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

[IwantToRetire]

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

And I think there were some later about her policies, but then maybe there weren't. 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
(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/ 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.

She's had a terrible reputation as a boss - worse staff turnover than even Trump IIRC.

And she's been the least popular VP too, so it's not quite like she's a totally unknown quantity.

To me it seems like the Dems screwed up royally trying to push Biden through, it completely backfired, and then when Harris was the only option they tried to create some buzz and excitement as if this was what people had chosen - but it fell flat within two weeks.

That does seem to be what is happening a lot of the time. Even if it's pretty moderate.

I think it's a dangerous thing to do.

@biscuitandcake I'm sorry but she's been vp to Biden for 4 years and as such she's not an unknown we can all see and judge her on her behaviour over that period and because she helped cover up his cognitive decline most people (whether pro or anti Harris) think she's the 1 behind all the decisions. This rightly or wrongly then leads anyone who has concerns about the way the Biden administration has acted around boarders, the economy or the trans takeover are now looking at her and thinking how much worse it will get with another 4 years of her. Now whilst only a few will likely think Trump is the solution (I question their sanity) the real worry is how many will hold their nose and vote Trump and how make just won't vote

Thinking about it - the tendency from a women's issues standpoint is to look at her and think, ah, a real female candidate for president, if it fails it says something about America.

I'm not sure that's really fair though. She didn't go through the normal processes a candidate would to get the party nomination. She's more representative of who the inner circle wanted, or thought they could put in place in time, rather than anything else.

So it just might not tell us much whether she does well or not.

I suggest an element of tribal bigotry - which of course you are entitled to - but it does your cause no favours.

Yet you seem very touchy when anyone says that Kamala Harris comes across as a bit of a lightweight - without much credibility.

I think that's true! But I also think that if she doesn't get in it will be taken that way unfortunately. And then any future female candidate for leader will be up against the curse.
I also don't think it will help that the person she is up against is Trump, not a competent politician who just happens to be (the better) man so it looks more like its her sex. But of course not everyone in the US sees him as a terrible choice anyway and to some he is the best man for the job.

Good point. Is it too wildly optimistic to say that Biden was a popular vice-president who was a not great president so maybe the opposite will be true in Kamala's case?

What makes you say that? I don't have high regard for Kamala Harris. All I did was ask specifically why she would be "useless" in a crisis. I don't know what Harris might be like as President, so naturally, if anyone has factual information which could help me figure it out, I would like to see it.
I know some people say she's a lightweight. I would just like to see some solid reasoning for it. If you have any, feel free.

I suggest you are making baseless accusations towards me as a person because you have no solid argument.

Biden has been a much better president than Obama in terms of bread and butter issues. $1 trillion Reconstruction Bill, low unemployment, booming stock market . His foreign policy is shite but that's a given with any POTUS. Harris is obviously saner and safer than Trump. OK that's not a high bar . It remains to be seen whether the American public is ready for another white knuckle ride. Or Civil War.

It is the impression a lot of people get when watching or listening to her speeches or her responses to questions. She doesn't seem either in command of her brief, fluent, coherent, convincing etc What else does the public have to go on when trying to assess a candidate's character or personality?

Regarding Georgia Meloni - other than via third hand media pieces what is your evidence that she acts like/or is a fascist, especially in her dealings with other EU leaders since her election? In what ways has she conducted herself like a fascist?

She won't be taken seriously. Like Liz Truss wouldn't have been taken seriously overseas. But at least we didn't really get the chance to find out. Harris just isn't a strong enough personality. IMHO. But she isn't a complete idiot like Truss. Such an embarrassing woman. She did it for the Tories.

I suspect autism in Liz Truss.....which might explain a little, though does not excuse.

Liz Truss was found out immediately not just her disastrous mini budget but complete inability at public speaking or fending off difficult questions from journalists.

Hardly ‘immediately’; she was an MP for 14 years, serving in government for most of that time including as Lord Chancellor and Foreign Secretary.

i'm saying that misogyny was and is an explanation for many politicians failures except if they are right wing.

I'm not following you. Female politicians fail because of misogyny, except if they are right wing? What exactly does that mean?

Maybe she is saying that people will say Hilary Clinton failed due to misogyny, whereas a right wing woman would have failed due to being "bad".

So saying progressive commoentors are likely to claim anyone who doesn't vote for their candidate must be misogynist, racist, etc.

That seems pretty accurate tbh. That's exactly what happens. Which is why it may lead to some popcorn moments if Kemi wins the Tory leadership.

The main difference, I guess, between the Left and the Right, certainly when it comes to women...is that the Right tends to see matters in terms of individuals, whereas the Left tends to see things in terms of identity groups.

A successful leader of a right of centre party who is female is seen as being there coutesy of her individual qualities, whereas a female leader on the Left is supposed to be representative of women as a whole.

To criticise a Left wing woman is, therefore, to be sexist and misogynistic, whereas to criticise a right wing woman is to be commenting on her and her capabilities alone. She is not seen as representative of all women.

Kemi Badenoch, should she become leader of the Tories, will really throw a cat amongst the pigeons - both in terms of sex and in terms of race. Some have already referred to her as a 'coconut' because she doesn't conform to Left wing expectations of black people - who are supposed to all share the same kind of identity.

The main difference, I guess between the Left and the Right, certainly when it comes to women...is that the Right tends to see matters in terms of individuals, whereas the Left tends to see things in terms of identity groups.

I think that might be true in the UK. The US is a whole different ball game, its why its not helpful when people try to act like the 2 parties in each country are directly analogous.

Traditionally left wing parties have fought for the rights of minority or 'oppressed' groups - to have equal access to opportunities; yet when equal access is written or codified into law the Left tends still to see prejudice which has to be countered at every turn - which ends up meaning practices such as 'equity' whereby the oppressed groups, or their representatives, must be lifted up higher than others in order to counter the structural or systemic oppression.

This then results in candidates being chosen pretty much on the basis of their group identity alone...which, though, is not necessarily the best way to get the best candidate. The candidates can sometimes simply not be up to the job. They are representative tokens only.

So, the Democrats have now had a black man as president, now they need to have a black woman as president; then they'll need to have a gay man as president and a transwoman as Vice President, and so on.

In what way would you say this doesn't apply in the U.S?

Somebody summed it up quite well. With Trump you know what you are getting. With Kamala Harris you don't. She is all hot air. And nothing much to say except the usual woke stuff and running down her opponent. Doesn't seem to be working. I read Trump is heading for victory.

The American right is definitely not afraid to play identity politics/sort people into groups! Ironically, they are much better at it than the left because Trump operates under slightly different rules (he can insult 2 groups and someone in group A that dislikes group B will assume he means it about group B but be reassured he is only joking when it comes to group A). Which is interesting in itself. But the messaging is really different.