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.

^This^

But as has been said more people voted for HC than trump. So that doesn't really stick.

That's the question, isn't it.

Because the people who would most benefit from the loss of the electoral college would be the more numerous people living in large urban areas, much of California, Boston, New York.

No doubt those people would love to be able to elect a president every time, and not have to worry about those hicks in rural Arkansas or the Appalachians. Much better to have coastal lawyers decide rather than the poorest people in the country.

Yes, it does, because the red states are far more mysoginistic than blue ones. It is quite evident just from the rollback of reproductive rights of women in these states. And the way the electoral college works, it is indeed this misogyny in red states that's going to have an impact.

Why should it be this way though? If a republican candidate would speak to everyone, why wouldn't historically blue states vote for that candidate? This extreme tribalism, in my opinion, has been fanned by republicans in recent years. The economy has almost always been better under Democrats, but yet xenophobia and belief in the outright lies by the Republican party keeps their base voting against their own interests all the time. I also don't understand what you mean by "benefit the most". In what way would they benefit more than if a Democrat was elected? And how would the red states benefit more if their candidate was elected? How were their lives improved under Trump? What the electoral college ensures is that just by pandering to the basest instincts of a smaller group of voters, one can become president and ignore the majority.

This shows a basic lack of understanding of the American system.

There are three legs in that system, two of those being the executive and legislative branches.

Both have to be balanced in terms of representing the whole country.

Part of the way this is done at the legislative level involves having a separate Senate where each state has much more balanced representation compared to Congress.

Obviously you can't do that when you are just selecting one person for the executive spot, there there needs to be another way to make sure the president is chosen by the country as a whole, not just the highly populated areas and larger states.

They benefit by having their electoral choices make a difference to the outcome.

I'm sorry, but your post is a strtling example of the anti-democratic, paternalistic idea that people in rural, less populous areas should just be content to allow their betters on the coast to decide who would be the best president - which conveniently aligns with your opinion that it would be a Democrat.

Why do you think you know better than they do where their interests lie?

You know, Michael Moore predicted Trump's first win, and the reason he saw it was because he saw what the fucked-over factory workers in Michegin saw. Hilary Clinton didn't even bother to stop in their state. Donald Trump, on the other hand, was the first president to ever say, to them directly, that if automatic corps moved their plants to Mexico he would put a tarrif on their products coming baci into the US.

And yes, if you are unsure, that is classic, workers rights left wing stuff. So no bloody surprise if they thought maybe voting Democrat year upon year for fuck all, while people like Clinton and Obama tried to placate the banks, wasn't doing much for them, and they'd try Trump instead who at least seemed to be able to articulate the issue, wasn't too embarrassed to talk to them, and didn't act like they were shit on his shoe.

Not wanting the votes of people outside the coasts to matter because you don't like their voting choices does not make you look like a good left winger, unless you are taking your ideas about the left from Russia.

I'll ignore your personal insults and ranting, and just repeat my question. Why do you think the Democrat voters in the blue states benefit more by voting their candidate any more than the red states will benefit more by voting for theirs? Any factual and numerical evidence and answers other than profanity and Russia? Or is your argument that a popular vote isn't or shouldn't be valid?

which conveniently aligns with your opinion that it would be a Democrat.

I think you are getting a bit confused there. It was you who made that clear in your post that you think if it was left to the popular vote it would be the coastal folks who will be deciding all the time. I was using your own opinion as the basis.

@TempestTost

And yes, if you are unsure, that is classic, workers rights left wing stuff. So no bloody surprise if they thought maybe voting Democrat year upon year for fuck all, while people like Clinton and Obama tried to placate the banks, wasn't doing much for them, and they'd try Trump instead who at least seemed to be able to articulate the issue, wasn't too embarrassed to talk to them, and didn't act like they were shit on his shoe.

Do you really believe that Trump likes these people? Don't you think he talks to them because he wants three things: their votes, their donations, and their social media recommendations. That's it. They are shit on his shoe otherwise. He wouldn't allow them into his exclusive clubs, would he?

Harris has a problem with men or is it men having a problem with Harris - is this misogyny or is it simply men lean more to the right.

Trump has a problem with women or is it women having a problem with Trump- is it misandry or is it simply women leaning more to the left.

