I am going to wait until each candidate articulates a position on slavery, prohibition, and the draft before I make my decision.

Translation:
I don't think abortion is an important issue to vote on, so neither should you. Unless you're pro-choice.

If someone is of the opinion that abortion equals mass genocide (I'm not, so let's not start that argument), are you seriously saying they shouldn't care because it doesn't directly affect them or they haven't been able to effect any change in the last 30 years? Should we take the same stance towards eliminating poverty? How about 3rd world aid?

Do you think Rachel Maddow is a single
 

issue voter?

Global poverty has changed very little in the last 30 years, and has probably worsened.

You're ignoring the importance argument however. If someone finds abortion tantamount to genocide, I would think this would rank as a fairly important matter, no matter how futile the effort. How long did slavery exist before it was eliminated? Should no one have spoken up on the issue?

I think the slaves should be drafted to enforce the prohibition, personally.

And also, they can spend some time making sure women don't vote in elections.