On the eve of Election Day in Virginia, Russet Perry was confident she’d knocked on enough doors in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties to know what voters wanted. “Abortion is a huge thing here, with Virginia being the last southern state to have the protections promised in Roe,” she told me. For months, Perry and other Democrats across the state had stressed that the stakes of yesterday’s election were clear: Republicans had control of the House of Delegates, and the state Senate was the only thing preventing an abortion ban from making it to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s desk. And in the state’s Thirty-First District, where Perry was on the ballot, voters could help maintain that majority.

Last night, those voters delivered the seat to Perry; she defeated Juan Pablo Segura by more than 5,000 votes. Perry was part of a trend: Across the state, Democrats won expensive, sharply contested races and not only kept the senate but won back the House of Delegates as well. The Democratic victories in Virginia—as well as the passage of a constitutional amendment in Ohio that guarantees access to abortions—underscored the fact that many voters are still unhappy about the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and, as in 2022, they are turning out to vote and protect the right to an abortion. Moreover, Democrats’ victories last night also raise doubts about the effectiveness of the Republican focus on crime and schools that they believe lean too far left—two areas where they perceive Democrats as weak. Democrats, of course, are hoping that voters will continue to disagree, especially as the country heads into the 2024 election cycle.

[Read: What winning did to the anti-abortion movement]

In the lead-up to Virginia’s election for governor just two years ago, Loudoun County became shorthand for the issues that defined the race. Conservatives who were already upset with school closures during the pandemic had begun protesting several policies enacted by the local school board, including one that allowed transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that conformed with their gender identity, and a curriculum that they argued was littered with critical race theory. Then-candidate Youngkin seized on that anger and made it a pillar of his campaign, blanketing radio and television with millions of dollars in advertisements promising that he would help restore “parental rights” to schools. “On day one, we are going to ban teaching critical race theory in our schools,” Youngkin told a Leesburg audience in September 2021.

And by and large, it worked. Youngkin won the governor’s mansion; Republicans in Virginia reclaimed the House of Delegates. Some observers saw the victories as evidence of a mandate: Voters were upset about what was happening in schools, and they were ready for a change. Results from other states, however, revealed a blurrier picture, given that several well-financed conservative anti-CRT candidates lost downballot school-board races. Last night was an opportunity to test whether Youngkin’s strategy was one with longevity or more of a blip, with abortion having emerged as the new driver of votes.

As Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University, told me, the race in Senate District 31 was a microcosm of the dynamics in Virginia more generally. The Republican candidate, Segura, sought to attack Perry, a former CIA officer and prosecutor, for her work at the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office under Buta Biberaj, a Democrat who’d said that she would no longer prosecute misdemeanors. As the official account for the Virginia Republican Party wrote on X (formerly Twitter), Perry was, to their mind, a “top lieutenant for left-wing Soros Prosecutor Buta Biberaj … backed by defund-the-police radicals.” At the same time, Segura also pushed to rebut the Democratic charges of extremism on abortion. Following Youngkin’s lead, Segura argued that the “entire Republican Party has come together around 15 weeks” as a cutoff for abortions.

But Perry and other Democrats argued that Youngkin’s 15-week proposal was disingenuous—an effort to attract moderate voters. After all, Youngkin had previously said that he would sign any bill to “protect life,” Perry told me, and this would not be the first time that someone said one thing and did another about abortion: “I watched the congressional hearings for the Supreme Court justices, and I watched person after person that got put on the Supreme Court raise their hand and say they thought Roe was the law of the land and that we need to stand by precedent. Then I watched as they rolled it back.”

[Read: Virginia could decide the future of the GOP’s abortion policy]

For Youngkin, a politician who has been regarded as a potential presidential candidate and who has just two years left in his term in office, these election results are a major setback for his agenda in Virginia and his ambitions more broadly. “If he had GOP control, he had unfettered ability to push a conservative agenda and parlay that into a future national campaign,” Rozell told me. Youngkin’s PAC has raised nearly $19 million since March, some of which he used to support 10 candidates in competitive districts, including Segura, and he made nearly 100 campaign stops. “Youngkin put a lot of political capital on the line, and that has some consequences for him in terms of his national political profile” Rozell said. If his stamp was unable to turn voters out in his own state, Republicans now have reason to worry about the broader appeal of his brand of conservatism to their base.

Last night, just after 9:30 p.m., Perry arrived at Stone Tower Winery, in Leesburg, to deliver her victory speech, in which she vowed to “ensure the right to choose here in Virginia.” Shortly thereafter, results came in showing that Democrats had also won a majority of the seats on Loudoun County’s school board. Republicans, meanwhile, were again handed a reminder that though they’d celebrated the end of Roe v. Wade, its demise has initiated a fierce backlash that the party is still struggling to overcome.

