Bad idea all around in my view for the reasons you state. Also, I'm not sure Elon has a lot of popular support, tbh. I think most MAGA pledge their allegiance to Trump over Elon. At all costs, we must prevent the neo-Marxists from gaining office. If that happens, the USA's future is in jeopardy. I don't think Elon and his party help prevent that.
But none the less, useful, as it will draw, once again, Uniparty and Grift, Inc., into the one location where they will, in futile fury, make no difference in the midterms. (See DeSantis’ 2024 primary run/trap)
Would be much cheaper to take over local party infrastructure and point Republicans in the right direction. I have fiddled around in the Illinois Republican Party for nearly 20 years now. No one every concentrates for a long enough period of time to get anything done.
If we ever said the quiet part out loud ....for example you will get no-show jobs for political workers and you will get government contracts for political support, we might get people to pay more attention. Then that would make us as corrupt as the Democrats, which loses you a lot of sane voters (cray people vote too).
Almost epitomizes the saying: "Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best.". Kind of a good idea, but it cannot be done with a sledgehammer. The American public doesn't mind a velvet hammer, with subtle change, and that can be marketable. Most people don't really want to know the truth and would rather be comfortable staying in the same cesspool with sewage up to their chin that they know and are familiar with at the present, than to accept change. Often the greatest pain is in resistance to change, rather than the change itself.
That stated, on the surface Elon's suggestion seems to have less chance of success than the Tea Party idea, but it's rarely a wise idea to fade Mr Musk. However, he can make subtle changes gradually by throwing support behind certain candidates in certain districts. Third parties in America just haven't taken, but if somebody is capable of doing it, he might be the guy. Unfortunately the reality is his idea might screw up a Republican sweep in the 2026 midterms and our country deteriorates into a second Civil War, in which case his third party would take off.
If he is serious about this and follows through, it will be fascinating to see if it gains momentum, but unfortunately for him, he's probably at record low approval rates on both sides of the aisle.
Jeff, this is the right approach. Instead of wasting all the effort trying to build a third-party, which will be counterproductive, he should make his “party“ a brand and a certification of quality. He could recruit candidates, have them run as Republicans, and have a simple four or five point list of things they need to endorse to get the American Party label, in addition to the Republican Party label. This will bring cohesion without breaking up the Republican party, which would simply hand a big victory to the Democrats.
Elon himself said on X that his goal would not be to build a national infrastructure from the go. Rather, he would concentrate on a few districts that are winnable with the platform they seek. He said that if they just had a few members of the House and Senate they could influence major legislation (or kill it) because the margins are so thin on majority for both Democrats and Republicans.
This strategy concentrates limited funding resources, but provides the biggest bang for the buck.
What Mr. Carter is saying is really a reiteration of the "Freedom Caucus," which essentially has gone down in flames for the same reasons -- a reputation of obstinance (determination?) on fiscal issues and how the Republicans vote. While Mr. Carter's solution is practical, I fear that the same thing would happen, because this is essentially just another caucus within the Republican party.
I would support both approaches if they were to work, but I honestly feel better about the American Party, because it could have its own platform and leadership structure. It feels like a more grown-up Libertarian party. Hey, even a few seats in Congress would require the institution to take it seriously. This is essentially not much different than "Independents" but just more organized.
Third parties have not worked in the last 100 years in places like the US and UK that have a first past the post system for electing officials. In European countries where there is proportional representation third parties (of which there are a lot) can get elected and impact policy in coalition governments. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and zero electoral votes.
I'm guessing that Musk is taking cues from Nigel Farage's, Reform Party, that a year ago looked dead in the water, (at least, according to the BBC and the leftist U.S. media) but is now, the most popular party in the U.K., with 34% of British voters in support.
However, like a presumed "American Party", Reform is pulling more at the expense of the Conservatives (15% support) than Labour (25% popularity). Of course Labour has long suffered bleeding from the Lib Dems (11%) and the resurgent Greens (9%).
The effect of third parties as spoilers are most pronounced in districts that are safe in a one on one yet not landslide situations. In other words, Musk can't disrupt a 75-25 GOP election but he can spoil (literally) the chance of a non-Democrat to prevail in a 60-40 GOP district.
