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.

Only a misogynist would vote for a repeat sex offender who wants to control women's access to abortion.

You mistake my observations on what motivates Trump supporters for my own personal preference or opinion. As i said, it is interesting to observe and attempt to understand what drives different groups of people. It is not enough just to dismiss them as racists and misogynists, or whatever.

Have you listened to or read anything by Mary Harrington. She's British, but seems to have quite an audience in the U.S. too?

So you think that presidential candidates should just ignore targeting specific demographics? That's a guaranteed way of losing.

I don't see anywhere in my post where I attribute anything to your personal preference or opinions. I just pointed out that your suggestions about how I'm interpreting mysoginy in the context of this discussion is wrong. I am stating the facts as I observe them. The point of this thread is whether Harris' chances may be derailed by mysoginy, and my observation, is yes. I am not British, American, or in the US, however I am aware of Harrington. Whether or not I agree with her analysis on progress having served women is immaterial in this particular discussion, as I don't believe Trump, his sycophants, and his voters are basing their views on her analysis. Nor are the evangelical contingent. That's a whole other discussion.

I think its a bullshit way to run a world.

It doesn't matter what I think.

What matters is that much like Labour, the Democrats have not only failed to help the working classes, and instead clearly aligned themselves with globalists and bankers, at every opportunity they make it clear they despise the working classes.

What do they have to lose by looking elsewhere? They may wonder about Trumps real thoughts but they know what the Democrats do and think.

The one thing anyone running for office can do that will lose a vote forever is to show that they despise a voter.

Trump actually articulated their problems. Whether he or any other political figure is genuine is always debatable, but if your other option is the same old crap as last time, why not give it a try? And no, Trump actually hasn't managed to speak as if he despises those people.

The mess Obama has made of Harris campaign now is a similar problem. And a surprising miscalculation for someone who has been as good with people skills as he has in the past. You can't treat voters as if they are owed your votes and there is something wrong with them when they don't find you convincing.

It's not actually to do with parties except as a secondary effect.

It's about states that are more populous vs less populous.

If you think of Europe, and imagine that each country could only have as much as in an European leader according to their population, which countries do you think would have the most say in what kind of leader was chosen?

How would that work for the health and unity of the whole of Europe?

Do you think Andorra or even Belgium would be happy if France or the UK had the vast bulk of voting power for a leader? Which countries would a candidate for that role try and campaign to or keep happy for votes? Which countries might they be willing to sacrifice in their policy decisions?

The stats on men vs women in politics are definitely widening, so that's a very likely explanation.

@TempestTost @EasternEcho basically it comes down to whether you are talking about how much "say" individual voters have (echos position) versus how much say states have. It's perfectly valid to say both. And the comparison between less populous and more populous countries is a good one and a good point.
What is a bit rich (and I think @TempestTost deliberately divisive) is to characterise the argument that individual votes should have equal merit as thinking coastal voters think they are more intelligent/better equipped to make decision. It's a very smooth rhetorical trick where you jump from talking about the state to talking about individuals within that state (who might well be poor and downtrodden) and hope no-one notices. If someone did think the EU should make decisions based on one person one vote that would give less populous countries like Norway much less say than Germany (and that could be bad). But it wouldn't mean individual voters within Norway were less important than Germans or mean people arguing for this arrangements thought individual Norwegians opinions were worth less.

I saw a PP also using Europe as an analogy, which is incorrect, since countries in Europe are just that, countries. You can't draw an analogous comparison between countries and states within the same country. The US is a country in and of itself. There are certain rights granted to states by the constitution which gives them a fair amount of autonomy to begin with, and there is a federal government that oversees the country as a whole. The president is for the whole country. And yet, the electoral college allows that position to be elected whilst ignoring the fact that majority of the country did not vote for that individual. But to humour your argument, how do you think the UK or France would feel if Andorra or Belgium kept electing the leader due to over-representation in the voting structure, which is what the electoral college is. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one, as I think this comparing different counries to one country is not a cogent argument. And at any rate this has nothing to do with misogyny and Kamala Harris, which is what this thread is about.

There will always be elements of sexism when it comes to discussing men and women...but misogyny is more than sexism. I think most of the criticisms of Kamala are not to do with her sex ( though the fact of her sex may exaggerate/highlight elements of sexist prejudice) but are more to do with her perceived lack of substance, heft, weight, charisma, depth, solidity...

