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.

I wouldn't vote for Trump but he already has a track record as a former President whereas Harris remains an unknown quantity and her policies are vague.

I have only been vaguely following the presidential campaigns but there seems a lot of squabbling and name calling and very little by way of actual political intent. I know it might not be as sound-bite internet friendly as attacking your opponent but you would hope some policies would break through.

Also Trump does seem to have a knack for photo opportunities which leaves Kamala trailing.

What would you say the groups are on the right? Christian families and immigrants?

I wouldn't vote for Trump but he already has a track record as a former President

Trump's 'track record' gives a whole new meaning to the term.

Millions and millions of Americans are going to vote for a man who attempted to overthrow the government of the United States. It's hard to get your head round, isn't it?

The fact that they are is telling you something of the state of the nation and what its major faultlines are.

Trump won't be for ever...he's an old man now.......so apart from those who are voting for him directly, rather than the Republican party more generally, a lot of people must sufficiently motivated by cultural as well as economic issues.... Issues which will still be a factor once Trump is done and dusted.

I think a lot of people feel like that here in Britain too......certainly on this board. People who feel alienated by identity politics and others by the general anti westernism of the West's own governments. People for whom gender ideology and all that stems from it has become one of the most fundamental issues of our time. I imagine in the U.S that Antifa, Critical Race theory And DEI policies also prove a big incentive to vote down the Democrats.

I think that Trump has managed to run an optimistic campaign,

• Close the borders protecting low paid American workers from competition for jobs from illegal immigration.
• Protectionism to encourage manufacturing to return to the USA
• Bring back car manufacturing by getting rid of Green quotas
• Lower the number of Nuclear weapons through deals with Russia
• Get rid of DEI to return to a level playing field for every citizen
• Get rid of trans indoctrination in schools and protect womens rights in sport.
• Free speech on social media.

Kamala is just running on abortion rights and 'Trump is Hitler' and it remains to be seen if that is enough to get her the win.

Oh, it's in the negative sense.
So sometimes its childless cat ladies, or women in general that are being criticised. Sometimes its immigrants etc. At one point Trump said the Jews would be to blame for his loss and while there are lots of prominent Jewish supporters, there are also people that like the anti-Jewish rhetoric. But they can all co-exist in his party because they just believe different bits. Whereas that wouldn't normally work (the left keeps playing identity poltics and hurting itself).

You will see "redneck" supposedly uneducated Trump supporters being interviewed and they will sometimes give incredibly erudite, nuanced descriptions of the issues in their area and explain that that is what Vance means when he talks about "they are eating the cats". But thats not what he actually said. Its actually the opposite to what you would expect (the "mob" are more thoughtful than those in power and sort of excusing their most unpleasant speeches).

That is absolutely not how Kamala has run, and Trump's language has been positively apocalyptic, about how the country is shit.

@Twistybranch

"couldn’t possibly leader of the world’s largest economy"

Given tantrum-prone dictator-loving serial sex-offender Dirty Donald already has been - that's a very, very low bar, isn't it?

Considering her background in both her profession and politics, Harris is more than capable.

A bit like Dr Who...

I don't think being sexually incontinent has ever really been linked to poor leadership abilities, not as a thing in itself.

For Boris it was related to his general lack of disapline. But overall, I suspect most people don't see being sexually licentious or unprincipled as incompatible with political leadership, even if they don't like it.

I associate it with a lack of self control. And I do think that it ties into an undercurrent idea that self control doesn't matter/that it's actually more honest to show no self control that seems to be having a moment.

I think it can be, but not always.

In men, (maybe women too but I am not as sure) it seems to me that sometimes sex is a major element of the desire to succeed. So it's an element of drive and focus rather than a lack.

Right, but I don't want someone in charge whose main motivation for achieving that position is so they can get lots of sex. Less of an issue with investment bankers, musicians etc (though there are still scandals based around power disparities). But someone seeking "power" because power equals more sex or more money should not be in power. It's a recipe for disaster. Worse than seeking power through arrogance/wanting to look good for example though that's also not a great reason.
(I know you probably meant more in the subconscious level but still...)

I disagree. Harris is very much an unknown on the world stage.

Very true @biscuitandcake . The GOP are going very hard after young men right now for example. Hoping to attract guys who watch Rogan , Brand , Peterson and other podcasters. Although this might be a sign they know women are deserting Trump?

I don't even know why this would be a thing that would appeal to men either though? Its just poor leadership qualities (and I don't see how having a cluster of elites at the top whose intention is to impregnate as many women as possible and gather as many financial resources for themselves as possible is going to help ordinary men in the dating market/economically anyway.)

english is not my first language. maybe i wasn't clear enough.
this is exactly what i 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."

Okay, I see what you mean. Thank you for clarifying. However, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion we were having about my characterization of Meloni, who by any measure has not failed politically. I said she's a fascist purely because I think she's at heart a fascist. You may not agree, which is fine, but it's not accurate to label my view of her misogyny. I do think she has been able to successfully temper her more far right ideas with some moderation in order to have broader appeal, which is all to the good.

It's always a bit of a catch 22 with the desire for power thing. Who else looks for these jobs?

I did of course mean more on a subconscious level. Men's desire for achievement generally seems in part to be part of a desire to be appealing sexually.

Something I can see about myself looking back to my youth, maybe parallels this from a more female angle. When I was a student at university, I usually did far better in my classes when they were taught by someone I found really attractive and wanted to please. Partly because I didn't want to look like a dweeb, but also because it created a real focus - and not only when they were in front of me in the classroom.

Anyway - my main point was that if we look at all the men who have been great leaders, I think we'd find quite a few of them were sexually promiscuous. And whatever that meant for them privately as people, or said about their sexual morals, it doesn't usually seem to have negatively impacted their ability to lead.

I think if we think of the next general election in the UK where you have a potential Badenoch/Starmer choice then it is a testament to change in UK society that gender and race will not be mentioned at all. The US I feel is different in terms of society at a number of levels which at least young people (like my 14 year old daughter) find it hard to undsrstand. Abortion rights in the US for example are a subject of debate far more than in the UK.

Trump rallies are certainly showing gender/race divides and I wonder if anyone can recall a recent president that caused such division of actually embraced the division for some advantage?

I am glad I don't have to vote for either. There's no evidence Harris slept her way to power. Afaik she can string a meaningful sentence together. I just don't like her identity politics. Tbh, US politics is a shit-show and the tribal demarcations are incomprehensible from this side of the pond, but it's their country and they can (mostly) do as they wish. Citing most of the above against Harris is an ad hominem attack, btw. Attack her politics, not her morals.

Well said, I find American politics a hard watch, but Harris appears to be the most balanced, intellectual ,on Trump a very dangerous idiot . I'm not an American thank God. As I would be very nervous of my future under Trump but then So was Stormy Daniels .