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.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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).

        • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          A Harris landslide victory will not stop what’s about to be attempted. I know we’re just a few months away from this but I need people to be ready for what they’re about to see.

          Things will start before the election with disinformation but on the actual day of election, it will be worse than last time. People will show up armed to polling places, possibly harass voters. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of these locations are shut down due to attacks. It will be something the US hasn’t seen before probably. If you don’t believe me, last time all this stuff happened they were unprepared. This time they aren’t.

          Then shortly after the votes are cast on the day of and the following day, these actions will continue as people attack polling stations, ballot counters, and frenzy around the numbers if Trump loses. Legal battles will begin almost immediately in an attempt to slow things down.

          It’s a long road to January from there. And expect it to be equally as awful. But ultimately, they will absolutely try to attack our system of confirmation. Fake electors will be lined up, legal challenges mounted, so many tactics will be deployed. You think project 2025 is bad? That’s what they’ll publish folks, imagine what they won’t. The election after an attempted insurrection is the most important one you’ll ever vote in and isn’t a time to relax.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Exactly! The alarm isn’t being raised about this anywhere near as loudly as it needs to be. I don’t know if it’s because the Republicans successfully poisoned the well on talking about election fraud or if the neoliberals are still in denial, but we’re sleepwalking into another through an ongoing coup attempt and appear to be doing basically fuck-all about it!

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • Corvid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s the joke. The New York Times are a bunch of chodes trying to sell you the narrative that Dems are unpopular.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        I would probably say that if you’re voting for trump. You’re either a bigot, cultist, or the most gullible person in the world. Some sort of combination of all 3.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I like to think that somewhere there’s an unironic accelerationist for Trump. Not enough to swing any state, but just like one or two.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • ATDA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        He is one of the most fragile cowards on the planet. He cannot handle even the slightest criticism. He’s lazy as fuck and constantly watching TV or golfing.

        And those are things that only come into focus ince you get past the parts where he is literally a rapist, insurrectionist, and con man. It is beyond comprehension that anyone considers him with any amount of respect whatsoever.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

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

      It wasn’t all that long ago that the Republican Party invested substantially in cultivating women candidates in the party. Reagan and Bush Sr in particular made a big to-do about advancing women in their administrations and through the courts. Primarily the wives and daughters and family friends of their mega-donor friends, of course. But by god, Republicans weren’t afraid to put nepo hires into high office, regardless of gender!

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t know how Trump is not at 0.00 percent with women. Just blows my mind that any woman would vote for Trump at this point.

  • flicker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lemme say, personally, as an older woman, Hillary absolutely didn’t capture me. I still remember when she blamed video games for society’s problems. I grew up being underwhelmed by her. I voted and all but my point is if I had to make myself do it, there were lots of women I knew who wouldn’t bother.

    Harris is sounding more and more like someone I’m excited to vote for. You can’t buy that. I am unsurprised she’s leading with women now.

    • CheeryLBottom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      As an older woman, those were my thoughts exactly. While I voted for Hillary, I didn’t feel confident about it. I’m very excited to be voting for Kamala Harris

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        AOC on deck.

        Please, please let me have the chance to vote for her before old age takes me. Please!

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s the point. Dissatisfaction drives change, change drives paradigm shifts. We need a young president again.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 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
          ·
          3 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
            ·
            3 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
              ·
              3 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
          ·
          3 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
            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@lemmy.ca
                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.

            • 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.

                • 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.

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 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
          ·
          3 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.

    • tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not a Republican, but I was genuinely curious to see Nikki Haley as the primary.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • joostjakob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      More women as state leaders you say? So we might finally see female leaders in countries like India, Argentina, the UK, Pakistan, France, Turkey, Bangladesh, Ukraine or Germany if only the US would be the shining example to the world?! I’m sorry, but when it comes to social progress, the best the US can hope for is finally catching up. Any option to be exemplary was definitely gone by maybe the 1970s

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        by maybe the 1970s

        Except by preceeding nearly all those countries in legalizing gay marriage, for one thing.

        • joostjakob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Eh sure, though only number 20 in the world when it comes to national legislation. But when it comes to quality of life or even life expectancy, the US could do so much better given its wealth. Mostly I’m just trying to point out the automatic patriotism you see so often in Americans, even the progressive ones.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I know but there are few female leaders, past and present, in public consciousness. Theresa May? Queen Elizabeth II? Angela Merkel? Ursula von der Leyen? The fifth president of Slovakia was a woman, for example, but she’s just one in six, and not many people will remember her a decade later. If Harris gets to be fondly remembered as a president, she will undoubtedly help alleviate the gender gap in elected positions.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ignore the polling and just vote. We haven’t won until we’ve won.

    The odds look fantastic but there’s always the chance a lot of people simply shrug it off and consider the election already over due to the odds looking to be so overwhelmingly in her favor. Don’t be like that. Go out and vote unless you want dementia donnie to slip back in.

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

      Current polling still puts DonOLD in the lead for the Electoral College. Odds are NOT fantastic, but are improving. Need to keep the pressure on for sure.

      • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah I figured that was the case but I haven’t checked up on the EC in a while. We should probably win the popular vote easily but unfortunately our elections aren’t determined by that.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    13 points? Pffft. Hillary had a ninety-one point lead at this point.

    What, she did.

    Polls.