Page 12 | Kamala Harris has a problem with men. Will misogyny cost her the election?

IwantToRetire · 2024-10-21T17:01:06+00:00

There was an earlier thread about whether the Democrats would support a WOC candidate [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5124648-will-us-democrats-support-a-woc-as-their-candidate-or-will-they-by-pass-kamala-harris https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5124648-will-us-democrats-support-a-woc-as-their-candidate-or-will-they-by-pass-kamala-harris]] And I think there were some later about her policies, but then maybe there weren't. [[https://kamalaharris.com/issues https://kamalaharris.com/issues/]] But was depressed to see this article *Kamala Harris has a problem with men. Will misogyny cost her the election?* [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/20/kamala-harris-has-a-problem-with-men-will-misogyny-cost-her-the-election https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/20/kamala-harris-has-a-problem-with-men-will-misogyny-cost-her-the-election]] (Should have been men have a problem, not making out she is the problem.) ^Polls reflect this age-old dichotomy. Men are more likely to back Trump; women lean towards Harris. A recent New York Times-Siena poll put her 16 points ahead of Trump among female voters. NBC gave her a 14-point lead with women. Trump leads by up to 16 points among men.^ ^Harris’s gender may be tacitly affecting or reinforcing attitudes in other voter categories. In the New York Times poll, 60% of white college-educated voters backed Harris, while 63% of white non-college-educated voters backed Trump. Likewise, Trump, who is white, has a significant advantage among white people while Harris, who identifies as black and Asian, leads among non-whites. Yet voters in two other key categories, blacks and Hispanics, are less supportive of Harris than of Biden in 2020, surveys show – a decline partly driven by younger, non-college-educated Hispanic males. Speaking in pivotal Pennsylvania, Barack Obama angrily castigated his black “brothers” for finding “all kinds of excuses” not to support a woman.^ Its just really depressing to think this is the basis on which the decision about the next US President is taken. Because like it or not what the US does or doesn't do impacts on the rest of us. Even though they are now talking about Trump's mental capacity *Trump’s Unwieldy Speeches Raise Questions About His Mental Acuity* [[https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/10/16/trumps-unwieldy-speeches-raise-questions-about-his-mental-acuity https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/10/16/trumps-unwieldy-speeches-raise-questions-about-his-mental-acuity/]] it doesn't seem likely it will change the minds of his supporters. And is already clear he doesn't feel the need to abide by accepted norms in terms of procedures. Divisive politics in the UK seems to have lead to an apathy, disengagement (low turn out at GE) but it seems, if news channels are to be believed, that in the US the devisions are making people more active engaged. More oppositional Or rather men not caring about women's issues, or even trusting a woman to be President.

swimsong · 22/10/2024 02:00

Hoardasurass · 21/10/2024 19:24

The admission about her boss was from a tv interview she did years ago I can't remember where sorry. As for her inability to speak in a coherent way have you ever heard her response to an unscripted question? If not may I suggest that you listen to the 60 minutes add where they play her unedited answer to the questions about Israel, it's quite something and also just the most recent example.
You are correct about Michelle Obama unfortunately. I honestly believe that she would have won and been a brilliant president

Show quote history

So do you believe any misogynist crap as long as its something you want to believe? She said no such thing.

www.factcheck.org/2024/08/posts-mislead-about-harris-romance-with-willie-brown/

username35890 · 22/10/2024 01:58

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:56

America has a population of over 320 million people.

Trad wife, if it exists, is so niche and to be seen in daily life.

It is more of a social media thing than a real life thing.

Show quote history

It was used as an example. It's appeared around the same time as Americas move to the hard right.

AstonsStolenData · 22/10/2024 01:57

NotBadConsidering · 22/10/2024 01:39

The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987.. . .Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981."

Your ellipsis conveniently excludes this part:

But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College.

And it would be interesting to see the sample data from those in the public who have been surveyed, as to whether it equally represented those in rural areas. 71% favoured abolishing it in 1981, after Reagan was elected. Who was sampled and what was their location and political leaning?

Show quote history

Bc I was responding to the statement that "No one was complaining about the electoral college in states like Tennessee when it voted for Clinton in 1996.
What I am saying is everyone rails against the election system in any country when it elects someone they don’t like, and everyone keeps quiet about it when it elects someone they like." The part I omitted didn't seem relevant to the claim

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.

