Kamala Harris has a problem with men. Will misogyny cost her the election?

Two example of Trump's answers very recently:

Question: Are you willing to legislate on childcare?

Answer: “Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody — we had, Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue.
"But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about — that, because look, child care is child care, couldn’t — you know, there’s something — you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to. But they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have — I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.
"Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just — that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers will be taking in.
"We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question.

Question: “Should Google be broken up?”

“I just haven’t gotten over something the Justice Department did yesterday where Virginia cleaned up its voter rolls and got rid of thousands and thousands of bad votes, and the Justice Department sued them that they should be allowed to put those bad votes and illegal votes back in and let the people vote. So I haven’t gotten over that. A lot of people have seen that. They can’t even believe it,”

I can understand people saying that Harris sometimes skirts issues, but to say tha Harris is incoherent but Trump is "straight talking" is laughable. He can barely finish a thought, let alone a sentence.

She's just not a very strong candidate. The thought of her on the internatonal stage is a concern. People suspect that she's been selected just because she's female and mixed race - not because she has any great strengths or ability.

He's also very plain and straight talking and a lot of people like that. Kamala, on the otherhand, waffles a lot and has no obvious coherence. People want to feel confident in their leader and need to know what it is they stand for.

With Trump - people know what they are getting ( regardless of whether or not they appreciate his style and manner); with Kamala, the suspicion is that she doesn't even know what she'd do herself. She sounds flaky.

It happened twice in the last 23 years (and almost a third time). Before that, there was a 112 year gap between the last time someone who won the popular vote lost the EC vote. To me, twice in 16 (or 24) years is a lot more frequent than none in 112 years.

But it happened twice in twenty years in the nineteenth century and everyone in 1888 probably worried it was going to be a regular problem, but it didn’t eventuate for another 112 years. So it’s happened twice since 2000, who’s to say it won’t be another 112 years before it happens again?

It doesn’t matter if the parties are different in their ethics compared to their nineteenth century counterparts, there is still nothing statistically to demonstrate that winning the popular vote/losing the electoral college is a problem.

Edit: a problem we are going to see regularly from now on

Dose picking on dyslexic people for there poor spelling make you feel big?
If you have a point to make about my post do you want to make it or just keep slinging ablist crap about mu dyslexic

It happened twice in the last 23 years (and almost a third time). Before that, there was a 112 year gap between the last time someone who won the popular vote lost the EC vote. To me, twice in 16 (or 24) years is a lot more frequent than none in 112 years.

When it's been over 100 years since a problem has occurred, the ppl I know tend not to focus on it or put much energy into changing it.
"Yes, it's theoretically a problem but it's always been ok since 1888 so I'll focus on other things"

The modern Republican and Democratic parties have almost nothing in common with those parties in 1888. IF anything, the modern Democratic Party has more in common with the civil war era Republican Party than the modern Republican Party does and vice versa. The civil war era democrats represented wealthy agrarian interests, just like the current republican party. The republicans represented wealthy northeastern industry and blacks, just as the democrats do now. The ppl the parties represented changed a great deal in the New Deal and again with Johnson's Great Society (“We’ve lost the south for a generation.”) and Nixon's southern strategy. (" The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans." )

Compared to Biden, Harris and Trump she's a rock god who can speak intellectually about most subjects and shock horror she actually admits when she doesn't know something and goes and researches it. That makes her someone who in my books has the potential to be a great president though ofcourse I could be weong

The democrats had an opportunity not to have a coronation and they blew it. We forget the US is a conservative country with both misogyny and racism so any woman of colour has to be exceptional unfortunately and Kamala is not. It was such a lost opportunity as Trump has no many poor features to target.

It's coming up more now bc there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and Electoral College vote more often than there used to be.

But that isn’t true. The discrepancy between Clinton and Trump was 2%.

The discrepancy in other years when this has been an issue:

1868: 3%
1888: 0.83%
2000: 0.51%

So two occasions it’s been a fine margin and one occasion was bigger.

There was a 20 year gap between the first two occurrences, then a 112 year gap, then a 16 year gap. It’s not increasing in frequency, becoming more common, or a more modern issue.

Why do you think it's unfair to everyone?

I don’t think it’s unfair, but if both Democrats and Republicans at various stages of history have thought it unfair then it’s treating them both equally.

One of the big reasons Trump won was a majority of white females voted him over Hilary.

Well, you can’t say that the American political campaigns aren’t thorough. Imagine getting as far as a British Women’s forum to target your propaganda.
I reluctantly salute you.