On October 7, the terrorist group Hamas perpetrated the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. More than 1,400 Israelis were murdered and kidnapped, overwhelmingly civilians, including babies and Holocaust survivors. Children were shot in front of their parents. Parents were killed in front of their children. Families were incinerated in their homes.

Hamas, which filmed many of its atrocities and posted them on social media, has never been shy about its motivations. Its charter uses “Jews” and “Zionists” interchangeably; claims that Jews control “the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, [and] broadcasting stations”; and promises “struggle against the Jews” and the destruction of Israel. Last week, a spokesperson for the group vowed that “we will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated.” Not all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, but the anti-Zionism of Hamas certainly is.

[Adam Serwer: Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism]

The same is true of Hamas’s far more powerful sponsor, Iran. Whether or not Tehran directly ordered the October massacre, no one disputes that the regime is the primary funder and supplier of Hamas, whose wanton violence it publicly celebrated. Iran’s theocratic rulers are similarly open about their genocidal ambitions. They have built a physical countdown clock to Israel’s destruction, have been accused of plotting terrorist attacks against Jews around the world, and even hosted cartoon contests for Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites. Iran’s military has displayed missiles emblazoned with Death to Israel in Hebrew.

Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, has spent years denying the Holocaust while threatening another one. He has repeatedly referred to Israel, home to half the world’s Jews, in eliminationist terms, labeling it a “cancerous tumor” that must be “uprooted and destroyed.” And these anti-Zionist threats have been backed up by bullets. Not just from Hamas, but from Hezbollah—the much more capable terrorist group based in Lebanon.

Though it has received less attention, Hezbollah—which is not Palestinian and has no significant territorial dispute with Israel, unless one counts its very existence—has been firing rockets and anti-tank missiles at civilian areas in Israel’s north since the first day of the current war, killing several people and causing nearly 200,000 others to evacuate their homes. Hezbollah, too, is not coy about its endgame. In 2002, its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, predicted in a speech, “The Jews will gather from all parts of the world into occupied Palestine, not in order to bring about the anti-Christ and the end of the world, but rather … to save you from having to go to the ends of the world, for they have gathered in one place … and there the final and decisive battle will take place.”

And then there are the Houthis, the Iran-backed militant group that rules Yemen and has also been shooting ballistic missiles at Israeli towns. Helpfully for those trying to determine whether the group is after Jews or merely Israelis, its official motto is “Death to America, death to Israel, curse to the Jews, victory to Islam.”

Much recent media coverage and commentary has focused on the darker expressions of anti-Israel activism at American universities. And it’s true that the largest pro-Palestinian movement on campus, Students for Justice in Palestine, came out in support of the Hamas massacre and abduction campaign, declaring in its national response that “today, we witness a historic win for the Palestinian resistance.” But whatever one thinks of these students, they mostly have placards; Iran and its militias have guns, and they are happy to use them.

Four years ago, I sat onstage at the annual conference of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish civil-rights organization, and listed all the ways a person could be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. This was not what the audience typically comes to hear, but I thought it was important to explain, because the legitimate Palestinian national cause should not be conflated with anti-Jewish prejudice. Among other points, I noted that it was absurd to expect Palestinians to embrace Zionism, which they experienced as the displacement of their people and the dispossession of their homeland. Likewise, principled secular anti-nationalists who oppose all sectarian and ethnic states, ultra-Orthodox Jews who reject a return to the Jewish homeland before the arrival of the Messiah, and Jewish progressives who focus on Israel’s sins because they are particularly upset by how the country appears to act in their name are also not anti-Semites.

I still believe everything I said that day. I do not think that criticizing Israel—something I’ve done repeatedly in these pages—its current far-right government, or even its existence as a Jewish state is necessarily anti-Semitic. But outside the realm of intellectual abstraction, it has become all too apparent that anti-Zionism has an anti-Semitism problem in practice. What’s more, the inability to separate good-faith criticism from bad-faith bigotry is corrupting the conversation about Israel-Palestine at precisely the moment when we most need to be having it.

The most consequential form of anti-Zionism today is the one that deploys guns and rockets, supported by an array of apologists who justify their use. Any discussion of whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic needs to center that reality, instead of focusing on theories or edge cases that are less objectionable, but also far less prevalent in the real world.

The first step to solving this problem is admitting that we have one.

“Tomorrow evening, it will be my pleasure and my honor to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well. Unfortunately, the Israelis would not allow them to travel here, so it is going to be only friends from Hezbollah … The idea that an organization [Hamas] that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region should be labeled as a terrorist organization by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake.”

This deranged declaration was made not by a 21-year-old activist at a university this past month, but in 2009 by Jeremy Corbyn, the leftist leader of the British Labour Party from 2015 to 2020.