I had always hoped that Farage would work from within and not bury the Tories. But, he's all-in and he actually may take a future pot. If Musk stays the "third party" course, then I suspect a fourth party will emerge, probably led by leftist Democrats. We might as well dub it for what it is, the Un-American Party.
If there had been American Party Congressmen they would have tanked the OBBB, so I am vehemently opposed to this third party strategy. It will not accomplish what the binary thinkers think it will.
The dirty little secret of American politics is that Americans in general do not want their entitlements cut, *they want the other guy’s entitlements cut*!
So the only solution to cutting debt is to nibble around the edges like the OBBB does and grow the economy. I wish there were a better solution but there isn’t. In 100 years it will be the same formula.
Now let’s address the elephant in the room. The politician’s grift game. The American Party “principled” politicians will be grifters like all other politicians. Their motto will be the same as the one Mike Royko proposed for Chicago: “Ubi Est Mea” or “Where’s Mine?”.
The best marker for how the new American Party grifters will behave is how Thomas Massie and Rand Paul just behaved. The confidence game these two clowns have been running has been exposed by their OBBB posturing. They are fundraising off of their supposed “independence.” The new American Party grifters will do the exact same thing, except with gullible billionaires, who will be easier marks than a Hyde Park good government liberal.
So the too smart for their own good binary thinkers will just produce more Washington politicians of the same type that they profess to hate. Their binary thinking ignores actual politician behavior that those of us from Chicago can spot a mile away. I instantly pegged Obama as “The Alderman” when he first appeared because he was no different than a typical Chicago alderman except for his obvious charm. It took the rest of the country years to realize this, and many still don’t.
If I had Elon’s attention I would strongly encourage him to redirect his energy to a constitutional amendment establishing term limits. Since Congress will never agree to limiting their terms and power the only path forward is a grass roots movement for term limits. For a grass roots movement to succeed it will require huge amounts of coordination and huge amounts of money. Elon has the ability to create and finance such a movement. Our forefathers would rest easier.
In states that are deemed deeply blue, but really are not ( Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California et al) is where Musk should concentrate his efforts. Pritzker and Durbins seat would be hotly contested with a sensible conservative. Flush the Darren Baileys of the state down the toilet, their schtick is played out and tired and replace it with anyone who is central and likable. Throw money behind those candidates. Not a little, a lot, and blitz the state with ads. The 50% or greater of the state that doesn’t vote on elections would feel compelled to go out and support common sense candidates. It’s time that the GOP made pro choice a back burner policy and not the core tenant of their campaign. I believe that American Party candidates would do so.
My sentiment is for these AP candidates be in state and local elections. Not National elections. More positive change on debt and deficit can be effected from here than at the Presidency. I also agree with running these APC’s as rebuplicans is best as well, for now.
Bailey was an excellent candidate. Conservative, hard working, smart and well prepared.
Unfortunately he spoke like Mr. Haney from Green Acres and was a hog farmers. Voters are absurd, especially suburban voters who are never going to vote for a hog farmer. I agree Bailey can't win in Illinois, but that is more of an indictment of our ridiculous voters, rather than the candidate.
Meh. For a republican to win in the aforementioned states, pro life has to be put on the back burner. There are plenty of fiscally conservative dems out there who can’t get past choice. Bailey literally and figuratively died on that hill. So will others who fall on this narrative. Illinois. Cook county. Is broke. Run on that. When the question is asked about choice, simply reply: it’s not anything I would support, but it’s not my decision to make it legal or illegal in this state. At the end of the day, it’s between the woman( I would stress that men are men and women are women) and her God. If they say no, it’s between the woman and her doctor, I’d say: no. It’s between her doctor and. That doctors god. If there is no belief system anywhere amongst the parties, I’d just let it go.
It’s
Not something I agree with at all, choice. But I’m not the one who is pregnant or potentially pregnant, thus I really shouldn’t have a say in all this
Back to Bailey: they ran that clip of him saying “
As
Of right now, I’m a no on choice”. He lost when he said that. There was no chance. Against a complete caricature of a candidate in Pritzker.
I think you are correct, but that is because the voters are absurd, not because of Bailey's pro-life position.
By and large, people are in favor of baby's being born. But the crazed suburban women vote on that issue alone (and their general dislike of hog-farming) much more than African Americans will vote pro-life.
As above, crazy people get to vote too. Very difficult to try to find the best way to appeal to them, but cannot dismiss the obvious disconnect.
