Harris vs Trump;

[joigus]

I've heard it's been raining cats and dogs last night in America...

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, joigus said:

I've heard it's been raining cats and dogs last night in America...

...careful not to step in a poodle...

[joigus]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...careful not to step in a poodle...

Poodles are delicious. I find them much softer than mastiffs. And much easier to catch...

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Not just pets ..
Crime rates in 168 countries have decreased since they started shipping their criminals to the US.

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to commit crimes...

[joigus]

Ok. I'm not gonna say much here, but I'd bet DT would rather have had a hall packed full of crooks now (the Thomas Mathhew kind, if you know what I mean).

Now, that was a bloodbath.

 

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Apparently they are coming from everywhere! All I can say is to trust me that if the majority of the prison and insane asylum populations of Scotland, were in the USA...

Sooo, you are saying that there is no one left in Scotland?

Also the German Foreign Office:

Quote

"Like it or not: Germany's energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables," the German Foreign Ministry posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. "And we are shutting down — not building — coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. PS: We also don't eat cats and dogs."

 

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rejects-trumps-energy-claim-mocks-him-over-pets/a-70190020

[TheVat]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

And here I thought my days of getting accused of eating pets were over. Whelp, it looks I can stop pretending and start munching now!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whelp

If you intended that, it was quite clever.  

[MigL]

I hope people don't start thinking this election is 'in the bag' for K Harris.
All available voters still need to get out to vote this November, to keep this idiot out of the White House, and out of politics.

 

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rejects-trumps-energy-claim-mocks-him-over-pets/a-70190020

Then again, Germany bowed to uninformed 'populist' pressure, and decided to label natural gas  a 'green renewable' energy, so as to be able to drop support for nuclear.
Labels don't change greenhouse gas emissions.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then again, Germany bowed to uninformed 'populist' pressure, and decided to label natural gas  a 'green renewable' energy, so as to be able to drop support for nuclear.
Labels don't change greenhouse gas emissions.

That was actually a fairly unpopular move in Germany. Specifically, this was a move from the EU commission and it was controversial to say the least. The backers were mostly France, Hungary, Poland and Romania. I believe Austria has sued, but not sure what happened. In Germany, the pressure was largely from industry but also politics as they consider it necessary as a bridge technology. In the population, it was widely unpopular, so the opposite of a populist move. 

That being said, Germany has a long history of a anti-nuclear stance, but it is in many ways an ideological and deeply rooted in the cold war and largely predated carbon emission worries. There were also practical reasons, as NIMBYsm has prevented the creation of long-term solutions for nuclear waste. 

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I hope people don't start thinking this election is 'in the bag' for K Harris.

She’s struggling to get men to vote for her and endorsements from Taylor Swift won’t help that gap.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5106660/election-poll-harris-trump-debate

Quote

Harris overall is buoyed by women. She leads with women by 15 points, while Trump leads with men by 12.

Women traditionally make up a slightly larger percentage of the electorate. Biden lost men in 2020, but only by 8 points, so Harris likely needs to do marginally better with men.

 

[MSC]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

She’s struggling to get men to vote for her and endorsements from Taylor Swift won’t help that gap.

This is something I just don't understand but then maybe I've just read too much Beauvoir. Seriously why do men find Trump more attractive as a presidential candidate? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that Trump was better for the economy too?  Also why do so many people seem to be under the impression that tariffs are paid by the exporters of goods when it's always been the importers that pay the tariffs? Why is that very basic fact not even talked about in the news that much?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

This is something I just don't understand but then maybe I've just read too much Beauvoir. Seriously why do men find Trump more attractive as a presidential candidate? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that Trump was better for the economy too?  Also why do so many people seem to be under the impression that tariffs are paid by the exporters of goods when it's always been the importers that pay the tariffs? Why is that very basic fact not even talked about in the news that much?

Regarding economy, there are two factors. For whatever reasons, the GOP was better in branding themselves pro-economy, despite all the data suggesting otherwise. For Trump, the image is enhanced by his TV show, where he plays a successful businessman. The fact that folks get basic things wrong, is probably not very surprising.

With regard to men, there is something worldwide going on, though the specifics vary especially on the age demographics demographics between countries. In many countries, men prefer a person that present themselves as an autocrat. Essentially, an insecure person's idea of a strong person. There is also a strong flavour of sexism among Trump voters, as studies have pointed out. Women, understandably are more likely to feel threatened by these sentiments (though apparently, racism can override these sentiments https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2)

[MigL]

And with regards to women, it's probably the mess he, and his appointees to the Supreme Court, have made of the abortion issue.
Not to mention his disrespect for women, in general, sometimes actually criminal.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And with regards to women, it's probably the mess he, and his appointees to the Supreme Court, have made of the abortion issue.
Not to mention his disrespect for women, in general, sometimes actually criminal.