The growth of anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism on college campuses is troubling—as are draconian attempts to clamp down on pro-Palestinian speech in response. But I am more concerned about the many powerful and influential people like Corbyn—politicians, activists, celebrities—who have spent years expressing or excusing anti-Jewish bigotry in an anti-Zionist guise, and building a global permission structure in which it is now acceptable to justify or even celebrate mass Jewish death.

The list of such people is long. There is the foreign minister of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 231 million people, who claimed on CNN in 2021 that Israel controls the media with its “deep pockets.” (Oddly, the Zionists invited him on the air in the first place.) There is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a NATO leader, whose inner circle produced a propaganda film in 2015 that detailed, in the words of the Turkish columnist Mustafa Akyol, “how ‘the children of Israel’ want to dominate the world, subjugate other peoples and thus surround the world like a ‘giant octopus.’” To date, Erdoğan has refused to condemn Hamas, some of whose top officials reside in his country.

It’s not just anti-Zionist politicians who turn out to be anti-Semites. Greta Berlin, a co-founder of the Free Gaza activist group, wrote on Twitter in 2012 that “Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews.” She and another Free Gaza co-founder, Mary Hughes-Thompson, later suggested that Israel’s Mossad was behind the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. (An al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility.) The celebrated author Alice Walker joined one of Free Gaza’s missions to Gaza, and later refused to allow The Color Purple to be reissued in Hebrew. She also spent years posting baldly anti-Semitic material on her personal blog, and even promoted—in The New York Times—a wildly anti-Jewish book by the conspiracy theorist David Icke that claims that Jews bankrolled the Holocaust. When criticized for her conduct, she retorted that “the attempt to smear David Icke, and by association, me, is really an effort to dampen the effect of our speaking out in support of the people of Palestine.” And the less said about the anti-Jewish outlook of the Israel-boycott advocate and former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, who recently questioned whether Hamas committed atrocities, the better.

The far right is no exception to this trend. Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, perhaps the most infamous white nationalist in America, is also a virulent anti-Zionist, regularly regurgitating classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and replacing the word Jew with Zionist. (A typical sample of the genre: “The Zionists occupy most of the American media and now control much of American government.”) And Duke’s successors have dominated the social-media discourse surrounding the current Gaza war. As Rolling Stone reported this month, “The online alt-right has been enormously successful at co-opting the Palestinian cause to line their pockets and advance separate agendas … Huge swaths of X users have accepted them as reliable authorities on a fast-developing crisis in the Middle East, and thereby introduced new strains of propaganda into their media diet without realizing it.”

One such influencer, Lucas Gage, wrote on October 7 that “it’s hard to have much sympathy for the Israeli regime when they helped perpetrate this attack on my country,” and illustrated his post with images from 9/11. Gage later added some Holocaust denial into the mix, writing, “Now that you’re seeing all these Jewish people getting caught making up atrocities, doesn’t that make you wonder if they lied about past ones?” Gage has since doubled his following, gaining nearly 100,000 followers. Another far-right influencer, Jackson Hinkle, told his 2 million followers on X that Israel greatly inflated its death toll and that most of the murdered Israelis were killed not by Hamas, but by tank shelling from the Israeli army. He falsely sourced these lies to Israel’s premier left-wing paper, Haaretz, which was then forced to repudiate them.

[Yair Rosenberg: Why so many people still don’t understand anti-Semitism]

The scale of this influence campaign is new, but the substance isn’t. When the Republican politician Marjorie Taylor Greene shared a video on Facebook alleging that “Zionist supremacists” were “breeding us out of existence in our own homelands,” and later accused the Rothschild banking dynasty of causing forest fires with a space laser, she was drawing from this fever swamp. When the Trump supporter Kanye West (now known as Ye), during his 2022 anti-Semitic implosion, declared that “culture is controlled by the Zionist media,” he was simply reflecting ideas that had long circulated on the fringes of the American right, but have become steadily more mainstream. Trump himself has claimed that Israel “literally owned Congress” and told Republican Jews that “you want to control your own politician”—and that was before he had dinner at Mar-a-Lago with Ye and the anti-Semitic influencer Nick Fuentes. Seen in this context, it should not be surprising that the website antizionism.org is run not by Palestinians, but by neo-Nazis.

That so many anti-Jewish bigots have found a home in anti-Israel groups or appropriated their language might seem surprising. But it’s actually quite predictable. If half of the world’s Muslims resided in one place, we would expect that place to draw the ire of Islamophobes. Israel is no different. As the address of so many Jews, it is an irresistible target for those who hate them. For this reason, any movement to critique or penalize Israel for its conduct will naturally attract not just principled advocates of human rights, but committed opponents of Jewish life, because criticism of Israel provides a respectable cover to launder their uglier aims. Unfortunately, they have been quite successful.