I never claimed that no one supported it. Obviously, they did or the US would have eliminated it already.

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:56

username35890 · 21/10/2024 20:18

America is still a very conservative country with a Christian ethos. Look at the rise of the trad wife.

Trump is a populist who appeals to the working class. He presents an alternative to other politicians as he says things others don't.

He wants to deport people - like the UK, immigrants are scapegoated for the state of the country. He wants to build a wall - ditto. He's anti woke, he's misogynist, he's (barely) white, he's Christian and talks of challenging the establishment.

He's very hard right; protectionist, isolationist and nationalist. Globalisation and neo liberalism have scuppered the working class and Trump tells people what they want to hear.

America has a population of over 320 million people.

Trad wife, if it exists, is so niche and to be seen in daily life.

It is more of a social media thing than a real life thing.

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:53

EasternEcho · 21/10/2024 19:52

I'd say it says more about the voters, and the under current of misogyny that's unmistakable.

Show quote history

Again, the USA voted for Hillary CLinton.

If, as someone said upthread, M. Obama ran tomorrow, it would be a landslide.

The candidate is a problem and even more than that, the two parties are a problem. The parties are increasingly undemocratic.

monkeyspaw · 22/10/2024 01:52

TempestTost · 22/10/2024 00:51

I don't think the numbers really support this being about misogyny.

There has been a significant slide in male support for Democrats ever since Obama. White men, black men, Hispanic men, and to a lesser extent from women as well.

A lot more men supported Hilary than Harris. So just possibly, the dislike of her isn't about that.

I don't quite understand why people seem surprised she is struggling, in her original bid for the candidacy she was so far behind that she had to give up almost immediately. She's arguably more high profile having been VP, but that was by no means a wholly positive period in terms of increasing her popularity.

Obama hasn't helped anything with his ham-fisted insistence that black men need to vote for her because she is black and if they don't it's because they are misogynists. In fact I think he really has done her some harm.

Thanks for this point. I don't think many people outside the US are really aware of issues that mainstream media gloss over.

Harris has problems which progressive and mainstream media are not acknowledging.
Many people feel that she was not a choice - she was parachuted in.
She relies on billionaire and celebrity supporters. This isn't enough in the current climate. Some of the people who were advertised at the Dem convention who are in Harris's corner are people like Jeffrey Marsh. Terrible look.

She is perceived as fake by many black people, male and female. She does a "blaccent" which offends many. Quite a number of Black people question her quite privileged Jamaican ancestry of plantation ownership.
Obama going out to lecture Black men was a huge mistake - it has produced a backlash from both men AND women.
Black support in polls has declined to 80% - that's historically low. In vox pops Black people of both sexes say they are tired of being taken for granted as Democrat voters - I don't know if people have heard the phrase "I don't live on your plantation any more", but it seems to be catching on.

She didn't do interviews for a long time - none with hostile media, and then did the Fox interview when the polling started to turn.
The Fox interview was a terrible mistake - she didn't answer questions about the border. Whatever her supporters feel, the border is an issue for millions of Americans. She deflected questions about Biden. She mentioned Trump 19 times in the shorter than promised interview - that's NOT good strategy.
She says stupid things that people remember, like when pressed about not going to the border as the "border tsar" , she said: "and I haven't been to Europe"

She really doesn't answer questions - no matter how much you like her, this is a weakness that people can see. People are tired of her "middle-class childhood" deflection answer. If SNL is parodying her, she's in trouble.

Women are getting tired of the abortion carrot and stick the Dems use. Obama promised in 2008 it would be the first thing he did - it wasn't, because AC was more important.

Then the big issues that worry many women - she is deep in the trans woods: support for the medicalisation of children with gender issues; support for men in women's prisons, women's sport, women's DV shelters, tax payer funded trans surgery...

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:51

IwantToRetire · 21/10/2024 19:47

Clinton was perfectly intelligent and qualified, and lost to a mentally deficient male celebrity.

Dont forget that in terms of the vote, Clinton was more popular that Trump.

Luckily for Trump, the Electoral College, a creation of the white male establishment, stopped the person the majority of people had voted for, becoming President.

