3 minutes ago, Vee said:

This is today's, the latest and final.

And I don't think she is going to struggle in the Blue Wall - not based on much of that polling and other recent polls that bear out good results.

Thanks. I was mostly just going on that poll and some of the other polls/early voting stuff but hopefully she can get the Blue Wall.

 

 

Thread:

I hear Cheney has been pushing this 'your vote is private' message to women on the stump a lot, and I know Julia Roberts of all people also did an ad with this line. But I think Michelle Obama leading with it first really put it over the top and I think it has been much, much bigger with women and wives and mothers in red states than people first realized.

And: I think it will sadly get worse for a lot of women in these homes if we do win. Because MAGA will absolutely blame the spouses. They've been bubbling about it ever since Michelle brought it up; Jesse Watters was steaming on Fox at the thought of his wife betraying him, etc. It will be The Crucible.

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by Vee

Another:

 

 

Apparently what people are missing in the Seltzer poll is this

II like everyone else has been cautious. I still am, but I know what women OF ALL AGES who are independents and republicans have been telling people on the phone banks I have been doing for NARAL since 2022 .Some here, LIKE THE MEDIA choose to ignore us. I get it.2016 was heartbreaking but it's not 2016 and Harris is not Clinton, who had 25 years of propaganda by the same media thrown at her even more than her husband. I'm not going to make any predictions because I am still cautious, yet I would not be at all surprised to see Harris win ALL female demographics this year. 

There is a big reason women in the agegroup below are voting this way. They were young women and teens when there was no Roe. They remember. I think the story Sally Field told was true for many. A close male friend of my older brother told him just 2 months ago how he was voting. He's a republican and just turned 65. He told him a story about coming home to find his mother collapsed on the floor of their kitchen bleeding and unconscious. She almost died from an abortion she had. Not from a medical professional. It wasn't legal then. Turns out his dad was part of it. Why did they decide to risk it? Because they already had 4 children. You can figure it out because it's the same reason many married women choose to do it today. By the way married women are the highest percentage of abortions today.

So while I respect those who are panicked(as I said I have my moments even this year) but what I am hearing phonebanking doesn't match the stats. We'll see. You should also pay attention to the percentage of men below. There are still a lot of older men who remember this also and know.

The Iowa poll doesn't surprise me. I've had vibes for a while it might be a surprise flip. 

12 hours ago, Khan said:

How sad is it that we continue to live in a society where women need to keep their votes secret from their husbands and boyfriends out of fear of retribution?  And then I hear folks like former "NCIS: New Orleans" star Lucas Black proclaim how they're "taking masculinity back" for their sons.  Pathetic.

It’s sad (and frightening) that we live in a society where a woman can get expletives hurled at her or slashed in the face if she dares to ignore a random man who catcalls her in the street but here we are.

¡Dios mío!  Those floods are tragic, many lives lost.

 

9 hours ago, Vee said:

I can understand being burnt out by 2016. But that was eight years ago. The GOP has consistently lost elections since; Trump has already lost once. And a lot of this reasoning about why the Selzer poll can't be right (or why Kamala couldn't really have won the debate narrative when she did, or why Puerto Rico won't stick to Trump when it has) sounds identical to the right wing cope rationalizations or dirtbag left nonsense I see all over Twitter.

If we've said it once in this thread, we've said it a million times (and maybe more): SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT AMERICA. 

You can't read a bunch of tweets or FB/IG posts and expect to have your finger on the pulse of this country.  In fact, you SHOULDN'T expect to know from social media how Americans feel, because most Americans simply don't know what the burnouts and fatheads are saying on those platforms, nor do they much care.  So, please, I urge everyone: stop giving those losers and the billionaires who enable them more credit than they actually deserve.

And as I've said before, I think a little PTSD from 2016 is healthy, if only to remind us all of what happens when we sleep on the job.  But, as high as the stakes continue to be this election year, that doesn't mean we, as a nation, are in the exact same place that we were eight years ago.  We've wised up; we know what the assignment is now; and even if Donald Trump manages to eke out another victory, that doesn't mean we'll just roll over and play dead. 

That fascist can make all the threats and promises that he wants, but if his administration thought the constant resistance to his agendas were a pain in the neck five, six, seven years ago, baby, they ain't seen nothin' yet!

9 hours ago, Vee said:

There's also nothing wrong with a Democrat being bold and confident when they think they're going to win. The media tried to dog Obama over and over about this as well as Joe, and they both won despite clucking that they were either 'overconfident' or in Obama's case 'too much of a celebrity'. The alternative campaign strategy here would be some sort of perpetually humble, apologetic defensive crouch - pre-apologizing to media, accepting every bad faith spin thrown at them. And that is not going to win any elections anywhere.

