US elections. Where is my constituency (i.e women)?

“The 'menstruating people' “ this bothers me a lot, when I hear “menstruating people “ first thing I think of is blood coming out of my vagina people. And I really do not want to be refer as that.

The white evangelical Christians are an entirely different issue. They will vote for Trump at the same level as in the previous election (80+%). They wish to mold the society in the image of their interpretation of Christianity and many among the women in that group are single issue voters against abortion.

This white woman did not vote for Trump, but majority of white women will vote for him this time around too. I don’t think they care too much for women issues. They rather big Corporations of Americans take care of women

It's fine if you're not a feminist; most women aren't.

Well, of course you don't agree - you're not a feminist, so far as I'm aware?

Whatever I am, I don't think politics can exist to consider only one segment of the population, and I think a great many feminists would agree with that. In any case, you might not have noticed, but women don't all agree about what they would like politics to look like.

Unfortunately some feminists that belong to the identity politics faction - a group I would certainly deny membership in - likes to present themselves as the representatives of women's interests, defining what "centring women" would look like. Even if that would mean not actually listening to actual women.

Personally, I'd love to a single election anywhere that put the welfare of the child at the heart of the manifesto, but that's just me.

Everyone is a child at some point, that's a much more defensible idea, though you still aren't likely to find consensus among women about it. A goodly number of American women would consider abortion restrictions an important part of child welfare.

Personally, I'd love to a single election anywhere that put the welfare of the child at the heart of the manifesto, but that's just me.

I strongly agree, of course. Trump is a pathological sadistic narcissist, among other problems. Still, the vicious part of me thinks that if it is now 'people' who get pregnant then let 'people' defend reproductive rights.

Honestly this type of la gauge is not in mainstream American discourse anywhere. Much is made on MN of random period pants brands who say “people with periods” but watch CNN or read the Washington Post, you don’t see that sort of talk. Let alone the large number of mostly evangelical Christian communities where people pray publicly at work.

ListeningQuietly
"A vote for Trump will be great for the anti TRA but horrendous for abortion and contraception and healthcare rights
and everything else"

I strongly agree, of course. Trump is a pathological sadistic narcissist, among other problems. Still, the vicious part of me thinks that if it is now 'people' who get pregnant then let 'people' defend reproductive rights. I would never act on that but resent my erasure from the picture and the fact that if it indeed was true that 'people' in general could get pregnant abortion would be available at most street corners.

The GOP is in a very bad place

The Democrats are in a pretty bad place

The USA is in a bad place

A vote for the Democrats reduces the damage that Trumps version of politics can do to the USA
and gives time for the TRA worm to turn and the gerrymandering worm to turn and the elector exclusion worm to turn

A vote for Trump will be great for the anti TRA but horrendous for abortion and contraception and healthcare rights
and everything else

The US is much more like Europe than like any country in Europe. Some states are extremely right-wing, some extremely left-wing. Some states are quite poor and have terrible health outcomes while others are wealthy and do as well as Europe in terms of health. There is a north and south divide maybe a little like the one in Europe and so on.

So it is tricky to talk about what the whole country does as a whole.

In practice, the outcome of the elections depends only on certain states and which candidate manages to get hold of them. Far too many states have been gerrymandered or otherwise developed into essentially single-party states, and this gives the ones which matter a lot of political power. In many of those someone's vote doesn't matter on the federal level much at all. Local concerns, however, obviously do matter.

Still, in the last election 52% white women and 68% white men voted for Trump. In itself this is a terrible indictment of white American men, who mostly managed to demonstrate they are unable to get behind and support a woman (HRC). I honestly don’t know how white men can ever redeem themselves for that.

Exit polls said 53% white women and 63% white men, so not quite so extreme, but I agree it's not a good look either way.

Have to say though, this is hardly a glowing recommendation of white American women - that "only a small majority" of them voted for the man who wanted to grab 'em by the pussy, whereas a somewhat larger majority of the men did.

As mentioned previously the depth of American conservatism can be hard to fathom. British conservatism is hard enough, but at least we have a labour movement and left wing counterweight of some substance, even if it's struggling right at the moment.

