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.

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." )

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I wonder what version of Trump some of you have been watching. He spent 12 minutes rambling on about Arnold Palmer. And his penis.

but the republicans line up behind him when he says something outrageous, and deny he said what he said, or if he did it was joking (but somehow he is serious if voters like it). Or they don't know, maybe the Haitians are eating cats? How do we know?

He's absolutely incoherent, but his supporters believe he'll kick out immigrants and lower their taxes, so they're willing to pretend.

it's interesting how misogyny is in evidence right in this thread, criticising Kamala for "waffling" or policy when Trump is right there, incoherent and with the concept of a plan.

Trump is certainly no great intellect...and he's not good on policy detail. He's not a natural politician. People who like him seem to be responding to his unwavering commitment to poking fun at the elite and at vested interests. He's the ultimate renegade cowboy.

His values are clear. They believe he will deliver what he says. His political advisors are there to tell him how to do policy.

Kamala is vague and incoherent. Nothing to do with misogyny. She's just not a strong candidate. Men, in particular, need to know who the top dog is.

In Britain it looks likely that Kemi Badench will be the new Tory leader - even though she's both female and black. The difference betwen her and Kamala is that Kemi is strong and direct. People like that. Although it is true that some also do judge women by a different standard for having those qualities.

You really seem to be in a parallel universe. Trump was president for four years, He didn't deliver then, other than for his wealthy friends. His political advisors failed the last time, and most of them are out telling the voters that he's a danger to the country, including "his" generals. Remember his "I will repeal and replace Obama care on DAY ONE!? When recently asked about it, he said he as a "concept" of a plan, no real plan. After 8 years! If his base still believe that he'll deliver this time, then that's the reason why the MAGA movement is called a cult.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make such personal comment?
I'm more interested in observing and understanding patterns and movements than I am in tribal loyalties. Understanding requires a degree of objectivity. When you gets too subjective and emotional you can fail to see what is in front of you.

Clearly a lot of Americans are also living in a parallel universe. And maybe what you are calling a parallel universe is just a different one to the one you inhabit?
This is what happens when everything becomes so polarised.

A parellel universe is where facts and past performance doesn't seem to matter. Where the evidence before your eyes doesn't matter. Politics is a matter of personal beliefs, so your question about why personal is strange. So, yes, if it is different a world where facts, numbers, and evidence matters, then that's the universe I inhabit. And facts are objective. Not perception of Trump being a straight talker and is somehow going to deliver this time. Or that he really didn't try to overturn the election results last time. Those kinds of beliefs would be subjective.

This is basically the thoughts of the friends I have in America. It’s not necessarily outright, conscious misogyny “no woman is going to tell me what to do” but the type shown in this thread - women candidates held to a different standard. Eg the rumour that Harris slept with her boss early in her career vs the known and proven facts of Trump being unfaithful to his wives.

At this stage it’s a vote for sanity v insanity. It’s a sign of how bonkers and partisan some parts of American society are that they can look at the chaos of the Trump presidency and the events of Jan 6 and think yes I’ll have four more years of that. I think Kamala would be a competent president - she doesn’t inspire me particularly but she’d do the fundamental job of respecting the Constitution and the rule of law. The fact that half of America would vote for someone that is proven to not do those things is, imho, very scary.

"men in particular need to know who the top dog is"
Putin 🙂

It’s really amazing how “not a strong candidate” has been trotted out fot
both HRC and Kamala and you don’t spot the trick.

Also, there are different standards for conservative and liberal/left women. Look at Thatcher.

Exactly. I say if Trump is elected, then the 47th president of the US will be Putin.

I agree. I don't want to agree but they see Trump as someone who shoots from the hip and challenges the establishment.

Harris is an unknown quantity, people don't think she's delivered and she was a bad choice to go up against Trump.

The problem in my opinion, is that Harris is too much like all the other politicians who don't deliver.

A more relevant question is why don't working class men think the Democratic Party represents them. They look at their divisive identity politics and conclude they have no relevance for them.

Trump has already proved you don't have to be able to string a sentence together to be elected president, so it shouldn't make a difference. (Also, you're talking bollocks, she's more than articulate.)

Indeed. ' He rarely exits the same paragraph he enters' as someone said about Chicago Mayor Daley. Though , in fairness to Daley , he did accomplish quite a lot in Chicago. Trump will be pottering about in his golf cart while Elon Musk and Peter Thiel run things.

Incapable of stringing a cogent adhock sentence together? I take it you did not hear her ground breaking ‘passage of time’ speech? That was some profound stuff right there!

Most of us have seen her speak on multiple occasions. She doesn't convince or invoke confidence. That is the truth. Idealism and profundity need to be grounded by someone who appears to have a firm grasp as well. To me she comes across as being lightweight.

In my experinece of teaching I found that boys, generally, are more straightforward and ultimately need to have clear rules and firm boundaries. They are happy if there is an established top dog or clear authority figure.

Girls, generally, tend to be a bit more emotionally complex and rely a lot more on feelings and the quality of inter-personal relationships. Kamala's style may work better for women - but not so for men. They want their leader to be commanding and authoritative.

@Shortshriftandlethal They want their leader to be commanding and authoritative.

I get the wanting a strong leader thing.

Trump is a proven sex offender. There's being top dog and there's being a rabid mongrel.

If the us vote him in again whatever shreds of global credibility they have are gone.

@Shortshriftandlethal my comment was a joke. Thought that would be obvious to anyone who’d heard her ‘passage of time’ speech 🙃