Say whatever you will about Bill Clinton, but he and his team knew that you can't go into an election expecting to lose or apologizing if you win.  Clinton knew that Republicans never fight clean, that they operate always with the long game in mind, and that the mainstream media no longer cared about anything except enabling the GOP in order to retain their access.  So, when he ran, he ran with one goal: to hit the GOP, hit 'em hard, hit 'em often and never, ever let up.

Now, many from within the Democratic Party didn't care for Clinton's approach because he wasn't humble - in fact, I'd argue that one reason why Hillary DIDN'T win eight years ago was because even her own party didn't want the Clintons around anymore for that very reason - but at the end of the day, his approach got the [!@#$%^&*] done.

God, I still miss that man, lol.

10 hours ago, Vee said:

We can't live in fear and be preemptively cowed by media, the right or the worst bad faith actors of the left if we want to win. Democrats have done that before, and most times they have they've lost.

See: Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

10 hours ago, Vee said:

I can understand being burnt out by 2016. But that was eight years ago.

Yes but the PTSD for many is absolutely real and valid.

5 hours ago, Vee said:

I hear Cheney has been pushing this 'your vote is private' message to women on the stump a lot, and I know Julia Roberts of all people also did an ad with this line. But I think Michelle Obama leading with it first really put it over the top and I think it has been much, much bigger with women and wives and mothers in red states than people first realized.

And: I think it will sadly get worse for a lot of women in these homes if we do win. Because MAGA will absolutely blame the spouses. They've been bubbling about it ever since Michelle brought it up; Jesse Watters was steaming on Fox at the thought of his wife betraying him, etc. It will be The Crucible.

I mean, we are literally organizing underground railroads to help abused and battered women get to the polling places on Election Day without incident.  If that isn't a sign that toxic masculinity needs to be stopped...!

5 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Yes but the PTSD for many is absolutely real and valid.

Not for the likes of Susan Sarandon, apparently.  She didn't vote for Hillary, and she still feels fresh as a daisy, thank you very much, lol.

7 minutes ago, Khan said:

Not for the likes of Susan Sarandon, apparently.  She didn't vote for Hillary, and she still feels fresh as a daisy, thank you very much, lol.

Well good for that wash-up.

1 hour ago, Khan said:

If we've said it once in this thread, we've said it a million times (and maybe more): SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT AMERICA. 

You can't read a bunch of tweets or FB/IG posts and expect to have your finger on the pulse of this country.  In fact, you SHOULDN'T expect to know from social media how Americans feel, because most Americans simply don't know what the burnouts and fatheads are saying on those platforms, nor do they much care.  So, please, I urge everyone: stop giving those losers and the billionaires who enable them more credit than they actually deserve.

And as I've said before, I think a little PTSD from 2016 is healthy, if only to remind us all of what happens when we sleep on the job.  But, as high as the stakes continue to be this election year, that doesn't mean we, as a nation, are in the exact same place that we were eight years ago.  We've wised up; we know what the assignment is now; and even if Donald Trump manages to eke out another victory, that doesn't mean we'll just roll over and play dead. 

That fascist can make all the threats and promises that he wants, but if his administration thought the constant resistance to his agendas were a pain in the neck five, six, seven years ago, baby, they ain't seen nothin' yet!

Say whatever you will about Bill Clinton, but he and his team knew that you can't go into an election expecting to lose or apologizing if you win.  Clinton knew that Republicans never fight clean, that they operate always with the long game in mind, and that the mainstream media no longer cared about anything except enabling the GOP in order to retain their access.  So, when he ran, he ran with one goal: to hit the GOP, hit 'em hard, hit 'em often and never, ever let up.

Now, many from within the Democratic Party didn't care for Clinton's approach because he wasn't humble - in fact, I'd argue that one reason why Hillary DIDN'T win eight years ago was because even her own party didn't want the Clintons around anymore for that very reason - but at the end of the day, his approach got the [!@#$%^&*] done.

God, I still miss that man, lol.

See: Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

There's people out that believe Trump is going to or possibly win because of his social media campaign strategy. Here's a quote from another forum.

"This is the path to a Trump victory that I continue to worry about: that his hyper-online campaign focusing on Musk, RFK, and the blogging manosphere turns out unprecedented numbers of low-propensity voters (males who are young and/or not college educated) and they are enough to propel him to close wins in several swing states. That was the campaign’s big strategic swing. And IMO this election is basically going to be a referendum on whether you can win a campaign largely premised on online disinformation that can not only win over those low-propensity voters but also get them to vote."

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by sivad40