I think you are basically correct. Some other things to be consider: The R majority is razor thin in the House and Senate. All Elon has to do is garner enough seats to deny either one the majority to control the House and have to deal with him. Of course they might unite in their hatred of him. So he might accomplish bringing both parties together. The way things stand all he has to do is deny control to either of the other parties.
I've said this elsewhere: Trump is right in the short run but Musk is right in the long run. The Federal deficit has to be dealt with, Trump is adding to it. Both parties like to spend other people's money. I think Elon's approach is wrong. He wants to take that chain saw and cut it down in one fell swoop. Seems odd from a guy who keeps improving Tesla with each new model, and his rockets bit by bit. They blow up, he learns, builds a better one. He wants to go to Mars but isn't building a Mars rocket from scratch.
Taming the Debt is like that and more like playing Pac-Man To win you have get to the end by eating the dots in front of you before the ghosts catch up with you. You have to keep moving toward the goal, nibble by nibble, moving toward the goal. Just like trying to go to Mars or how the US went to the moon.
He should work on keeping the pressure on. Reduce the Debt with every new budget. Mostly by reducing spending, which both parties will be against.
And If I were him I'd establish a new Space Port, maybe in the UAE. Call it X1, just in case.
I think a third party idea is stupid, and I think Musk needs to decide what it is he really wants. If he wants to change the composition of congress to better reflect his ideas the best way to do it is district by district, congressional campaign by campaign. A super-pac type arrangement would be a better way to go -- and much more in Musk's operating style. Look at Soros. He didn't create a third party. He went district by district and identified targets and candidates. He created a pac in each place, brought in a manager. In Philadelphia, the Soros funded PAC ran an independent campaign for Soros's preferred candidate, independent of the candidate, in the democratic primary. The Soros pac spent more money on mail, telephones and social media for it's candidate than all candidates combined (including the one Soros supported). For $500,000 Soros bought a social justice DA that has been terrible, but is now too entrenched in democrat party politics to successfully primary. A $500,000 to $1 million independent expenditure campaign could make a big difference in most republican primaries, and if Musk really wants to cause trouble he could meddle in some incumbent democrat primaries and generals. But if he kills republicans he doesn't like just to elect a democrat he's pushed everything in the wrong direction. Musk is a brilliant man, but he's really confused about politics.
Trump is working within the structure our Founding Fathers designed, and it’s a system purposely designed for change to be incremental and transactional and sometimes painful.
Musk doesn’t like the incremental change, so he’s basically saying that he wants to blow up the Founding Fathers’ well designed structure. Whatever Musk comes up with will never work. He’ll never outsmart the men who gave birth to this country. I’ll bet that Musk does not even like our Constitution and he would shred it if given the chance.
The only outcome that he will achieve will be to become even more hated by more Americans. 100% that happens.
If the American Party’s financial austerity philosophy was viable, we’d already have a dozen Thomas Massies and Rand Pauls. Instead, there are only two. This is a vanity project for Musk that will only attract NeverTrumpers and Democrats horrified with the Party’s hard lurch to the Left but who also have severe TDS.
I predict he’ll lose interest in this folly even before the midterms once he sees who his new party is attracting. So far, he’s got Mark Cuban and Mike Pence. A hot-headed loose cannon and a wimp. Not exactly acorns ready to grow into mighty oaks.
He'll also lose interest because it's not much fun trying to run a political party. Nothing like being a CEO or entrepreneurial engineer. The toughest politics is always in the church choir.
This is a fine idea, especially here in MN. Scott Jensen lost in 2022 because of the party line on (zero) abortion. It is completely unrealistic to run on this in blue cities.
Otherwise, we are now a 4/4 split in our congressional districts(up from 6/2 demonrat). Trump did not lose by much here in 2016(44K votes).
Bad idea all around in my view for the reasons you state. Also, I'm not sure Elon has a lot of popular support, tbh. I think most MAGA pledge their allegiance to Trump over Elon. At all costs, we must prevent the neo-Marxists from gaining office. If that happens, the USA's future is in jeopardy. I don't think Elon and his party help prevent that.
Silicon Valley will follow him into the trade
They have $$. But do they have voters?
The alignment of Silicon valley with both populism and America First (as opposed to imported H-1-B employees) seems weak.