Contrary to its name, the electoral college is more a process than a body. Every four years, in the December following an election, its members – politicians and largely unknown party loyalists – meet in all 50 states on the same day and cast their votes for president. Then they essentially disappear.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/19/election-electoral-college-explained

Since George H.W. Bush won in 1988, Republican candidates have received the majority of the American people’s votes in only one presidential election.

In fact, it was the election that Mr Bush’s own son, George W Bush, won in 2004.

But despite the party’s dismal results, the GOP has still managed to claim the White House almost as many times as the Democrats.
The Electoral College is a ‘bad’ and ‘undemocratic’ system. So why do we still use it? | The Independent

It woukd be a mistake to consider the electoral college in terms of Rich White Men.

Yes, at the time, RWM were working on a system that would represent the people (ie themselves).

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.

TooBigForMyBoots · 22/10/2024 01:47

FrippEnos · 21/10/2024 22:53

If she won't get in due to racism why are they producing advertising aimed directly at black men as this is an area in which they normally dominate.

Show quote history

I already said.
Misogyny.🤷‍♀️

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:46

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Actually, Americans did vote for Hillary Clinton.

She won the popular vote by quite a few million.

But Trump won the electoral college and hence the presidency.

yesmen · 22/10/2024 01:42

Zahariel · 21/10/2024 18:35

The most depressing part of everything above is putting people into little, regressive boxes that does nothing to unite us as humans and everything to divide us. White, black, WOC (what the fuck) college educated, right left - it’s all bullshit tribalism, and arrogant of our hardwired social structures from 5,000 years ago being written into a world with 9 billion people and smart phones.

Very well said indeed.

NotBadConsidering · 22/10/2024 01:39

AstonsStolenData · 22/10/2024 00:40

Many ppl in the US have been complaining about the Electoral College for decades, probably longer. It's antidemocratic. Ppl don't complain as much when the winner of the Electoral College also wins the popular vote.

"[O]ver the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987.. . .Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981."

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

Edited

Show quote history

The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987.. . .Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981."

Your ellipsis conveniently excludes this part:

But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College.

And it would be interesting to see the sample data from those in the public who have been surveyed, as to whether it equally represented those in rural areas. 71% favoured abolishing it in 1981, after Reagan was elected. Who was sampled and what was their location and political leaning?

TempestTost · 22/10/2024 01:16

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

I sometimes think that people in the UK have a vague understanding of how political figures are actually perceived in the US.

Hilary is seen as a representative of global capitalism, and a war hawk. Very much for big banks a the expense of the little people. She gave some talks to bankers (for big $$$) right when so many people had been hurt by the financial crash, which were leaked, and she basically told the bankers the government would make sure they came out ok.

Her comments about the deplorables gave the distinct impression that she despised WC people. Her campaign had a strong sense of, "you need to vote for me now because it's my turn".

She also ran at exactly the wrong time with the wrong emphasis. People were fed up and looking for an outsider who would shake things up. HC was a member of the political establishment and elite, and kept emphasizing it in her campaign.

She's also not a charismatic person, which isn't a character flaw but it a problem in politics at that level.

I think people also think she is a hypocrite, going on about helping the poor while raking it in due to her political connections.

TempestTost · 22/10/2024 01:02

AstonsStolenData · 21/10/2024 22:07

"And even if the moneyed interested funding the parties want to keep it, why wouldn't the ordinary voter want their vote to be of the same value where ever they live in the US."

It's not the parties and it's not the party in power (as one of the quotes said), it's the Republicans. They like the Electoral College bc it gives less populous states more power than they'd have if presidential elections were based on the popular vote. Democrats tend to be (much) more popular in urban areas, so Republicans want urban voters to have less of a say than rural voters, who usually support Republicans. If Republicans had to win the popular vote, they would rarely be elected president. (Or, more likely, they'd change their policies to appeal more to urban voters. But rural voters don't want that, they want policies that benefit them.)

Edited

Another way to look at this is to say that the interests of rural and urban voters are often very different, and even opposed.

If rural voters were completely dominated by urban voters, which is what would happen, the president would effectively be consent without input from rural voters.

You may think it's great that rural voters who are more inclined to vote Republican don't get a meaningful vote since it doesn't align with your politics, but I don't think it makes the Republicans look especially bad if they don't agree.