These are also great points. The latter has already created the gap in the 2016 election, but obviously SCOTUS amplified it even more. It depends a bit on the poll but stratified by age, the gender gap is the largest for folks older than 50 years (>10%). It has to be noted that support is overall higher for Trump in the older segment. This is a bit different to the far-right in Europe, which, in many countries, is supported by young men.

I suspect for older men, Trump can be inspirational and one day, they too hope to become a ripe orange.

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...careful not to step in a poodle...

... and mind the shih tzu.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

She’s struggling to get men to vote for her and endorsements from Taylor Swift won’t help that gap.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5106660/election-poll-harris-trump-debate

 

On coming up in the news, I looked at Swift's Instagram page 54 minutes after she posted her polling intent, after the debate. She had over 3 million likes in that short time. Politicians could only drool at that kind of pulling power and eyeballs. It's a good job she's a publicly nice person.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MSC said:

why do men find Trump more attractive as a presidential candidate?

Not all men do, and as Charon noted there’s a larger global trend occurring whereby divisions are getting more pronounced between men and women. It’s sometimes more a predictor than income level and education. 

In my small universe, they tend to be tech bros. The types who think Joe Rogan and Elon Musk represent the ideal (or who join sites like ours to defend incels, for example). It’s not local to Trump, but is absolutely being reinforced on social media and information bubbles. 

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She had over 3 million likes in that short time.

And with our insanely tight county-by-county voting within the long outdated slavery-protecting electoral college system, those tiny changes in turnout and choice at the margins matter quite a lot. 

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Not all men do, and as Charon noted there’s a larger global trend occurring whereby divisions are getting more pronounced between men and women. It’s sometimes more a predictor than income level and education. 

In my small universe, they tend to be tech bros. The types who think Joe Rogan and Elon Musk represent the ideal (or who join sites like ours to defend incels, for example). It’s not local to Trump, but is absolutely being reinforced on social media and information bubbles. 

And with our insanely tight county-by-county voting within the long outdated slavery-protecting electoral college system, those tiny changes in turnout and choice at the margins matter quite a lot. 

I know. It's a cumulative effect of all the historical gerrymandering, I think isn't it?

[MSC]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

These are also great points. The latter has already created the gap in the 2016 election, but obviously SCOTUS amplified it even more. It depends a bit on the poll but stratified by age, the gender gap is the largest for folks older than 50 years (>10%). It has to be noted that support is overall higher for Trump in the older segment. This is a bit different to the far-right in Europe, which, in many countries, is supported by young men.

I suspect for older men, Trump can be inspirational and one day, they too hope to become a ripe orange.

I wonder; if a poll was conducted just of men, would we see a divide in support for Trump and Harris based on parental differences? Will men who are fathers to girls be more likely to vote for Harris vs men who are either childless or only fathers to boys?

As for what you said about the GOP being better at branding themselves pro economy, I wonder what it would actually take to debunk this myth for people.

Great responses btw, I really appreciate you guys.

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I know. It's a cumulative effect of all the historical gerrymandering, I think isn't it?

I think it may have more to do with the Internet giving teeth to most points of historical contention, controversy and disagreement. While also inviting more people into the discussion than were able to in pre-internet days. The Internet is a double edged sword in that it can drastically expand the reach of any thought, message, idea, truth or falsehood. As well as the speed which it does this. A lot of people don't even realize that fax wasn't just replaced by email, it was completely and totally outperformed by email. The number of documents that started to be sent by email over fax was increased by over 1000% as the time it took to send 1 document and the time it took to send 200 were virtually the same. 

In summary, the Internet made every view, debate and argument much louder in our lives. Pre-internet if you wanted to hear someone discuss the differences between men and women, you had to attend a lecture, read a book, watch the right TV show or listen to the right radio show, or maybe you just discussed this stuff with friends at the pub, but you really had to go out of your way. Now you have 100s of options of where to go to discuss these things at the push of a button. 

The Internet has in some way become a magnifying glass or a microscope to what Jung called the collective consciousness. Everything from good and bad, best and worst, exciting and mundane, true and false, about humanity and how we think, feel and interact is now much louder.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

I wonder; if a poll was conducted just of men, would we see a divide in support for Trump and Harris based on parental differences? Will men who are fathers to girls be more likely to vote for Harris vs men who are either childless or only fathers to boys?

As for what you said about the GOP being better at branding themselves pro economy, I wonder what it would actually take to debunk this myth for people.

Great responses btw, I really appreciate you guys.