As mentioned, in Britain, the prospective, new Conservative party leader looks likely to be Kemi Badenoch - in spite of the fact that most Tory party members ( who will vote for the leader) are male - a black woman. She certainly attracts comments that, I believe, are rooted in sexist double standards - but she's also someone with obvious strength of character, a directness, a surety that Kamala lacks.

Hmm, I think it does though if you think of them in terms of people people with specific regional interests.

Norwegians, even of very different political views, have completely different advantages and concerns related to their physical location - fishing rights, oil rights, northern issues - compared to someone in Germany or France. What do Germans know or understand about northern fishing issues? Their interests on so many things with trade and agriculture etc may actually conflict. And of course this is true across all parts of Europe, and the US is no different.

If you put everyone in Norway in a position where you know their ability to influence politics is marginal compared to populous countries, aren't you saying their less valuable, or that you care about them less, or you don't mind if the Germans (or whoever) continually screw them over on issues where their interests differ?

The fact that in the US, it's typically the wealthy urban coasts that have the population, and the poorer rural areas, whose interests are often tied to the land, or sometimes manufacturing, does make it really look worse. Maybe it shouldn't but it does look a bit off that this stance seems to typically come from political progressives.

Harris never went through the primaries, and if she had, likely wouldn't have been a front runner, much like last time she did it.

I think there are women, and even black women, who would do quite well if they stood against Trump. People always say Michelle Obama, who sensibly is not keen, but I think the polling for her is hugely positive - Isuspectshe might even outdo her husband if she ran.

I also think Condoleeza Rice would do quite well.

Please don't use the word "globalists." It's a dogwhistle for "Jews."

Also, the GOP has played white identity politics for decades. The surprise this election is that they're getting more nonwhite voters to buy into it.

I am not as familiar with UK politics as I am with the US. However, a factual aspect is that the UK has already had a woman prime minister in Margaret Thatcher, as has many countries in Europe. The US, however, is still to have a woman as head of state, and many are sceptical that it will ever happen in the foreseeable future. The brand of misogyny in the US seems different in many aspects and also has the influence of Christian fundamentalism, and the image of men with guns as the protector of all things. An interesting consideration is whether even Thatcher or Badenoch will have a chance in the US. I would wager not. There are women like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Boebert, Noem, who we might say have a directness about them, but still wouldn't be elected president. Just to watch Nikki Hayley trying to navigate the US' particular brand of mysogyny as a presidential candidate was quite painful, down to comments on her high heels at a debate.

Wow, what a victim mentality. I was supposed to know you're dyslexic because...? I'm dyslexic myself, so go pound sand.

I made my point, which is that what you said about Harris only having a career due to sex is a lie. I will add it's a sign of racism and sexism that you so easily believe such an obvious and easily misproven lie.
So the isms are all on your side, dollface.

Exactly so.

It's very difficult to compare leadership elections in parliamentary systems versus direct presidential elections. It's known that women find it easier to get elected as head of government in a parliamentary system because they need to win the confidence of their colleagues, not win a national race. France has never had a woman president, and Nancy Pelosi successfully served as Speaker of the House, which in electoral terms is much closer to a premiership. Would Thatcher have won if she'd needed to be directly elected? As it was, she needed to be more masculine than any of the men she worked with.

Also, Republicans despise Michelle Obama and would absolutely unleash the misogynoir.

Meant to say disproven, missed edit window.

Great examples, and he's like that consistently.
I suspect by "plain talk" the poster may have meant that he sounds ignorant and expresses simplistic ideas, which is true.
Harris, being educated, knows there are no simple answers.

Yes, they used to compare her to an ape. They are the scum of the earth.

That sums it up perfectly.

Does anyone know how many Americans are floating voters against how many just vote for the party that they or their parents always have?

That's why there are really strong arguments for systems which recognise that regional difference. A strong argument the other way would of course be that not all Norwegians automatically agree with each other any more than all Germans do. To characterise all Germans as factory workers and all Norwegian as fishermen would be very reductive. There are for example lots of working class people in California and the agricultural sector is huge. Not everyone in the flyover states is some salt of the earth good ole boy. Some of them are super rich. So you could make an argument for tlbith sides. But it is not reasonable to say that just because someone disagrees with you they must be a snooty liberal progressive type with no regards for individual people in those states. Isnt that the worst kind of identity politics?