And it seems like the poorer and more disempowered people get, the keener they are the vote for the policies and people that are going to keep them that way.

Still, in the last election 52% white women and 68% white men voted for Trump. In itself this is a terrible indictment of white American men

No. It is not. It is however a terrible indictment of the Democratic party machine which chose a Washington Beltway candidate whose profound unpopularity was off the charts. People who voted Obama in 2012 voted Trump in 2016. But since the media can't acknowledge the existence of such voters, we get the 'basket of deplorables' stunt. Not a smart look for winning votes or understanding election results.

Thank you for your reply, Yellownotblue. Out of interest, who do you feel should have won the 2020 primary and, if I might ask, why?

In my (perhaps overly cynical) opinion, Biden was chosen because they're seeking to rekindle the popularity enjoyed by Obama and, policy-wise, there wasn't much difference between him and your other named candidates, save for Elizabeth Warren, who seemed to lack the grass roots support base that Bernie Sanders had with broadly similar policies.

There are certain people who g on a lot about electability that believe a man is more electable. I'm not sure though that they are correct about that.

Biden reminds me of the sort of situation where everyone picks their top three choices for painting a communal space, and it ends up yellow, a colour no one actually likes all that much.

But I've been thinking about this from upthread:

The idea of a left wing party that radically centres women and children in their pitch for election is a pipe dream.

I'm not sure that a political party or government should radically centre one particular group, of any kind. If one group of people is centred, what that means is that other groups are not.

There is research from the US that says people perceive female politicians to be more liberal than male politicians who have the same positions.

I'm not sure that played a significant role in her loss either (being perceived as more liberal). In my (very conjectural) opinion , her biggest (but, by no means, only) challenge going into 2016 was growing anti-establishment sentiments across the political spectrum which were at odds with her political career. I don't believe that it's easy to 'win' political credit as Secretary of State in any geopolitical climate and the one that existed during her tenure was particularly challenging. I realise that Secretary of State wasn't the entire sum of her political career but that struck me as the particular focus of the criticisms she (rightly or wrongly) faced.

Do you believe that HRC would have done significantly better with the same political policies and history if she were male?

There is research from the US that says people perceive female politicians to be more liberal than male politicians who have the same positions.

who mostly managed to demonstrate they are unable to get behind and support a woman (HRC)

Do you believe that HRC would have done significantly better with the same political policies and history if she were male? My impression was that, while she probably was treated more unkindly by her opponents (in both parties) due to her sex, it was rather far down the list of reasons (not necessarily well founded reasons) why swing voters might have voted for Donald Trump. Alternatively, did you mean something else?

If it's any consolation, I think many other places in the Anglosphere are not far behind the US in terms of collapse, though with different instigating factors.

America is a conservative country and I’m constantly surprised by people not understanding this. Many people despite their personal lives looking very 2020 are fully indoctrinated in the belief that white married Christian small town values are the bedrock of America. So divorced women who’ve had abortions will vote for Republicans because they rationalise that their vote sort of “makes up” for what they consider their personal failures.

My opinion is that racism is the reason neither party ever actually offers policies that help women, because in the 1980s Reagan popularised the idea of the “welfare queen” aka a black woman who refuses to work, has lots of kids, and takes government money.

But something important to remember - America is not just the president. State and local government is very important due to the federal system. New York is a better state to be a woman than Alabama is. So you can look at the parties who run big cities or certain states and see the difference in local policies.

The idea of a left wing party that radically centres women and children in their pitch for election is a pipe dream. We don't live in that world. If we did, there might not be a need for feminism. The parties reflect an age old animus towards women, whereby their needs as a class are seen as subordinate to 'universal' issues.

A Democrat vote before they went full gender over sex would reliably be of more help to women and children re access to health care, which is huge.

Individual voters need to weigh up whether the destruction of women as a sex class in law by Dems is a price they'll pay for functional government and healthcare.

The can't really express the extent to which I blame this situation on the Democrats. The Republicans have failed to maintain their political tradition, but the Democrats have actually betrayed it IMO.

I imagine the 'solution', regardless of election outcome, will be a collapse - sooner or later.

