Harris builds 13-point lead over Trump with women: Poll
Harris builds 13-point lead over Trump with women: Poll
Vice President Harris boasts a 13-point lead over former President Trump among women voters in a new poll, a notable edge with a major voting bloc that could be critical for her ticket in November. An Economist/YouGov poll taken this week found 51 percent of women who are registered voters said they...
Vice President Harris boasts a 13-point lead over former President Trump among women voters in a new poll, a notable edge with a major voting bloc that could be critical for her ticket in November.
An Economist/YouGov poll taken this week found 51 percent of women who are registered voters said they support Harris, while 38 percent backed her Republican rival. On the other hand, Trump, who has struggled with women voters, saw a 7-point lead among men.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm glad Trump hasn't stepped down. A more conventional candidate would quite possibly beat Harris but his continuous blunders are paving the way towards the first female president of the US. It's unfortunate that he's been allowed one term but after he showed what he's like, with him as the alternative a woman has a great fighting chance. I believe Kamala wins and will come across as competent, and we are going to see more women as state leaders worldwide.
May as well give the women a chance. They can’t fuck it up worse than the men. AOC on deck.
AOC on deck.
Please, please let me have the chance to vote for her before old age takes me. Please!
That's the point. Dissatisfaction drives change, change drives paradigm shifts. We need a young president again.
OK, but that's exactly what Democrats said in 2016 about Hillary.
In 2016 Trump was an untested leader and Republicans had been spewing propaganda against Hillary for two decades.
While nothing is certain, I'm cautiously optimistic that things will turn out differently this time.
I'm hopeful, too, but I would rather Trump be in prison than be the Republican nominee, even if it means Harris faces a "tougher" opponent.
That would be nice. I'd like to see the electoral college get unscrewed first though.
The last two presidents who took office after losing the popular vote were unmitigated disasters.
The best chance to unscrew the electoral college is the interstate national vote pact. It's close, but there aren't enough blue states left to pass it. So it's unlikely, but more likely than a constitutional amendment.
In 2016 Trump was an untested leader and Republicans had been spewing propaganda against Hillary for two decades.
Not to mention 8 years of resentment from people who watched the '08 primaries, and she decided to top up the resentment in the '16 primaries.
Harris isn't going out of her way to piss off the left like Clinton did. And she has the sense to campaign in swing states.
Same propaganda.
Your resentment comes from a primary process and series of candidates that isn’t really any different from any primary that occurred in the last half century.
Yet you are specifically wounded from that one?
The divisive propaganda spewed in that election was also about Hillary controlling the DNC as much as she controlled a pedo ring.
They wanted to sow division within as well and I hate to break it to you but it’s not like this story hinges on Hillary and her presence…
Clinton's cult is completely incapable of even thinking that she was capable of earning the loss she earned.
You assign a “cult” why?
Obama once said his campaign needed a billion dollars to win the presidency. No one thought twice in that statement.
So she has a cult? Why?
You're readin' more into my comment than I said. Go back and try again after ditching your assumptions.
Or maybe answer the question rather than assigning assumptions to me.
Cult why?
Read my initial comment without your hackles up. Then read how you responded. That's part of it.
But if you would like another example to dismiss in bad faith, consider PUMA PAC. Clinton's supporters were so upset that she lost the '08 primaries that they formed a PAC to get McCain elected out of spite.
Ok full stop…
“Hackles” is awesome. I’m gonna dig into hackles… sorry it’s mine now…
But really you complain that a PAC was formed?
Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?
What’s the alternative? Dems make a PAC and become evil or the Supreme Court rules pacs rule and you now post how dems rolled over and did nothing?
I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.
In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.
It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.
Who sowed those “doubts”?
If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.
What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.
There were seeds which def helped the bullshit grow.
That doesn’t mean you should encourage or embrace that growth. If you do you’re embracing shit.
Whatever bogeyman you've decided to blame because you can't take the idea that Clinton fucked up.
Oh hell no… she did fuck up.
But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.
Oh hell no… she did fuck up.
I'm surprised you can admit she's less than perfection incarnate.
But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.
Now where did I say that? I said that her actions during the '08 and '16 primaries caused resentment.
Harris is a better candidate than Hillary but I agree with you, her polls look great relative to how Biden was doing but objectively it's still extremely close. Between that and all the cheating avenues the republicans have I still think odds are in favour of Trump becoming president again.
The next cycle of polls will give a clue as to if the momentum shift keeps going. Trump has had a couple of disastrous weeks and seems to be spiralling a bit (and notably low-energy), but we all know his base is so secure that he probably won't lose any voters over it. Also he will regain the RFK voters soon, which is bad news for Harris.
I don't even know if Harris is a better candidate, but I do think she's better prepared to face Trump and I am enjoying the public implosion.
I'm not a Republican, but I was genuinely curious to see Nikki Haley as the primary.
Nikki Haley is in the best possible position for a Republican right now.
If Harris wins and Trump's trials go forward, making him a non-factor 4 years from now, she can run in 2028 on a platform of making a clean break from the Trump years, and give the Republicans a fresh image to run against an incumbent Harris.
Yet she hasn't really burned all of her MAGA bridges, and if Trump wins his 2nd term, she can definitely still also run in 2028, particularly if VP Vance turns out to be as much of a dud as we all think he will.
And she's only 52. She has been in the national spotlight since Trump made her UN Ambassador, and has proven herself competent enough to do that job without getting pulled directly into Trump World. As long as she continues to display the competence that the rest of the party lacks, she will be the Republican nominee eventually. If she misses in 2028, she will have at least 2 more election cycles of relevancy.
More women as state leaders you say? So we might finally see female leaders in countries like India, Argentina, the UK, Pakistan, France, Turkey, Bangladesh, Ukraine or Germany if only the US would be the shining example to the world?! I'm sorry, but when it comes to social progress, the best the US can hope for is finally catching up. Any option to be exemplary was definitely gone by maybe the 1970s
by maybe the 1970s
Except by preceeding nearly all those countries in legalizing gay marriage, for one thing.
Eh sure, though only number 20 in the world when it comes to national legislation. But when it comes to quality of life or even life expectancy, the US could do so much better given its wealth. Mostly I'm just trying to point out the automatic patriotism you see so often in Americans, even the progressive ones.
I know but there are few female leaders, past and present, in public consciousness. Theresa May? Queen Elizabeth II? Angela Merkel? Ursula von der Leyen? The fifth president of Slovakia was a woman, for example, but she's just one in six, and not many people will remember her a decade later. If Harris gets to be fondly remembered as a president, she will undoubtedly help alleviate the gender gap in elected positions.