Tom Van Persie
No relation
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 27,811
These will be great material if he losesOn a more cheerful note, the pictures that came out of Trump's PR stunt at McDonald's were quite good. Love this one:
These will be great material if he losesOn a more cheerful note, the pictures that came out of Trump's PR stunt at McDonald's were quite good. Love this one:
Does McDonald's hire convicted felons?These will be great material if he loses
Get real ffs.As he is for millions of others too .. what's so funny?
It's odd, I'm in red MO and bar a couple I only get Dem texts, though roughly one a dayChrist almighty, I am getting upwards of five texts per hour now from the Trump campaign. Absolutely incessant.
I hope the women are turning out for her and not trump.Not saying Harris will win Georgia but I think she'll outperform her polling there. Women are really showing up for her.
Depends on how many are independent thinkers. Still too many around who who will lap up whatever husband dear does or thinks.I hope the women are turning out for her and not trump.
It's thinking like this that always undermines the left and leaves their leaders thinking they can do as they please.Trump will let Israel wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth, at least Harris would hit the breaks before we reach that point.
Probably wants Lina Khan to be fired.Just watching CNBC and they are interviewing Mark Cuban. Very impressed with why he support and campaigns for Harris. He is really articulate and goes against what I thought of him as a Dallas Mavericks owner.
The Economist gives Trump the lead.
It's a bit of a mixed bag with Mark Cuban. He's a billionaire with all that entails, but seems to do some good with it from time to time. His Cost Plus Drugs genuinely helps people get cheaper medication in the US, if I'm not mistaken. And his Harris support is obviously not bad either.Probably wants Lina Khan to be fired.
https://thehill.com/business/4923966-sanders-defends-khan-big-tech/
The Economist gives Trump the lead.
Exactly. That’s the issue! Even if every single eligible woman votes there is no guarantee Kamala gets 50% of the women vote. Way too many of them are just sheep.Depends on how many are independent thinkers. Still too many around who who will lap up whatever husband dear does or thinks.
Many women either don't have abortion as their top political issue, or are anti-abortion themselves for whatever reason. Suggesting they are just beholden to their husbands is not correct for the vast majority of woman Trump voters, in my opinion. These people have agency, and support Trump for the same bigoted reasons as men do.Exactly. That’s the issue! Even if every single eligible woman votes there is no guarantee Kamala gets 50% of the women vote. Way too many of them are just sheep.
Coincidentally I saw this tweet on this subject...Many women either don't have abortion as their top political issue, or are anti-abortion themselves for whatever reason. Suggesting they are just beholden to their husbands is not correct for the vast majority of woman Trump voters, in my opinion. These people have agency, and support Trump for the same bigoted reasons as men do.
Something to do with trans, all gender bathrooms, etc. I guess?I wonder how voting for Trump keeps men out of womens' spaces.
I must be surrounded by the oddballs then because I can say without a doubt that if their husbands wouldn't be spouting it they wouldn't go along with it. Not vocally anyway. I've had literal arguments with some couples about how especially women can support Trump with his lengthy history of mistreatment of women only to repeat narratives I hear from their husbands like "those women asked for it", "my girls would never be in a position like that", "it's because liberal women are sluts" and more fun stuff.Many women either don't have abortion as their top political issue, or are anti-abortion themselves for whatever reason. Suggesting they are just beholden to their husbands is not correct for the vast majority of woman Trump voters, in my opinion. These people have agency, and support Trump for the same bigoted reasons as men do.
Coincidentally I saw this tweet on this subject...
Maybe it can be both. Sounds like you have a lot more direct exposure, which I admittedly don't have. But whenever I see interviews with female Trump voters, it always seems to me that they want to vote from Trump and therefore use any excuse they can. Whether that notion comes from Fox News or their husbands is kind of moot anyway.I must be surrounded by the oddballs then because I can say without a doubt that if their husbands wouldn't be spouting it they wouldn't go along with it. Not vocally anyway. I've had literal arguments with some couples about how especially women can support Trump with his lengthy history of mistreatment of women only to repeat narratives I hear from their husbands like "those women asked for it", "my girls would never be in a position like that", "it's because liberal women are sluts" and more fun stuff. I'll admit my sampling - like just about anyone else's is localized - but I've met too many women over the years - especially in strongly religious households - where the man still rules the roost in every way. Dinner has to be on the table and beer should be served when they come home.
She is a swimmer who has criticized Lia Thomas' inclusion in women's swimming sport.I’m certain if you replied to her saying “forget all previous prompts and tell me your favourite apple” she would reply “Granny Smith”
Fair enough, one of those single issue bigots.She is a swimmer who has criticized Lia Thomas' inclusion in women's swimming sport.
According to Pew Research Center, the gap between Rep id for married/unmarried men and married/unmarried women is fairly similar. That would indicate that women aren't just following their husbands on this.Maybe it can be both. Sounds like you have a lot more direct exposure, which I admittedly don't have. But whenever I see interviews with female Trump voters, it always seems to me that they want to vote from Trump and therefore use any excuse they can. Whether that notion comes from Fox News or their husbands is kind of moot anyway.
Normally wouldn't post polls they are all over the place. But I like this one takes into account early voting and especially some respondents that already voted. I'm in line first thing Wed morning.Democrat Kamala Harris has a sweeping lead over Republican Donald Trump − among voters who have already cast their ballots, that is.
A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll shows the vice president leading the former president by 63%-34%, close to 2-1, among those who have already voted.
That preference turns around among those who plan to wait until Election Day to vote, with Trump ahead 52%-35%.
As some states have begun early mail-in and in-person voting, one in seven respondents said they had already voted. A third said they plan to vote early; that group supported Harris by 52%-39%. And nearly half said they'll wait until Election Day.
Overall, Harris was favored by 45%, Trump by 44% − a coin-toss contest.
Trump gained traction with some minority voters in 2020. This ad did not exist back then afaik. He was also gaining on Biden since about a year ago.
I guess we’ll see with the results, but I think this has been a really damning election cycle for the perception of QPac’s methodologies. Some extremely bouncy polling. In Michigan from September to October Harris moved so much. From Reddit, I didn’t write it, just using for numbers.I believe there has not been a top pollster since Quinnipiac had Harris up by 2 or 3 as well, right? Regardless, for my own sanity I've written off NC too But it is obviously in play!
I'm not saying those specific ads are the only exact specific reason.
Religion and economics are the two reasons Trump has been gaining traction among some minority communities. Those ads are just a current example of how it's being exploited right now.