When Jewish institutions around the world are targeted for vandalism and violence, when Jews are hunted by a mob in a Russian airport, and when Jewish students are threatened and physically assaulted on college campuses, it is not some freak accident or aberration. It is the inevitable end result of a movement unwilling or unable to expel its extremists.

Abortion foes thought Roe v. Wade’s reversal would usher in a more pro-life America by finally clearing the legal obstacles to the eventual abolition of abortion. But that’s not how things are panning out, even in red states. Yesterday in Ohio—which Donald Trump won in 2020—voters approved a state constitutional amendment to make abortion a fundamental right, effectively restoring the reproductive freedom they once enjoyed under Roe.  

Ohio is hardly an outlier. In the 17 months since Roe fell, citizens in Kansas, Montana, and Kentucky have voted for measures that protect abortion rights. Even some Republican presidential candidates, who in previous cycles might have pressed for sweeping abortion restrictions, are instead advocating for a 15-week limit, a policy that would protect the large majority of abortions. Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, and a man who has called himself “the most pro-life president” in American history, labeled Florida’s de facto abortion ban a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

The conservative calls for moderation should sober pro-life activists. Now more than half a century old, their movement seems trapped by internal tensions. Its bold demand for a new society that rests on rights for all humans—born and unborn—has been its singular strength, inspiring a level of devotion matched by few other causes. Having spent countless hours interviewing and observing its activists, I know at least one thing with certainty: They sincerely consider themselves human-rights crusaders. Supporters of abortion rights who don’t see this are underestimating what they’re up against.

[Read: The abortion backlash reaches Ohio]

The ideals of the pro-life movement have also buoyed anti-abortion sympathies in the broader public amid the fast-rising tides of social liberalization. Although surveys show that the United States is much more supportive of gay rights and gender equality than it was 50 years ago, support for abortion rights has not had a similar increase.

But the movement’s ultimate ambition—the abolition of abortion—is also a call for social revolution that scares Americans, especially now that Roe’s reversal has brought that revolution to their doorsteps. Just as center-left Democrats turned against police abolitionists in droves, so too have many Republicans rejected the dream of abortion abolitionists in their ranks. For Americans across the political spectrum, calling their local police or Planned Parenthood is sometimes an unfortunate necessity, however ambivalent they might feel about those institutions.

Laws that protected abortion rights were certainly revolutionary way back in the 1960s, but now they are our tradition, deeply embedded in our way of life. Americans from all walks of life have come to rely on these protections. This is no less true of Republicans than Democrats, especially as the GOP’s base has become more working-class. Research shows that women without a college degree are more likely to get an abortion than women with more education.

Even so, it still might be possible for pro-lifers to nudge the nation in their direction by pushing for something well short of abolition, such as a strict national limits on abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a policy for which Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, and Tim Scott have all voiced support.

But to pursue any such settlement, right-to-life advocates must accept an America remade by 50 years of abortion rights. That is hard. How does any movement set aside the very ambition that drives it? That is the pro-life movement’s dilemma: It can’t easily push for a durable settlement to the abortion conflict without vitiating the ideals that have held it together.

The liberalism of the pro-life movement has been the unacknowledged secret to its success. While socially conservative causes have lost considerable ground since Roe was decided, abortion opinion has been remarkably stable. One explanation is that the core claims of right-to-lifers continue to resonate in a culture committed to the proposition that all human beings are created equally, entitled to life, liberty, and happiness.

That means pro-life and pro-choice activists are fellow children of the Declaration of Independence, fighting over its meaning. Both movements are trying to expand the frontiers of human freedom and equality. The abortion fight is often cast as a culture war that divides Americans into competing worldviews, one liberal, the other theocratic. But it is in fact a fight over what liberalism means.

From the beginning, many right-to-life activists have been inspired by the ideals of freedom and equality, rather than the sexism they are often accused of. Even back in the 1970s, many of the most radical pro-life leaders were hardly Archie Bunker conservatives. Centered in the anti-war, Catholic left, many early radicals saw their activism as part of a broader ethic of nonviolence. One leader, John O’Keefe, was inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. and aimed to prove his commitment to feminism by adding his wife’s last name to his in 1976, changing it to Cavanaugh-O’Keefe. Unlike O’Keefe, Francis Schaeffer—an early Protestant leader who inspired legions of evangelicals to join the anti-abortion cause—was no lefty, but he still wanted nothing to do with Phyllis Schlafly’s campaign to fight the Equal Rights Amendment. As different as they were, leaders such as O’Keefe and Schaeffer were mostly consumed with, as they put it, “saving babies,” not some retrograde desire to keep women in their place.

Their ranks became more conservative in the ’80s when Protestant fundamentalists enlisted, diminishing what one history of the movement called its early “sixties leftist feel.” Many were openly anti-feminist. Randall Terry, the leader of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, even excluded women from leadership positions.