"No one has yet explained on this thread why the electoral college/popular vote discrepancy in 2016 is an indication that things need to change. In practically every presidential election in the history of the USA it hasn’t been an issue, why should it change because of the rare occasions it is?

The danger is in setting a precedent for altering a system to better enable candidates one might like or prefer, because it quite easily can go against you. If it’s unfair to everyone, that’s a check that is needed"

It's coming up more now bc there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and Electoral College vote more often than there used to be. Ppl I know generally care about the issue but it's not a hot, burning topic unless someone wins the EC but loses the popular vote. They think that the EC is antidemocratic but as long as the person with the most popular votes wins the EC as well, they aren't too bothered by it. A candidate winning the popular vote but losing the EC vote has only happened five times in US history. Two of those times were fairly recently: 2000 and 2016., In 2020, Biden won both but he won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes, while his Electoral College victory was decided by fewer than 50,000 votes in a handful of states. Ppl are more vocal about it now bc it seems to be more of a problem in recent years. .

I've been against the Electoral College for decades. So have most of the ppl I know, even if "my" candidate wins the election. (BTW, I almost always vote for third parties bc I live in a state where my vote doesn't matter so "my" candidate hasn't won in decades. But I was strongly opposed to the EC even before that.)

" If it’s unfair to everyone, that’s a check that is needed"
It doesn't hurt everyone, it systematically underweights the votes of ppl in large states and overweights the votes of ppl who live in less populous states. Why do you think it's unfair to everyone? I don't understand why you think that but even if it was unfair to everyone, my goal would be to try to find a system that's fair to everyone, not unfair to everyone. Why is unfair better?

The admission about her boss was from a tv interview she did years ago I can't remember where sorry.

Suuuure it was.
She was already an assistant DA when she met Willie Brown, so saying he was responsible for her getting the job is a lie. It has been thoroughly debunked.

The title phrasing makes it sound reasonable for men to have a problem with her, whereas if it were ‘Men say ‘No Girls Allowed!’ to Harris White-House Bid’, then that puts things into a better perspective.

Instead we have a woman who has admitted that she got her start as a politician by having sex with her boss, she's incapable of stringing a cogent adhock sentence together.

Utter, laughable lies. Btw, the word is adhoc, language expert. 😄

When we talk about the US, it is understood that we are talking about voting in terms of the electoral college, not the popular vote, Some states are definitely more misogynistic than others. It is a little disingenous to look at the rolling back of women's rights, especially reproductive rights in these states and not say that misogyny is not at play, let alone Vance's constant comments on the matter of what women are good for.

Great thread OP.

I am learning a lot!

But, they were not trying to keep people out (they did not see that women or poc would ever be in play), they were trying to set up circuit breakers to prevent one person grabbing power (a KING) and on the one hand, prevent mob rule.
And there was a lot of both those issues in 1700s.

And now. The mob attempted to rule after the last election.

Ppl did complain about the EC in 1996. I tried to show that ppl have consistently opposed the EC. I couldn't find 1996 specifically but there is no reason to think that ppl, in general, overwhelmingly disliked it in 1968, 1981, and 1987 but suddenly liked it in 1996.

But there will always be people who like it and people who don’t like it and it will always come up, and most likely around elections. People didn’t like or dislike it anymore in 1996 than they did at other times, but I doubt Bill Clinton and the Democrats complained then.

No one has yet explained on this thread why the electoral college/popular vote discrepancy in 2016 is an indication that things need to change. In practically every presidential election in the history of the USA it hasn’t been an issue, why should it change because of the rare occasions it is?

The danger is in setting a precedent for altering a system to better enable candidates one might like or prefer, because it quite easily can go against you. If it’s unfair to everyone, that’s a check that is needed.

DT beat every other much better qualified candidate (i.e. white men) to with the Republican nomination. This is even after he didn't hand over power peacefully after the last election and has been convicted of a felony since. Its not a fair test that the only two times that women have been up for president they have been up against DT.

I am confident that she is giving a bloody good go, and she picked a great running mate that is systematically taking brilliant pot shots at DT. But the only reason he was went last time was because of COVID which toppled alot of popularist politicians. They were put up against experts who were very skilled in evidence based reasoning and it really sorted the wheat from the chaff.

I think DT will still become president again even if he loses this one. Part of me wants him to win so he will just go away and we don't have to deal with the news being jammed up with his reactions and his run next time. The world is better prepared this time, we can see him comming and the sooner its over the better.

YES. Came to say this. She is not the problem.

US elections are so utterly depressing. The only thing that matters in the end is the electoral college, and I am so nervous.

How do you know MO would have been a brilliant president?