I think it may have more to do with the Internet giving teeth to most points of historical contention, controversy and disagreement. While also inviting more people into the discussion than were able to in pre-internet days. The Internet is a double edged sword in that it can drastically expand the reach of any thought, message, idea, truth or falsehood. As well as the speed which it does this. A lot of people don't even realize that fax wasn't just replaced by email, it was completely and totally outperformed by email. The number of documents that started to be sent by email over fax was increased by over 1000% as the time it took to send 1 document and the time it took to send 200 were virtually the same. 

In summary, the Internet made every view, debate and argument much louder in our lives. Pre-internet if you wanted to hear someone discuss the differences between men and women, you had to attend a lecture, read a book, watch the right TV show or listen to the right radio show, or maybe you just discussed this stuff with friends at the pub, but you really had to go out of your way. Now you have 100s of options of where to go to discuss these things at the push of a button. 

The Internet has in some way become a magnifying glass or a microscope to what Jung called the collective consciousness. Everything from good and bad, best and worst, exciting and mundane, true and false, about humanity and how we think, feel and interact is now much louder.

New history is made every single day, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but this too will pass; whatever the volume.

 

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart.[d] Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

— Percy Shelley, "Ozymandias", 1819 edition[17]

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

wonder; if a poll was conducted just of men, would we see a divide in support for Trump and Harris based on parental differences? Will men who are fathers to girls be more likely to vote for Harris vs men who are either childless or only fathers to boys?

Let me be your first data point on this (not that it would have personally made one bit of difference if we had had all boys).   I recall some years ago giving off discouraging signals to a suitor who was rather proto-Trumpian.  He soon disappeared, probably more owing to my daughter's powers of discernment than to my hints about the pick and shovel I kept in my car trunk.  (there's a scene in the film Clueless that may illustrate this sort of threat)

Anyway, I would guess such a poll might find a correlation there.  To father girls does involve giving some thought to how men should respect women and what sort of role models men should and shouldn't have in that regard.  

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, MSC said:

I wonder; if a poll was conducted just of men, would we see a divide in support for Trump and Harris based on parental differences? Will men who are fathers to girls be more likely to vote for Harris vs men who are either childless or only fathers to boys?

I didn't come across a study that specifically addressed that question (though I did not look for one, either, so they may be around). But I recall a study in 2016, mostly looking at Clinton's messaging regarding gender equality. There, it was found that fathers who had daughters as their first child had a higher likely to vote Clinton, but I do not recall the effect size. This does seem to be in line with a broader body of literature that showed that in general father of daughters are more likely to support policies that are designed to increase gender equality.

However, there is also a counter-effect that some parents (not specifically fathers only, as I recall) of daughters who are pro-Trump exhibit what they called "benevolent sexism", with the strongest indicators being that they wanted to protect their daughters from immigrants (which is just plain old racism). In other words, intersectionality plays an important role here.

 

 

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I didn't come across a study that specifically addressed that question (though I did not look for one, either, so they may be around). But I recall a study in 2016, mostly looking at Clinton's messaging regarding gender equality. There, it was found that fathers who had daughters as their first child had a higher likely to vote Clinton, but I do not recall the effect size. This does seem to be in line with a broader body of literature that showed that in general father of daughters are more likely to support policies that are designed to increase gender equality.

However, there is also a counter-effect that some parents (not specifically fathers only, as I recall) of daughters who are pro-Trump exhibit what they called "benevolent sexism", with the strongest indicators being that they wanted to protect their daughters from immigrants (which is just plain old racism). In other words, intersectionality plays an important role here.

 

 

Two major difference since 2016 are the Dobbs decision (and Trump’s role and endorsement of it), and Trump being legally found to be a rapist.

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Two major difference since 2016 are the Dobbs decision (and Trump’s role and endorsement of it), and Trump being legally found to be a rapist.

Yes, and there is a chance that it had an effect. However, most studies have focussed at women, where polarizing effects were seen. Though I suspect that the rape conviction had a limited effect, given that opinions on Trump as a person should have solidified prior. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I guess Trump, having clearly won Tuesday's debate (personally I thought Harris handed him his ass...but then I might have just been suffering from the effects of eating too much dog and cat), has decided one debate with Harris is enough.

From Trump on Truth Social (it must be true because truth is right there in the name)

"When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH.” Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate. She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe - It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!"

 

Edited September 12 by J.C.MacSwell

[MSC]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess Trump, having clearly won Tuesday's debate (personally I thought Harris handed him his ass...but then I might have just been suffering from the effects of eating too much dog and cat), has decided one debate with Harris is enough.

From Trump on Truth Social (it must be true because truth is right there in the name)

"When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH.” Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate. She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe - It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!"

 

It's funny because before the debate, Trump-friendly pundits were literally saying that the victor always is the first to ask for another debate with a mind to ride the momentum to another win while confidence is high. They must be eating those words now!