But if views on gender roles were what animated the movement, then the dramatic rise in gender egalitarianism since the ’80s should have depressed pro-life sentiments and activism. Surveys show, however, that gender traditionalism declined markedly without depressing pro-life opinion. As a consequence, today the gap between the gender ideologies of pro-life and pro-choice citizens is much smaller than it was in the ’80s. Other survey-based research on pro-life activists themselves finds that, compared with other Americans, their views on gender roles are only slightly more conservative.

The vitality of the pro-life movement is partly why the Supreme Court overturned Roe. That the public seemed no less divided over Roe than it had in 1973 gave the Court’s conservative justices room to reconsider it. Had the pro-life movement and the sentiments that power it waned significantly over time, the Court might well have left Roe alone. It would have been just another social issue the Court was a little ahead of, like same-sex marriage. But Roe was never legitimated by the forward march of social attitudes.

Yet as soon as it was overturned, voters turned against the pro-life cause everywhere they could. Of course, citizens often fear the sudden disruption of the status quo, and some research on voting behavior suggests that people are particularly susceptible to such concerns when asked to vote on ballot measures. And naturally, a preference for normality may be especially strong among conservative voters.

That raises an interesting possibility: Although the pro-life movement hasn’t generally been propelled by conservative values, it may be ultimately defeated by them.

Perhaps the best evidence of pro-choice conservatism comes from the purple state of Michigan. In 1972, voters rejected a law that would have made abortion legal in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Fifty years later, in 2022, voters approved a nearly identical ballot measure. The shift can’t be easily explained by dramatic changes in abortion attitudes, which, as I’ve noted, have been remarkably stable since the ’70s.

But while abortion attitudes haven’t changed all that much, nearly everything else has. When the citizens of Michigan rejected abortion rights in 1972, they were affirming the world they knew. They were voting against social revolution. When the state’s citizens took to the polls in 2022, their vote to sustain a long legacy of abortion rights expressed the same essential conservatism. Michigan voters didn’t change. The context did.

For years, pro-choice Boomers have lamented younger generations’ distance from a pre-Roe America. They supposed that Gen Xers and Millennials would be more committed to abortion rights if only they had witnessed the horrors of “back alley” abortions. But America’s emerging pro-choice consensus suggests that the opposite is more true: Our collective distance from a world without Roe makes us reluctant to resurrect it.

Although a reflexive bias toward the status quo is sometimes irrational, that isn’t true in this case. Even those of us—myself included—who have genuine sympathy for the philosophical case against abortion should be uneasy about reimposing broad abortion prohibitions in an America remade by the sexual revolution.

In the era prior to Roe, unplanned pregnancies tended to impose heavy burdens on men, not just women. Men were generally expected to commit to lifelong marriage when their girlfriend got pregnant. Until the 1970s, shotgun marriages were still the norm.

After Roe, though, the sexual revolution unraveled the social expectations that had once distributed the burden of unplanned children more equally. More and more, women were left to go it alone in cases of unplanned pregnancy. Roe itself accelerated this revolution, but it also reduced its costs by giving women something closer to the same freedom from parenthood that men enjoyed. Hence, Roe didn’t simply reject an old conservative social order; ironically, it did some of the work of the old order by attempting to re-create a semblance of equality between the sexes.

That means if abortion were prohibited in this age of sexual freedom, a troubling social experiment would result: compulsory motherhood without demanding anything from men in return. Pro-lifers should accept reality. Absent any agreement on the moral status of the embryo, Americans will never support a radical social revolution on its behalf. They don’t want to live in a nation without abortion any more than they want one without police.

[Read: The new pro-life movement has a plan to end abortion]

Movement leaders probably can’t afford to surrender that dream and still maintain the dedication of their activists, but they can recognize that their dream won’t be coming true anytime soon. Pro-lifers should also see that flirting with strong-arm tactics—like impeaching a newly elected pro-choice judge in Wisconsin—to achieve what they could not at the polls might backfire by further alienating voters.

Doing so might also undermine a real opportunity to attain durable and meaningful limits on abortion. A 15-week limit is a good one from the point of view of right-to-life advocates. It would move us well past the extremism of Roe, which, with its companion decision (Doe v. Bolton), established one of the most radical abortion policies in the world. Yes, Roe and Doe technically permitted third-trimester bans, but they also neutralized them by subjecting such bans to an exception that allowed physicians to perform abortions for any reason they deemed relevant to the health of their patients, including “emotional, psychological, [and] familial” concerns.   

One model that might attract bipartisan support is France’s abortion policy: It provides funding for poor women who seek abortion and allows for late-term procedures in rare cases (e.g. severe fetal abnormalities and serious maternal health risks), but also limits abortion to 14 weeks. France’s policy is close to the norm throughout other Western democracies, perhaps because it is consistent with common moral intuitions that predispose us to feel more protective of embryos once they begin to resemble newborns, roughly after the first trimester. Though more restrictive than many pro-choice advocates would prefer, it would still protect the vast majority of abortions, even as it would prevent many thousands of later-term ones that pro-life advocates find most troubling.

