Vice President Harris boasts a 13-point lead over former President Trump among women voters in a new poll, a notable edge with a major voting bloc that could be critical for her ticket in November.

An Economist/YouGov poll taken this week found 51 percent of women who are registered voters said they support Harris, while 38 percent backed her Republican rival. On the other hand, Trump, who has struggled with women voters, saw a 7-point lead among men.

  • @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    53 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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…

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        Clinton’s cult is completely incapable of even thinking that she was capable of earning the loss she earned.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 months ago

          You assign a “cult” why?

          Obama once said his campaign needed a billion dollars to win the presidency. No one thought twice in that statement.

          So she has a cult? Why?

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            -42 months ago

            You’re readin’ more into my comment than I said. Go back and try again after ditching your assumptions.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                -22 months ago

                Read my initial comment without your hackles up. Then read how you responded. That’s part of it.

                But if you would like another example to dismiss in bad faith, consider PUMA PAC. Clinton’s supporters were so upset that she lost the '08 primaries that they formed a PAC to get McCain elected out of spite.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  02 months ago

                  Ok full stop…

                  “Hackles” is awesome. I’m gonna dig into hackles… sorry it’s mine now…

                  But really you complain that a PAC was formed?

                  Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?

                  What’s the alternative? Dems make a PAC and become evil or the Supreme Court rules pacs rule and you now post how dems rolled over and did nothing?

                  • @Ensign_Crab
                    link
                    English
                    -1
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    But really you complain that a PAC was formed?

                    Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?

                    They formed a PAC with the express purpose of electing McCain.

                    And yes, use hackles all you want. I’d love to see it enter common usage.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 months ago

        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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 months ago

            If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.

            What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              There were seeds which def helped the bullshit grow.

              That doesn’t mean you should encourage or embrace that growth. If you do you’re embracing shit.

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            -22 months ago

            Whatever bogeyman you’ve decided to blame because you can’t take the idea that Clinton fucked up.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              Oh hell no… she did fuck up.

              But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                -32 months ago

                Oh hell no… she did fuck up.

                I’m surprised you can admit she’s less than perfection incarnate.

                But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.

                Now where did I say that? I said that her actions during the '08 and '16 primaries caused resentment.