TempestTost · 22/10/2024 00:58

IwantToRetire · 21/10/2024 21:18

It’s not unfair.

The point is that as all the articles say, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win.

How is that right.

If it was one person one vote, at least you would know that they had won fair and square, not been part of party deals in different states.

So in the UK would you be happy that votes were not counted individually, but a county with fewer people living in it should have the right to tell areas of the country that were more populus that they should make do with what they as a minority want.

People in whichever state are represented in Congress and House of Representatives based on the majority of that state.

The president is meant to represent the country as a whole, so surely should be first past the post.

Even with all the machinations of the founding fathers, they didn't think or say political parties should be the basis.

And in fact its a shame almost that an Indpendent candidate could never win, not because they weren't good enough, but because the Party machinery and funding makes it impossible for an unaligned person to become President. Which in a way would be a more democratic situation, than having Presidents who can upset the balance is courts through appointment of judges.

It's no different than if an organization EU was set up so every citizen voted and the countries with the most voters always got the outcomes that were best for them. Essentially, totally undermining any national element.

The US is a union of states, each of which agreed to enter into the union. Why would a tiny state agree to that knowing that their votes would be completely swallowed up? They wouldn't, it would be like disenfranchising their own voters.

It's a huge country with huge differences in lifestyle, environment, and the concerns of people in one corner of the country may be very different from those on the other side.

It would be deeply unfair to make it a straight proportion of the vote.

Viviennemary · 22/10/2024 00:51

User135644 · 21/10/2024 21:52

The Clintons are hated in America beyond the elites of the Democrat bubble. Trump was able to win the working class vote as a result in 2016 which he'd never have been able to do over Sanders (or even Biden or Obama to the same extent)

The idea men in America wouldn't vote for a woman is a fallacy, it comes down to politics. Hilary was discredited politically. If Harris was a strong candidate then Biden wouldn't have been kept on as long as he was until the point it was no longer tenable. I think the election could go either way but it's politically where the nation is so divided and many will be unhappy at the candidates on offer.

Show quote history

You are right about them being reluctant to get rid of Biden. If there was a strong candidate he would have been out long before. I suppose the outcome is anybody's guess. I thought Trump would win last time and I thought Hillary had a good chance the time before. Both wrong. Hillary even had the celebration party all planned

TempestTost · 22/10/2024 00:51

I don't think the numbers really support this being about misogyny.

There has been a significant slide in male support for Democrats ever since Obama. White men, black men, Hispanic men, and to a lesser extent from women as well.

A lot more men supported Hilary than Harris. So just possibly, the dislike of her isn't about that.

I don't quite understand why people seem surprised she is struggling, in her original bid for the candidacy she was so far behind that she had to give up almost immediately. She's arguably more high profile having been VP, but that was by no means a wholly positive period in terms of increasing her popularity.

Obama hasn't helped anything with his ham-fisted insistence that black men need to vote for her because she is black and if they don't it's because they are misogynists. In fact I think he really has done her some harm.

AstonsStolenData · 22/10/2024 00:40

NotBadConsidering · 21/10/2024 23:21

several times more important

It’s relative, the weighting of importance. No one was complaining about the electoral college in states like Tennessee when it voted for Clinton in 1996.

What I am saying is everyone rails against the election system in any country when it elects someone they don’t like, and everyone keeps quiet about it when it elects someone they like. Trump gives recency bias to a discussion because 8 years ago he lost the popular vote by a margin of 2%, not even the biggest of the four occasions. It was an anomaly, not an indication that the system is broken.

Four years ago he lost the popular vote by 4.5% and lost the election. If the popular vote had been the decider, there would have been a Democrat in the White House for over 30 years. Regardless of your politics, who thinks that would be a positive for the USA?

Many ppl in the US have been complaining about the Electoral College for decades, probably longer. It's antidemocratic. Ppl don't complain as much when the winner of the Electoral College also wins the popular vote.

"[O]ver the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987.. . .Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981."

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

Sailonsilverrgirl · 21/10/2024 23:39

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

NotBadConsidering · 21/10/2024 23:21

several times more important

It’s relative, the weighting of importance. No one was complaining about the electoral college in states like Tennessee when it voted for Clinton in 1996.