Alternatively, pro-lifers could seek more restrictive abortion policies by trying to subvert the will of a pro-choice majority, as they recently attempted to do in Ohio and are contemplating in Wisconsin. Not only does that strategy risk alienating the American public; it also represents a troubling about-face: After decades of rightly insisting that citizens should not be effectively disenfranchised by Roe, pro-lifers are now seeking their marginalization.

It is easy enough for me to say what pro-life activists should do. But as abortion foes weigh their options, they should remember what our post-Roe politics has revealed: When given a choice between prohibition and expansive abortion rights, Americans seem to prefer the latter—and they have good conservative reasons for doing so.

This article was originally published on October 10, 2023. It was updated at 8:56 a.m. ET on November 8, 2023.

Democrats yesterday continued to perform better at the polls than in the polls.

Even as many Democrats have been driven to a near panic by a succession of recent polls showing President Joe Biden’s extreme vulnerability, the party in yesterday’s elections swept almost all the most closely watched contests. Democrats won the Kentucky governorship by a comfortable margin, romped to a lopsided victory in an Ohio ballot initiative ensuring abortion rights, and easily captured an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat. Most impressive, Democrats held the Virginia state Senate and were projected to regain control of the Virginia state House, despite an all-out campaign from Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin to win both chambers. Among the major contests, Democrats fell short only in the governor’s race in Mississippi.

The results extended the most striking pattern from the 2022 midterm election, when Republicans failed to match the usual gains for the party out of the White House at a time of widespread public dissatisfaction with the president. Democrats, just as they did last November, generated yesterday’s unexpectedly strong results primarily by amassing decisive margins in urban centers and the large inner suburbs around them.

The outcomes suggested that, as in 2022, an unusually broad group of voters who believe that Democrats have not delivered for their interests voted for the party’s candidates anyway because they apparently considered the Republican alternatives a threat to their rights and values on abortion and other cultural issues.

“The driving force of our politics since 2018 has been fear and opposition to MAGA,” the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg told me. “It was the driving force in 2022 and 2023, and it will be in 2024. The truth is, what we’re facing in our domestic politics is unprecedented. Voters understand it, they are voting against it, and they are fighting very hard to prevent our democracy from slipping away.”

The surprising results yesterday could not have come at a better time for Democratic leaders. Many in the party have been driven to a near frenzy of anxiety by a succession of recent polls showing Biden trailing former President Donald Trump.

Yesterday’s victories have hardly erased all of Biden’s challenges. For months, polls have consistently found that his approval rating remains stuck at about 40 percent, that about two-thirds of voters believe he’s too old to effectively serve as president for another term, and that far more voters express confidence in Trump’s ability to manage the economy than in Biden’s.

But, like the 2022 results in many of the key swing states, the Democrats’ solid showing yesterday demonstrated that the party can often overcome those negative assessments by focusing voters’ attention on their doubts about the Trump-era Republican Party. “Once again, we saw that what voters say in polls can be very different than what they do when faced with the stark choice between Democrats who are fighting for a better life for families and dangerous candidates who are dead set on taking away their rights and freedoms,” Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the chief strategy officer of Way to Win, a liberal group that focuses on electing candidates of color, told me in an email last night.

Even more than a midterm election, these off-year elections can turn on idiosyncratic local factors. But the common thread through most of the major contests was the Democrats’ continuing strength in racially diverse, well-educated major metropolitan areas, which tend to support liberal positions on cultural issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights. Those large population centers have trended Democratic for much of the 21st century. But that process accelerated after Trump emerged as the GOP’s leader in 2016, and has further intensified since the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion.

Across yesterday’s key contests, Democrats maintained a grip on major population centers. In Kentucky, Democratic Governor Andy Beshear carried the counties centered on Louisville and Lexington by about 40 percentage points each over Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

In Ohio, abortion-rights supporters dominated most of the state’s largest communities. That continued the pattern from the first round of the state’s battle over abortion. In that election, as I wrote, the abortion-rights side, which opposed the change, won 14 of the state’s 17 largest counties, including several that voted for Trump in 2020.

The results were equally emphatic in yesterday’s vote on a ballot initiative to repeal the six-week-abortion ban that the GOP-controlled state legislature passed, and Republican Governor Mike DeWine signed, in 2019. The abortion ban was buried under a mountain of votes for repeal in the state’s biggest places: An overwhelming two-thirds or more of voters backed repeal in the state’s three largest counties (which are centered on Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati), and the repeal side won 17 of the 20 counties that cast the most ballots, according to the tabulations posted in The New York Times.

