** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

These poor women haven't moved past 1950 yet. Amazing that this type of thinking still exists.

Some women interviewed by The Post did indeed express skepticism about a female president. Diana Arvizu, 34, a real estate agent in Yuma, Ariz., said she just doesn’t believe women have the skills needed to run the country.

“A male should be the head of the home and of the family and of society,” she said. “It takes a really good man to really step up and be a good role model for society and to protect us and provide for us.”

Lynn LaVerdi, a 60-year-old lifelong Republican, brought up her opposition to a woman president unprompted while chatting with a Post reporter as she waited in line with her family to attend Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “I don’t think a woman should hold the presidency,” she said. “Women are more moody. … We get rights and stuff, but I wouldn’t want to be on the front lines in a war.”

LaVerdi’s niece, Alea Scarantino, was standing nearby in a shirt attacking Harris with a gendered slur: “Say No to the Hoe.” Scarantino, who is in her mid-30s, said she agreed that women should not be president. “When I sleep at night, I want a man running our country,” she said. “Men are stronger. Women are hormonal.”

https://wapo.st/4f9eYhb

Because Trump is so rational and stable as a leader and decision maker without all those emotions and hormones 🙄.

Hence, yet another reason why I think POOTWH becomes COOTWH. The women’s vote is overestimated in that there are suburban women beyond child bearing age who are more concerned about crime than abortion and women like these two who are sticking with their religious patriarchy and staying in their place.

Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.

sooo, you think that subset of voter overwhelms the newly registered since 22 cycle?
I think it’s one of many subsets that’ll be peeled away or overestimated.

seanwon

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

Her answers were fine. She wasn’t gonna win you guys over anyway. 

Win me over?
I'm voting for her regardless. I was watching hoping for something that would win whatever few undecideds there are over, and frankly didn't see anything.

Bingo. I and everyone I know voting for her aren't voting for her. We are voting against Trump. Be happy another candidate isn't running, she wouldn't have a chance.

Gern Blansten

seanwon said:

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

Her answers were fine. She wasn’t gonna win you guys over anyway. 

Win me over?
I'm voting for her regardless. I was watching hoping for something that would win whatever few undecideds there are over, and frankly didn't see anything.

Bingo. I and everyone I know voting for her aren't voting for her. We are voting against Trump. Be happy another candidate isn't running, she wouldn't have a chance.

If someone other than trump was running we likely would not care. The problem is trump. 

Tim Simmons

I would most certainly care, but I would be less despondent if the R won. It would just mean more work. 

When you have a major party candidate saying they would turn the military against their internal enemies, that’s some dystopian shit. 

Tim Simmons

Obviously it comes down to how many new voters and lapsed voters they can turn out, but this is positive

Tim Simmons

New WaPo swing states polls

PA: Harris 49 Trump 47
WI: Harris 50 Trump 47
MI: Harris 49 Trump 47
GA: Harris 51 Trump 47
NV: Harris 48 Trump 48
AZ: Trump 49 Harris 46
NC: Trump 50 Harris 47

tbergs

Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.

Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.

Merkin Baller

tbergs said:

Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.

Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.

You aren't kidding.

That this race is as close as it is is a terrible indictment of our citizenry. 

njhaley1

tbergs said:

Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.

Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.

Agreed.

Kamala: "combative" during an interview while fact-checking the interviewer.

Trump: "dominant" when calling the interviewer nasty etc.

mickeyrat

Merkin Baller said:

tbergs said:

Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.

Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.

You aren't kidding.

That this race is as close as it is is a terrible indictment of our citizenry. 

honest questions here.

how often do you think the newly registered are polled? secondary question to this, can we reasonably extrapolate prefered candidate based on who was recommending folks get registered?

how often do you think polling lists are updated relative to election cycles/registration blitzes?

is exit polling allowed during early in person voting? if so , is it being done, given the increase in first day totals generally. if done what are results thus far?

do the news orgs have a vested interest in keeping you engaged by skewing polls to keep engagement high?

Merkin Baller

I should probably rephrase my comment, Mick, as I don't trust a lot of the polling out there... 

"That trump has any chance in this race..." would have been a better choice of words. 

mickeyrat

Merkin Baller said:

I should probably rephrase my comment, Mick, as I don't trust a lot of the polling out there... 

"That trump has any chance in this race..." would have been a better choice of words. 

it IS baffling for sure. long convo with my brother friday. I dont get it. well I do, because of his chosen news sources. did offer he include Reuters and AP to the mix. he was receptive to the idea.

Johnny Abruzzo

I theorize that the polling firms are all "fitting the data" to some 2020 turnout model or something, and it's resulting in the same "tied" race in every poll. Or maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better.

Tim Simmons

Its copium. 

The race is more of less tied with Harris having a slight advantage. She is probably 11 out of 20 coinflips.

mace1229

tbergs said:

Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.

Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.

Saying they're voting against trump isn't a comment against Kamala. Many people are never-trumpers and would vote for anyone who runs against him, that isn't an insult to Kamala. 

The Juggler

Johnny Abruzzo said:

I theorize that the polling firms are all "fitting the data" to some 2020 turnout model or something, and it's resulting in the same "tied" race in every poll. Or maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better.

It's the same thing that happened in '22. Right wing pollsters are making it seem closer than it is, even giving Trump a slight advantage, which he will use as part of his plan to convince his supporters the election was stolen from him if he loses again.

I am skeptical that all these forecast models are adequately prepared to deal with these polling firms that are spitting out numbers that do not quite make a whole lot of sense given the incredible stability of the race up to about last week. Like nothing has happened over the last week to suggest a surge towards Trump (or a surge the other way, for that matter).

Either way, all of the change is within the margin of error. So whether some place gives up Trump a 53% chance or some other place gives Harris a 52% chance.....it's a flip of the coin. Always has been.

Early polling seems to look good for the dems....but again, the media is stupidly comparing it to 2020 when we were in a global pandemic. 

josevolution

It’s incredible that 45-50% of American voters are still not accepting the idea of a woman president in 2024 

Get_Right

nicknyr15 said:

njhaley1 said:

nicknyr15 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

harris raised 47 million bucks from 600,000 donors in the first 24 hours after the debate.

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1834321121501741229

Gross 

Net, I think. 

Know what's gross? Inviting a 9/11 denier to the memorial with you. 

Got any friends or family that died in the towers? I do, and that's fucking gross. 

Jeez I actually do. Chill the fuck out. The amount of money that gets donated to politicians is GROSS. That’s all I was pointing out. I don’t even know what you’re referencing. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this section. Wow. 

They donate to get their agenda moved forward. It is that simple. I literally watched the second tower get hit from my rooftop. I still struggle with defining the appropriate response.

Get_Right

josevolution said:

It’s incredible that 45-50% of American voters are still not accepting the idea of a woman president in 2024 

And that is exactly why people need to be ready for a second Trump presidency, as much as I hate to say it. Hillary could not win. Is Kamala a better candidate?

The Juggler

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

It’s incredible that 45-50% of American voters are still not accepting the idea of a woman president in 2024 

And that is exactly why people need to be ready for a second Trump presidency, as much as I hate to say it. Hillary could not win. Is Kamala a better candidate?

Yes. She is a much better candidate. Election is a coin toss either way though.