“That’s bait.”.
But none the less, useful, as it will draw, once again, Uniparty and Grift, Inc., into the one location where they will, in futile fury, make no difference in the midterms. (See DeSantis’ 2024 primary run/trap)
But burn a ton of cash doing so.
Would be much cheaper to take over local party infrastructure and point Republicans in the right direction. I have fiddled around in the Illinois Republican Party for nearly 20 years now. No one every concentrates for a long enough period of time to get anything done.
If we ever said the quiet part out loud ....for example you will get no-show jobs for political workers and you will get government contracts for political support, we might get people to pay more attention. Then that would make us as corrupt as the Democrats, which loses you a lot of sane voters (cray people vote too).
Almost epitomizes the saying: "Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best.". Kind of a good idea, but it cannot be done with a sledgehammer. The American public doesn't mind a velvet hammer, with subtle change, and that can be marketable. Most people don't really want to know the truth and would rather be comfortable staying in the same cesspool with sewage up to their chin that they know and are familiar with at the present, than to accept change. Often the greatest pain is in resistance to change, rather than the change itself.
That stated, on the surface Elon's suggestion seems to have less chance of success than the Tea Party idea, but it's rarely a wise idea to fade Mr Musk. However, he can make subtle changes gradually by throwing support behind certain candidates in certain districts. Third parties in America just haven't taken, but if somebody is capable of doing it, he might be the guy. Unfortunately the reality is his idea might screw up a Republican sweep in the 2026 midterms and our country deteriorates into a second Civil War, in which case his third party would take off.
If he is serious about this and follows through, it will be fascinating to see if it gains momentum, but unfortunately for him, he's probably at record low approval rates on both sides of the aisle.
Jeff, this is the right approach. Instead of wasting all the effort trying to build a third-party, which will be counterproductive, he should make his “party“ a brand and a certification of quality. He could recruit candidates, have them run as Republicans, and have a simple four or five point list of things they need to endorse to get the American Party label, in addition to the Republican Party label. This will bring cohesion without breaking up the Republican party, which would simply hand a big victory to the Democrats.
Elon himself said on X that his goal would not be to build a national infrastructure from the go. Rather, he would concentrate on a few districts that are winnable with the platform they seek. He said that if they just had a few members of the House and Senate they could influence major legislation (or kill it) because the margins are so thin on majority for both Democrats and Republicans.
This strategy concentrates limited funding resources, but provides the biggest bang for the buck.
What Mr. Carter is saying is really a reiteration of the "Freedom Caucus," which essentially has gone down in flames for the same reasons -- a reputation of obstinance (determination?) on fiscal issues and how the Republicans vote. While Mr. Carter's solution is practical, I fear that the same thing would happen, because this is essentially just another caucus within the Republican party.
I would support both approaches if they were to work, but I honestly feel better about the American Party, because it could have its own platform and leadership structure. It feels like a more grown-up Libertarian party. Hey, even a few seats in Congress would require the institution to take it seriously. This is essentially not much different than "Independents" but just more organized.
That is a fair point.
Third parties have not worked in the last 100 years in places like the US and UK that have a first past the post system for electing officials. In European countries where there is proportional representation third parties (of which there are a lot) can get elected and impact policy in coalition governments. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and zero electoral votes.
Or, look at George Wallace in 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_1968_presidential_campaign#/media/File:ElectoralCollege1968.svg Wallace won a faction. Nixon had to find a way to placate him and it wound up becoming the Republican "solid South"
Yes, the binary nature of voting works to severely limit third party chance of success.
OTOH, the "ranked choice voting" scheme could make a difference. Not a fan, btw of ranked choice voting which brought us Lisa Murkowski.
I'm guessing that Musk is taking cues from Nigel Farage's, Reform Party, that a year ago looked dead in the water, (at least, according to the BBC and the leftist U.S. media) but is now, the most popular party in the U.K., with 34% of British voters in support.
However, like a presumed "American Party", Reform is pulling more at the expense of the Conservatives (15% support) than Labour (25% popularity). Of course Labour has long suffered bleeding from the Lib Dems (11%) and the resurgent Greens (9%).
The effect of third parties as spoilers are most pronounced in districts that are safe in a one on one yet not landslide situations. In other words, Musk can't disrupt a 75-25 GOP election but he can spoil (literally) the chance of a non-Democrat to prevail in a 60-40 GOP district.