Democrats held the Virginia state Senate through strong performances in suburban areas as well. Especially key were victories in which Democrats ousted a Republican incumbent in a suburban Richmond district, and took an open seat in Loudoun County, an outer suburb of Washington, D.C.

The race for an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat followed similar tracks. Democrat Daniel McCaffery cruised to victory in a race that hinged on debates about abortion and voting rights. Like Democrats in other states, McCaffery amassed insuperable margins in Pennsylvania’s largest population centers: He not only posted big leads in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but he also built enormous advantages in each of the four large suburban counties outside Philadelphia, according to the latest vote tally.

[Read: America’s bluest state loves its Republican governor]

From a national perspective, the battle for control of the Virginia state legislature probably offered the most important signal. The Virginia race presented the same competing dynamics that are present nationally. Though Biden won the state by 10 percentage points in 2020, recent polls indicate that more voters there now disapprove than approve of his performance. And just as voters in national polls routinely say they trust Trump more than Biden on the economy and several other major issues, polls found that Virginia voters gave Republicans a double-digit advantage on economy and crime. Beyond all that, Youngkin raised enormous sums to support GOP legislative candidates and campaigned tirelessly for them.

Yet even with all those tailwinds, Youngkin still failed to overturn the Democratic majority in the state Senate, and lost the GOP majority in the state House. The principal reason for Youngkin’s failure, analysts in both parties agree, was public resistance to his agenda on abortion. Youngkin had elevated the salience of abortion in the contest by explicitly declaring that if voters gave him unified control of both legislative chambers, the GOP would pass a 15-week ban on the procedure, with exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother.

[Read: Why deep-red Kentucky reelected its Democratic governor]

Youngkin and his advisers described that proposal as a “reasonable” compromise, and hoped it would become a model for Republicans beyond the red states that have already almost all imposed more severe restrictions. But the results made clear that most Virginia voters did not want to roll back access to abortion in the commonwealth, where it is now legal through 26 weeks of pregnancy. “What Virginia showed us is that the Glenn Youngkin playbook failed,” Mini Timmaraju, the CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, an abortion-rights group, told me last night. “We showed that even Republican voters in Virginia weren’t buying it, didn’t go for it, saw right through it.”

Youngkin’s inability to capture the Virginia state legislature, even with all the advantages he enjoyed, will probably make the 2024 GOP presidential contenders even more skittish about openly embracing a national ban on abortion. But Timmaraju argued that yesterday’s results showed that voters remain focused on threats to abortion rights. “Our job is to make sure that the American people don’t forget who overturned Roe v. Wade,” she told me.

None of yesterday’s results guarantees success for Biden or Democrats in congressional races next year. It is still easier for other Democrats to overcome doubts about Biden than it will be for the president himself to do so. In particular, the widespread concern in polls that Biden is too old to serve another term is a problem uniquely personal to him. And few Democrats really want to test whether they can hold the White House in 2024 without improving Biden’s ratings for managing the economy. Trump’s base of white voters without a college degree may be more likely to turn out in a presidential than off-year election as well.

But a clear message from the party’s performance yesterday is that, however disenchanted voters are with the country’s direction under Biden, Democrats can still win elections by running campaigns that prompt voters to consider what Republicans would do with power. “We have an opening here with the effective framing around protecting people’s freedoms,” Fernandez Ancona told me. “Now we can push forward on the economy.”

Yesterday’s results did not sweep away all the obstacles facing Biden. But the outcome, much like most of the key contests in last fall’s midterm, show that the president still has a viable pathway to a second term through the same large metro areas that keyed this unexpectedly strong showing for Democrats.

The third debate could be one of the last opportunities for Trump’s opponents to make a dent in his popularity.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

The race for second place in the Republican primaries has gotten closer. Nikki Haley has been rising surprisingly quickly in the polls in recent months, becoming a top rival to Ron DeSantis; both are still trailing Donald Trump. I called my colleague Elaine Godfrey, who covers politics for The Atlantic and attended a campaign event for Haley in New Hampshire last week, to talk about what Haley offers that DeSantis does not, and what her surge tells us about voters’ hunger for normalcy.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

“We do not want to deal with customers like you!” America’s most dangerous anti-Jewish propagandist Trump can’t hide his utter disdain for the rule of law.

New Scrutiny

Lora Kelley: Why has support for Haley been rising lately?

Elaine Godfrey: Her support has been ticking upward since August, when we had the first GOP debate. Supporters in New Hampshire told me that they saw her on the debate stage and really liked her. She has presented herself as an alternative to Trump, basically saying: If you don’t like Donald Trump, or if you did like Trump but now you’re over him, please vote for me.

A lot of voters who don’t want to support Trump don’t really want to support Ron DeSantis, because they see him as a mini Trump. Haley’s lane, and the kind of voter that she’s going for, is much clearer.