What I am saying is everyone rails against the election system in any country when it elects someone they don’t like, and everyone keeps quiet about it when it elects someone they like. Trump gives recency bias to a discussion because 8 years ago he lost the popular vote by a margin of 2%, not even the biggest of the four occasions. It was an anomaly, not an indication that the system is broken.

Four years ago he lost the popular vote by 4.5% and lost the election. If the popular vote had been the decider, there would have been a Democrat in the White House for over 30 years. Regardless of your politics, who thinks that would be a positive for the USA?

MarieDeGournay · 21/10/2024 23:13

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Well, some Americans hate HC, but nearly 66 million Americans liked her enough to vote for her to be President.

Sailonsilverrgirl · 21/10/2024 23:00

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

GrumpyPanda · 21/10/2024 22:53

NotBadConsidering · 21/10/2024 20:48

The Electoral College is important. It makes sure that the weight of a person’s vote in somewhere like Tennessee is just as important as someone’s in California, even if I wouldn’t agree with who they’d vote for. Without it, the candidate popular in New York and California would always win, which would always be a Democrat. This would breed deep malcontent across the country, a country with guns and the word militia in its constitution.

In the last 50 years, the Electoral College has elected Biden, Obama, Clinton, Carter for the Democrats, and Ford, Reagan, Bush x2 and Trump for the Republicans. It’s not unfair.

Wrong. The Electoral College makes sure the weight of a person's vote in Tennessee is several times more important than that of someone in New York or California. Which wasn't strictly speaking unusual for its time - we're talking of an era in which the weight of a man's (and always a man's) vote was also often tied to his tax status. Difference is everywhere else got rid of antidemocratic setups of the sort.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/

How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind

The country’s Constitution was once the standard-bearer for the world. Today, many other countries have much fairer systems for electing their leaders and passing laws.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199

FrippEnos · 21/10/2024 22:53

TooBigForMyBoots · 21/10/2024 21:49

Misogyny and racism in the US will damage her chances. I hope they will not be enough to defeat her.

If she won't get in due to racism why are they producing advertising aimed directly at black men as this is an area in which they normally dominate.

FrippEnos · 21/10/2024 22:51

IwantToRetire · 21/10/2024 21:18

It’s not unfair.

The point is that as all the articles say, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win.

How is that right.

If it was one person one vote, at least you would know that they had won fair and square, not been part of party deals in different states.

So in the UK would you be happy that votes were not counted individually, but a county with fewer people living in it should have the right to tell areas of the country that were more populus that they should make do with what they as a minority want.

People in whichever state are represented in Congress and House of Representatives based on the majority of that state.

The president is meant to represent the country as a whole, so surely should be first past the post.

Even with all the machinations of the founding fathers, they didn't think or say political parties should be the basis.

And in fact its a shame almost that an Indpendent candidate could never win, not because they weren't good enough, but because the Party machinery and funding makes it impossible for an unaligned person to become President. Which in a way would be a more democratic situation, than having Presidents who can upset the balance is courts through appointment of judges.

In the UK we have areas so the party with most votes often does not win.
Hence the repeated call for PR of which there are many types.

However you look at it the electoral college has produced winners from both parties so it doesn't favour one over the other.

NotBadConsidering · 21/10/2024 22:18

IwantToRetire · 21/10/2024 21:40

it’s a safeguard for the rest of the nation.

In what way is it a safeguard?

Who are what is "the rest of the nation"?

You keep avoiding the issue.

Why shouldn't the President be elected on the popular vote.

The reality is its an anachronism created by people who thought ordinary folk were too stupid or ignorant to make a choice.

Its like saying that because once in the UK we had the divine right of kings we should still have it.

And given the number of articles there are about it not even functioning as intended as states have created rules that the originators did NOT approve, its been highjacked.

I am not avoiding the issue. I am presenting a different point of view. The Electoral College system ensures each state has a relatively equal say in who is president. It ensures that candidates popular in massively populous states aren’t the ones who are likely to rule over every other state.

And it’s a system that hasn’t produced massive issues. Why change it? If it was changed to just the popular vote, all that would happen is massive campaign bias to where the biggest numbers of people can be won in populous areas, which would only serve to disenfranchise other areas. It wouldn’t be better, just a different kind of good for some people and different kind of bad for others.