I I could.be both. To be fair if I was a man and a woman was boasting about sexually assaulting men, had been found in a court of law to have raped a man, had run a smear campaign about that same man, and had been responsible for removing my right to access viagra and other medicines it would put me of him as a person.a bit. I said this to a man I know (I like to talk to them sometimes) and he said to be honest as a man he would also be put of by a man who had done all those things to a woman. What's interesting is the men who aren't, or who think it's a sign of strength. I can actually understand voting for Trump on policy even though I disagree. But I can't help but judge people who look up to him as a person, and I know that's bad for political polarisation. But I can't help it.

Could you link to it - I'm not aware of it?

It is too easy to talk about. everything one doesn't like or agree with as being down to 'misogyny' . It is surely possible, though, to have more than one kind of perspective on 'women's rights' and how to best support women's interests?

I'm imagining a lot of conservative voters don't think that the sexual revolution has been that great for women; and that casual relationships which result in pregnancies undermine the family too. It is not too difficult to imagine that for some people women, as mothers, are far better supported within the context of stable relationship and family - in which men are also expected to take responsibility for their offspring.

I suggest that when you talk about "misogyny" you may be thinking that anyone who is opposed, in principle, to abortion is a misogynist; someone who hates women and who has no respect for women and girls? That would only be true though, if you think that access to abortion is the only way that respect and care can be shown for women and girls?

I speak as someone who had two terminations in my younger years, but also as someone who can conceive that women's rights, interests and protections can be viewed through a variety of different lenses. Mary Harrington is an interesting and quite thought provoking thinker when it comes to what she terms as 'Reactionary Feminism'. Have you come across her?

Her personal popularity is higher than Clinton's or Trump's. OK she isn't a stellar candidate but neither is he. And neither was Biden who beat Trump quite handily.

There's very few really charismatic candidates out there. Reagan won in solid Democrat states. Obama and Bill Clinton did the reverse. Trump's base is a lot narrower.

There are more potential Harris voters - but can she get them out?

If you look at the USA as more like the continent of Europe because of it's size then you see a more accurate representation.
You are saying that by getting rid of the Electoral College the equivelent would be that the most populated countries in Europe would rule over the others, and that in the EU when a small population country like Sweden would have to abide by decisions made by the large population countries like Turkey and Germany, as they would have more sway in the voting due to large populations.
Getting rid of the Electoral College may end up breaking up the USA into separate countries, as the middle states would feel ruled over by a small elite.

When you are trying to win an election that hinges on literally a few thousand votes, you have no choice but to identify very specifically (or "put people into little boxes" as you call it), the groups that you need to target your political advertising at.

What you suggest about what I might be thinking when I talk about "misogyny" is wrong. I didn't say everyone who opposes abortions is a mysogynist. I said that republican leaning red states are far more misogynystic than blue states. And the roll back of women's rights in these states is one indication of it. It is not to be taken in isolation, but with a lot of other factors together. Trump's pussy grabbing comments, convicted sex offender, you name it, has no impact on his base voters. That's just another indication. With all due respect, I don't believe Trump is concerned with the nauances of viewing women's rights through a variety of different lenses, nor are his base voters. If they do, I'm yet to see any signs of it or hear them speak of it. JD Vance has openly stated many times that women without children have no value to society. I think it's best to take people at face value.

Personally I think Harris and the Democrats have relied too heavily on identity politics' and just taken for granted that African Americans, Hispanics are homogenous groups. These days there are differences within those people so you may have eg African American working class men who are worried about inflation, the cost of living crisis etc and want someone who they think can tackle that and aren't satisfied that Harris can deal with that. I was disappointed with the video of Obama lecturing a group of African American men about voting for Harris as if it's their obligation.

The irony about the Electoral College is that it was put in place so someone like Trump couldn’t win.

I entirely reject this way of thinking about the world. The right left thing especially. Bring on more direct democracy.

Well he was in for four years and didn’t declare himself dictator for life so why were so worried about the next one…

I don't believe he thought he'd lose the White House after one term. When he realized he was going to, he tried to subvert the outcome of the elections, and nearly got his VP killed. Who knows what he would have done if he had been successful in getting a second term? He did say in a speech to evangelicals that this is the last time they'd be voting, as he'd have everything "fixed" from now on. Heaven knows what he means. JD Vance is no Mike Pence. He'd happily do anything Trump wants to stay in power.