I had always hoped that Farage would work from within and not bury the Tories. But, he's all-in and he actually may take a future pot. If Musk stays the "third party" course, then I suspect a fourth party will emerge, probably led by leftist Democrats. We might as well dub it for what it is, the Un-American Party.
Fair point. See Stratford's point above.
If there had been American Party Congressmen they would have tanked the OBBB, so I am vehemently opposed to this third party strategy. It will not accomplish what the binary thinkers think it will.
The dirty little secret of American politics is that Americans in general do not want their entitlements cut, *they want the other guy’s entitlements cut*!
So the only solution to cutting debt is to nibble around the edges like the OBBB does and grow the economy. I wish there were a better solution but there isn’t. In 100 years it will be the same formula.
Now let’s address the elephant in the room. The politician’s grift game. The American Party “principled” politicians will be grifters like all other politicians. Their motto will be the same as the one Mike Royko proposed for Chicago: “Ubi Est Mea” or “Where’s Mine?”.
The best marker for how the new American Party grifters will behave is how Thomas Massie and Rand Paul just behaved. The confidence game these two clowns have been running has been exposed by their OBBB posturing. They are fundraising off of their supposed “independence.” The new American Party grifters will do the exact same thing, except with gullible billionaires, who will be easier marks than a Hyde Park good government liberal.
So the too smart for their own good binary thinkers will just produce more Washington politicians of the same type that they profess to hate. Their binary thinking ignores actual politician behavior that those of us from Chicago can spot a mile away. I instantly pegged Obama as “The Alderman” when he first appeared because he was no different than a typical Chicago alderman except for his obvious charm. It took the rest of the country years to realize this, and many still don’t.
If I had Elon’s attention I would strongly encourage him to redirect his energy to a constitutional amendment establishing term limits. Since Congress will never agree to limiting their terms and power the only path forward is a grass roots movement for term limits. For a grass roots movement to succeed it will require huge amounts of coordination and huge amounts of money. Elon has the ability to create and finance such a movement. Our forefathers would rest easier.
In states that are deemed deeply blue, but really are not ( Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California et al) is where Musk should concentrate his efforts. Pritzker and Durbins seat would be hotly contested with a sensible conservative. Flush the Darren Baileys of the state down the toilet, their schtick is played out and tired and replace it with anyone who is central and likable. Throw money behind those candidates. Not a little, a lot, and blitz the state with ads. The 50% or greater of the state that doesn’t vote on elections would feel compelled to go out and support common sense candidates. It’s time that the GOP made pro choice a back burner policy and not the core tenant of their campaign. I believe that American Party candidates would do so.
My sentiment is for these AP candidates be in state and local elections. Not National elections. More positive change on debt and deficit can be effected from here than at the Presidency. I also agree with running these APC’s as rebuplicans is best as well, for now.
Bailey was an excellent candidate. Conservative, hard working, smart and well prepared.
Unfortunately he spoke like Mr. Haney from Green Acres and was a hog farmers. Voters are absurd, especially suburban voters who are never going to vote for a hog farmer. I agree Bailey can't win in Illinois, but that is more of an indictment of our ridiculous voters, rather than the candidate.
Meh. For a republican to win in the aforementioned states, pro life has to be put on the back burner. There are plenty of fiscally conservative dems out there who can’t get past choice. Bailey literally and figuratively died on that hill. So will others who fall on this narrative. Illinois. Cook county. Is broke. Run on that. When the question is asked about choice, simply reply: it’s not anything I would support, but it’s not my decision to make it legal or illegal in this state. At the end of the day, it’s between the woman( I would stress that men are men and women are women) and her God. If they say no, it’s between the woman and her doctor, I’d say: no. It’s between her doctor and. That doctors god. If there is no belief system anywhere amongst the parties, I’d just let it go.
It’s
Not something I agree with at all, choice. But I’m not the one who is pregnant or potentially pregnant, thus I really shouldn’t have a say in all this
Back to Bailey: they ran that clip of him saying “
As
Of right now, I’m a no on choice”. He lost when he said that. There was no chance. Against a complete caricature of a candidate in Pritzker.
At least that’s what I think
I think you are correct, but that is because the voters are absurd, not because of Bailey's pro-life position.
