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.

  • CaliforniaSober
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • CaliforniaSober
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

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

          • CaliforniaSober
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Or maybe answer the question rather than assigning assumptions to me.

            Cult why?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 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.

              • CaliforniaSober
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 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.

                  • CaliforniaSober
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Electing McCain you say? Not splitting the vote, not playing the field.

                    Certainly they should practically ask Republicans to use those same tools… they should instead do nothing and take the “high ground” as you so graciously allow for dems to do… right?

    • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 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.

        • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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.

          • CaliforniaSober
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

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

          • CaliforniaSober
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh hell no… she did fuck up.

            But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 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.