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.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

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

          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.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The best chance to unscrew the electoral college is the interstate national vote pact. It’s close, but there aren’t enough blue states left to pass it. So it’s unlikely, but more likely than a constitutional amendment.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 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.

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

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

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

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

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

          • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 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
                ·
                2 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@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 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
                ·
                2 months ago

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

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    2 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.

    • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.