By and large, people are in favor of baby's being born. But the crazed suburban women vote on that issue alone (and their general dislike of hog-farming) much more than African Americans will vote pro-life.
As above, crazy people get to vote too. Very difficult to try to find the best way to appeal to them, but cannot dismiss the obvious disconnect.
I think you are basically correct. Some other things to be consider: The R majority is razor thin in the House and Senate. All Elon has to do is garner enough seats to deny either one the majority to control the House and have to deal with him. Of course they might unite in their hatred of him. So he might accomplish bringing both parties together. The way things stand all he has to do is deny control to either of the other parties.
I've said this elsewhere: Trump is right in the short run but Musk is right in the long run. The Federal deficit has to be dealt with, Trump is adding to it. Both parties like to spend other people's money. I think Elon's approach is wrong. He wants to take that chain saw and cut it down in one fell swoop. Seems odd from a guy who keeps improving Tesla with each new model, and his rockets bit by bit. They blow up, he learns, builds a better one. He wants to go to Mars but isn't building a Mars rocket from scratch.
Taming the Debt is like that and more like playing Pac-Man To win you have get to the end by eating the dots in front of you before the ghosts catch up with you. You have to keep moving toward the goal, nibble by nibble, moving toward the goal. Just like trying to go to Mars or how the US went to the moon.
He should work on keeping the pressure on. Reduce the Debt with every new budget. Mostly by reducing spending, which both parties will be against.
And If I were him I'd establish a new Space Port, maybe in the UAE. Call it X1, just in case.
I think a third party idea is stupid, and I think Musk needs to decide what it is he really wants. If he wants to change the composition of congress to better reflect his ideas the best way to do it is district by district, congressional campaign by campaign. A super-pac type arrangement would be a better way to go -- and much more in Musk's operating style. Look at Soros. He didn't create a third party. He went district by district and identified targets and candidates. He created a pac in each place, brought in a manager. In Philadelphia, the Soros funded PAC ran an independent campaign for Soros's preferred candidate, independent of the candidate, in the democratic primary. The Soros pac spent more money on mail, telephones and social media for it's candidate than all candidates combined (including the one Soros supported). For $500,000 Soros bought a social justice DA that has been terrible, but is now too entrenched in democrat party politics to successfully primary. A $500,000 to $1 million independent expenditure campaign could make a big difference in most republican primaries, and if Musk really wants to cause trouble he could meddle in some incumbent democrat primaries and generals. But if he kills republicans he doesn't like just to elect a democrat he's pushed everything in the wrong direction. Musk is a brilliant man, but he's really confused about politics.
Trump is working within the structure our Founding Fathers designed, and it’s a system purposely designed for change to be incremental and transactional and sometimes painful.
Musk doesn’t like the incremental change, so he’s basically saying that he wants to blow up the Founding Fathers’ well designed structure. Whatever Musk comes up with will never work. He’ll never outsmart the men who gave birth to this country. I’ll bet that Musk does not even like our Constitution and he would shred it if given the chance.
The only outcome that he will achieve will be to become even more hated by more Americans. 100% that happens.
If the American Party’s financial austerity philosophy was viable, we’d already have a dozen Thomas Massies and Rand Pauls. Instead, there are only two. This is a vanity project for Musk that will only attract NeverTrumpers and Democrats horrified with the Party’s hard lurch to the Left but who also have severe TDS.
I predict he’ll lose interest in this folly even before the midterms once he sees who his new party is attracting. So far, he’s got Mark Cuban and Mike Pence. A hot-headed loose cannon and a wimp. Not exactly acorns ready to grow into mighty oaks.
He'll also lose interest because it's not much fun trying to run a political party. Nothing like being a CEO or entrepreneurial engineer. The toughest politics is always in the church choir.
This is a fine idea, especially here in MN. Scott Jensen lost in 2022 because of the party line on (zero) abortion. It is completely unrealistic to run on this in blue cities.
Otherwise, we are now a 4/4 split in our congressional districts(up from 6/2 demonrat). Trump did not lose by much here in 2016(44K votes).
Urban African Americans are way more pro-life than suburban women. But AA's typically don't vote on the abortion issue.
Be careful as 50% of black babies are aborted in NYC every year. It is a shame that those women are not offered other options like adoption.