Lora: How big is the appetite among voters for someone who has more conventional political experience than, say, Trump?

Elaine: Last week, I was sitting in the room at Haley’s campaign event in New Hampshire, and the person who introduced her said something like “Aren’t we happy that we finally have a candidate who was once an accountant?” And the room just went wild. I remember laughing. Can you picture that happening at a Trump rally? It was a blast from the past of pre-Trump Republican politics—this person knows how to balance a budget.

There is such an appetite among a small set of Republican primary voters, but a pretty significant set of independent and moderate voters, for normalcy. These voters complain that Joe Biden is too old to be president, and that Trump is too unpredictable and crazy. They want to know: Why can’t we just have younger, more “normal” candidates? That being said, most Republican primary voters are still in the bag for Trump. They do not want an accountant. Haley’s more conventional political experience would probably play really well in a general election. But it doesn’t seem like a recipe for success in the primary.

Lora: Haley says that she’s personally pro-life but doesn’t judge people who are pro-choice. How will that go over with voters on both sides of the abortion issue?

Elaine: I don’t think that stance is actually very polarizing. Most Americans support abortion access of some kind, but they want a limit. They don’t want abortion to be legal in all circumstances, but they’re really turned off by the strict bans that some states have been passing.

Haley was initially sort of murky on her abortion position. Now when people talk to her about that, her answer is that she is unapologetically pro-life, but she understands why someone might be pro-choice. She often tells voters that a federal abortion law isn’t likely to pass, but can’t we come together to condemn late-term abortions? And can’t we all agree to support good-quality adoption?

A lot of voters like that and respond to that. Frankly, I’m surprised that more Republican candidates aren’t talking that way.

Lora: To what extent might Haley’s background in foreign policy (she was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for two years under Trump) be an asset to her?

Elaine: Voters I talked to last week—and, granted, this was at a Nikki Haley event—said: Things are so scary right now in the world. She makes me feel better. She knows what’s going on. She wants peace through strength. That is a real plus for her in this particular moment, with this Middle East conflict and the war between Russia and Ukraine. I don’t know if it’s an issue that pushes her over the top, but some voters definitely see her as an experienced adult in the room when it comes to war and foreign policy.

Lora: What could tomorrow’s debate—where Haley will face off against DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy—mean for her?

Elaine: More people are going to be watching her now and seeing how this momentum translates to tomorrow’s debate. She’s likely going to be thinking: What kind of moment could I create for myself? What sound bite will set me apart? Maybe she’ll pick another fight with Vivek Ramaswamy. Maybe she’ll go harder on Trump, which most of the candidates have been hesitant to do. Watch for others onstage to attack her, now that her star is rising. They might criticize her for flip-flopping on her support for Trump—or for being a foreign-policy hawk, which is something that sets her apart from DeSantis and others onstage.

She and DeSantis are probably going to go after each other; both will be trying to create viral moments. They are both aware that they’re vying for second place in this primary.

Related:

Nikki Haley offers an alternate reality. Nikki Haley is the new Ron DeSantis.

Today’s News

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a federal law that prevents people with domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel plans to “have overall security responsibility” in Gaza for “an indefinite period” when the war ends. House Republicans met behind closed doors to debate the structure of a stopgap measure as the government’s next shutdown deadline, November 17, approaches.

Dispatches

Up for Debate: Conor Friedersdorf gathers readers’ thoughts on how to talk about the Middle East during a polarizing conflict. Work in Progress: Maybe don’t drive into Manhattan, Annie Lowrey writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times / Getty

‘How Much Can This Child Take?’

By Franklin Foer

On the night of Friday, October 6, Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg laid their hands on the head of their 23-year-old son, Hersh, so that they could bless him, a ritual of the Sabbath. They recited in Hebrew: May you feel God’s presence within you always, and may you find peace.

It was an exquisitely temperate Jerusalem evening, and the Goldberg-Polin family made the most of it, dining al fresco at a long table of friends. Hersh’s presence was an unexpected blessing. He had only recently returned from several months of traveling across Europe by himself, occasionally meeting up with his boyhood friends. Earlier in the week, Hersh had told his mother that he would be away for the weekend, attending a music festival in the north. But that festival’s organizers had neglected to obtain the necessary permits, and the event ended prematurely.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

A knife fight in a phone booth It’s a miracle anyone stays in love. My north star for the future of AI

Culture Break

Jessica Sample / Gallery Stock

Read. Essential technologies such as jet engines and sewers are fundamental—and confusing. Here are eight books that explain how the world around us works.

Listen. Check out an audio collection of some of October’s most popular Atlantic articles, presented by Hark.

In an eight-week newsletter series, The Atlantic’s top thinkers on AI will help you wrap your mind around a new machine age. Sign up for Atlantic Intelligence to receive the first edition, starting this week.

Play our daily crossword.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.