I was going to say, 13 points ahead of a literal rapist who actively fights against women's autonomy is not enough points ahead.
maybe those are the early numbers.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
487 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4434 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No wonder the right still grumbles about how letting women vote was a mistake.
Meanwhile, men - WTAF? Why would so many go for dementia donOLD?
Watching "men" idolize Trump has to be the weakest thing I've ever seen. He isn't strong, intelligent, gentile, or even remotely alpha in presentation or action.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The answer, as always with extremism, comes back to indoctrination, disenfranchisement, and finally, radicalization.
There have been tons of studies in this, but at a high level, men are indoctrinated by constantly being put under a lens of toxic masculinity by their peer groups and male role models.
Then they become disenfranchised from "mainstream" ideals, not hard to do with the mental health crisis and wealth disparity we see in the world every day. Or the simpler method of being raised in a small community (a church or small town) where such progressive ideas are frowned upon and demonized.
And finally, they search for meaning and inclusion in an 'in group'. This is natural human behavior, and is preyed upon by a laundry list of bad actors who are all too happy to offer answers, meaning, and most of all, some nebulous group to blame and attack for your problems. This step in particular has become easier and easier for more extreme groups with the advent of the internet.
It's a vicious cycle. And that's not to say the victims here are blameless, because of course they made their choices along the way, but they are indeed victims.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you're a woman and you're voting for Trump, you ain't a woman.
-Sincerely
A woman
If you're a human and you're voting for Trump, you're barely hanging on.
-Sincerely
A human.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Who knew denigrating women would make them not want to vote for you?
Clearly not enough women are willing to stand up for their rights, frankly. How the hell is it only a 14 point lead? I get that's a big lead, but I'd expect an 80 point lead given what we know about Republicans/Trump and women's bodily autonomy.
Makes sense Harris would.
It's because the Republicans have a structural advantage due to the electoral college. So Democrats need a larger margin in the popular vote to win enough seats, whereas Republicans can win even without winning the popular vote (as they did in 2016).
The Republicans have an additional structural advantage this year, as they are perpetrating massive acts of sabotage against the election system itself by inserting election deniers into positions of control over it. Between that, their control of the House, and control of SCOTUS, anything short of a Harris landslide could give them an opening to sow enough confusion and doubt to steal the presidency.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Actually, electoral wise I have Harris at 278, Trump 260. And that is giving Trump PA, NV, and GA. IMO Harris will take at least two of those states. The blue wall.
You must be dropping NC into blue then? That's not at all a likelihood right now. Possible, yes, but very hopeful. If NC goes red in your calculation, Trump wins with 276 to Harris' 262.
I'm in agreement on WI. AZ and MI are still a toss-up.
North Carolina leans blue.
In the last fifty years, North Carolina has voted red in every presidential election besides 2008 and 1976.
The demo in states change all the time. As I understand it, North Carolinas demo has changed over the years. In 2020, Biden lost by a little over 1 percentage point. Will this year reverse the trend? We shall see.
Just like Nebraska's 2nd District.
load more comments
(1 replies)
One point is commanding but four points are narrow?
That’s the joke. The New York Times are a bunch of chodes trying to sell you the narrative that Dems are unpopular.
It also speaks to the manipulation by the media. But, when Obama says that it will be close, it's more than just a motivator. Don't trust general polls. Look at each state poll.
I'm glad Trump hasn't stepped down. A more conventional candidate would quite possibly beat Harris but his continuous blunders are paving the way towards the first female president of the US. It's unfortunate that he's been allowed one term but after he showed what he's like, with him as the alternative a woman has a great fighting chance. I believe Kamala wins and will come across as competent, and we are going to see more women as state leaders worldwide.
I'm not a Republican, but I was genuinely curious to see Nikki Haley as the primary.
Nikki Haley is in the best possible position for a Republican right now.
If Harris wins and Trump's trials go forward, making him a non-factor 4 years from now, she can run in 2028 on a platform of making a clean break from the Trump years, and give the Republicans a fresh image to run against an incumbent Harris.
Yet she hasn't really burned all of her MAGA bridges, and if Trump wins his 2nd term, she can definitely still also run in 2028, particularly if VP Vance turns out to be as much of a dud as we all think he will.
And she's only 52. She has been in the national spotlight since Trump made her UN Ambassador, and has proven herself competent enough to do that job without getting pulled directly into Trump World. As long as she continues to display the competence that the rest of the party lacks, she will be the Republican nominee eventually. If she misses in 2028, she will have at least 2 more election cycles of relevancy.
May as well give the women a chance. They can’t fuck it up worse than the men. AOC on deck.
AOC on deck.
Please, please let me have the chance to vote for her before old age takes me. Please!
That's the point. Dissatisfaction drives change, change drives paradigm shifts. We need a young president again.
OK, but that's exactly what Democrats said in 2016 about Hillary.
Harris is a better candidate than Hillary but I agree with you, her polls look great relative to how Biden was doing but objectively it's still extremely close. Between that and all the cheating avenues the republicans have I still think odds are in favour of Trump becoming president again.
The next cycle of polls will give a clue as to if the momentum shift keeps going. Trump has had a couple of disastrous weeks and seems to be spiralling a bit (and notably low-energy), but we all know his base is so secure that he probably won't lose any voters over it. Also he will regain the RFK voters soon, which is bad news for Harris.
I don't even know if Harris is a better candidate, but I do think she's better prepared to face Trump and I am enjoying the public implosion.
In 2016 Trump was an untested leader and Republicans had been spewing propaganda against Hillary for two decades.
While nothing is certain, I'm cautiously optimistic that things will turn out differently this time.
In 2016 Trump was an untested leader and Republicans had been spewing propaganda against Hillary for two decades.
Not to mention 8 years of resentment from people who watched the '08 primaries, and she decided to top up the resentment in the '16 primaries.
Harris isn't going out of her way to piss off the left like Clinton did. And she has the sense to campaign in swing states.
Same propaganda.
Your resentment comes from a primary process and series of candidates that isn’t really any different from any primary that occurred in the last half century.
Yet you are specifically wounded from that one?
The divisive propaganda spewed in that election was also about Hillary controlling the DNC as much as she controlled a pedo ring.
They wanted to sow division within as well and I hate to break it to you but it’s not like this story hinges on Hillary and her presence…
Clinton's cult is completely incapable of even thinking that she was capable of earning the loss she earned.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.
In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.
It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.
Who sowed those “doubts”?
Whatever bogeyman you've decided to blame because you can't take the idea that Clinton fucked up.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm hopeful, too, but I would rather Trump be in prison than be the Republican nominee, even if it means Harris faces a "tougher" opponent.
That would be nice. I'd like to see the electoral college get unscrewed first though.
The last two presidents who took office after losing the popular vote were unmitigated disasters.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)