All of this, a mashup of PPs posts, explains my position as an American citizen and resident voter.

DH is beyond apathetic except for how he worries about it all affecting me and the girls/women of this country. I am resigned, invisible, and the enemy for not carrying a party line (either side) that is demonstrably damaging to my rights as a female American. No Trump, no Biden for our house. We are focusing on local, county, state elections for the foreseeable future. We (DH and I) have taken to attempting to predict the seemingly inevitable civil war and fall of the empire - we joke about it mostly but we both are too acquainted with history to go about our business without some level of looming doom.

There are obviously loads of Americans who are single issue voters Nothing [Not much] can be done to sway these voters.

True

(the single issue usually being guns/abortion).

Nope, much more diverse than that

in the last election 52% white women and 68% white men voted for Trump. In itself this is a terrible indictment of white American men, who mostly managed to demonstrate they are unable to get behind and support a woman (HRC).

We voted for HRC as the 'lesser of the evils' not because she is a woman or we liked most of her politics (we don't). She was a party to shitting all over Tulsi Gabbard during Tulsi's 2020 campaign, rendering Gabbard obsolete even though she was our best all-around Dem choice. I don't think assuming that those that voted for Trump are all against having a female president (I'm sure there are many) but my mom is an example of a 'white woman' that voted for him because after voting for 40+ years she feels the Democrats have fucked her over again and again (lifelong Dem voter until 2016). She wanted change, she isn't thrilled but took a chance on her hopes. My mom was rooting for Gabbard as she was the only Dem candidate my mom thinks could be a catalyst for change (I agree) and mom is looking at voting Trump again as Biden represents the institution of inaction and slight-of-hand she looked to avoid in 2016. (Mom loves many of Bernie's ideas but - and I agree - those ideas can't come to fruition in one term or even two probably would take two decades - it needs to be a slow progression not a race, this country and its infrastructure is too big to make such extreme changes quickly). I like Yang's take on Universal Income - and believe it should have been instituted as soon as the nation started selling our natural resources. But again things like that take time.

Still, I was struck by how the presidential debate had nothing to offer women. I don’t think Trump mentioned women a single time. It’s as if we don’t exist. How come this is acceptable?

That's par for the course in POTUS debates. It isn't acceptable but it is what we get as a nation for poor decision making in regards to choosing 'leaders' that perform leadership without leading.

overwhelming majority of black and Latino voters voted Democrat last time, as in all the previous elections

Overwhelming is an overstatement and variation by ethnicity is a huge consideration with US current demographics. For example, in Florida, Cuban Americans tend to vote Republican (57%) while Puerto Ricans tend to lean Democrat. Variations easily ascertained by viewing state voter turnout exit polls shows you the true story (by state, origin, perceived race, socio-economic position, and ethnicity). Democrats taking the black vote or the Latino and/or Hispanic vote for granted are morons. My neighborhood is super diverse (ethnicity and most interestingly politics as the yard signs show)... on our block the Haitian family are Trump supporters, many of the 'white perceived' households are voting for Biden, one of the Latino families doesn't vote and the other votes Democrat/Republican split between two generations, and we are going third party this time.

The debate means basically nothing IMO. I decided to not engage with it at all this year (speculation, actual debate, opinions on outcome.). I guessed what would happen and as confirmed by DH (I didn't ask he volunteered) my predictions were perfectly accurate so I feel great about not wasting my time.

One thing about those stats...less than half of Americans voted in 2016. So of that 48%, 68% of white men voted for Trump, which is likely about 30% of the US population. There's a lot of apathy in America re: politics. And yes, those are horrible numbers but a lot of white people here, especially in the south are very very racist.

I imagine the 'solution', regardless of election outcome, will be a collapse - sooner or later.

Not good for anyone, definitely not good for women and children. Not sure than an individual woman making her choice at the ballot box can prevent that in any meaningful way. Delay it? Maybe.

Yes, I mean there is actually no real solution to my worry. If it's true, neither vote is likely to help.

The can't really express the extent to which I blame this situation on the Democrats. The Republicans have failed to maintain their political tradition, but the Democrats have actually betrayed it IMO.