• @thrawn
    link
    12 months ago

    apologies for coming in hot on that last comment

    No worries at all, there is a distinct frustration in having to worry about the sexists. I myself rather loathe to consider them. In a more rational society, we wouldn’t need to win or lose by a razor thin margin in a handful of states. I feel that sense of “why are we giving them anything?” too.

    I kind of wonder how many of those women might buck the norm simply because it would be a historical novelty to vote for a woman

    I fear we may have already had that in 2016. Per CAWP, a slightly smaller percent of women turned out in 2016, and a significantly greater amount turned out in 2020. I’m not sure how accurate that source is, but if it’s correct, women voters responded more to the threat of more Trump than the novelty of Clinton.

    I believe a younger candidate will be more impactful to turning out undecided low-info voters than anything based on the focus groups and polls I’ve seen thus far

    Agreed. Youth and charisma, I think, would win handily. From the 2020 primary and her polling, I don’t think Harris is enough. How badly I wish Whitmer was VP now.

    Make it about women’s rights

    Without women’s rights, the campaign fails altogether, regardless of whoever is on the ticket. It must be focused on. I think steadfast focus on three points— women’s rights, Project 2025, and economic improvement— covers every rational American who can still be convinced. The other things are important too, but keeping those in the minds of voters should do the trick I feel.

    Thanks for the rational and respectful commentary. I look forward to a future where we don’t need to think about racists, sexists, or other bigots.