"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[Geronimo]

Because you aren't addressing the statement I made, but rather conjuring a strawman to argue against.



It could be. But given your earlier anecdote I wouldn't say that was without more information.

Simply being excited at the prospect of a racist/sexist glass ceiling being shattered for the first time is not racism/sexism. Quite the opposite.



It only takes a couple hundred thousand racist/misogynistic voters in swing states. If you really think there aren't that many, you live a very sheltered life.

There could be 30 million but if glass ceiling enthusiasm tipped 45 million into voting *for* Harris who otherwise would have stayed home then racism and misogyny was not meaningfully decisive.

[Aeson]

To you some young woman logs into ApolytonOT with the dream of one day being the President of the United States. She has no concept of the misogyny that still exists in our country. Then she reads my post...

[Aeson]

There could be 30 million but if glass ceiling enthusiasm tipped 45 million into voting *for* Harris who otherwise would have stayed home then racism and misogyny was not meaningfully decisive.

You keep coming back to whataboutism. The claim was about Trump's support. It doesn't matter if 59 million people voted for Kamala solely because she's a woman, it doesn't change whether or not Trump's spread was covered by him appealing to racists/misogynists with his hateful rhetoric and platform.

You keep equating racism and misogyny with being excited for a sign that racism or misogyny have been made less relevant. It's not comparable, they are polar opposites.

[Geronimo]

You keep coming back to whataboutism. The claim was about Trump's support. It doesn't matter if 59 million people voted for Kamala solely because she's a woman, it doesn't change whether or not Trump's spread was covered by him appealing to racists/misogynists with his hateful rhetoric and platform.

You keep equating racism and misogyny with being excited for a sign that racism or misogyny have been made less relevant. It's not comparable, they are polar opposites.

What aboutism would be me saying it's inconsistent to oppose racism and sexism but not to also oppose anti glass ceiling voting decisions in the election. I totally reject that line of thought. I entered this conversation to say that our ability to ascribe misogyny and racism to explain voting patterns is extremely limited.


It could be that I've misread some of your earlier points and it seems you've misread some of mine.

Do you agree that we can't really tell how much Harris's race and gender held her back or even that it held her back at all in the general election overall?
​​​​​
​​​​

[Geronimo]

To you some young woman logs into ApolytonOT with the dream of one day being the President of the United States. She has no concept of the misogyny that still exists in our country. Then she reads my post...

If it was just you I could hardly care less. She going to be bombarded with that message from literally thousands to millions in traditional media and social media alike.

[EPW]

I think the racists were voting for Trump no matter what. But I think misogyny is a bit more complicated, for instance a minority of black men had a huge problem with Harris.

[The Mad Monk]

I really gotta remember to go to the END of the thread before replying.

[Berzerker]

Ask Trump a question about policy and you get an answer
Ask Harris and you get a word salad and a headache
that's why he won and she lost

[-Jrabbit]

Harris was the word salad? LOL!
Dude, Trump is the one who brags about his meandering rants, calling it "the weave" and claiming his lack of focus to be somehow brilliant.

[N35t0r]

If it was just you I could hardly care less. She going to be bombarded with that message from literally thousands to millions in traditional media and social media alike.

Right, what's keeping women off politics, engineering, computer science, and other traditionally male-dominated fields is that they get constantly bombarded with that message by people who are just imagining it, and not the actual harassment they and other women suffer.

Do you have a sister or cousin or niece or something in any of these fields? You should ask them about it.

[Aeson]

What aboutism would be me saying it's inconsistent to oppose racism and sexism but not to also oppose anti glass ceiling voting decisions in the election. I totally reject that line of thought. I entered this conversation to say that our ability to ascribe misogyny and racism to explain voting patterns is extremely limited.

I said it's reasonable that it (Trump's misogynistic/racist supporters) could cover the spread. You were all "what about my daughter who likes the idea of a female president". It's whataboutism.

It's also absurd to equate a person being excited to see a breaking of racist/sexist glass ceiling to those who want (and try to enforce) the continuation of discrimination based on sex/race. THEY ARE POLAR OPPOSITES.

Do you agree that we can't really tell how much Harris's race and gender held her back or even that it held her back at all in the general election overall?
​​​​​
​​​​

I agree it can't be quantified exactly.

I don't agree that it's unreasonable to suggest that there's still enough racism and misogyny in Trump's voter base to cover the spread. Because there clearly are still many millions of racists and misogynists who voted for Trump. Many of his supporters explicitly claim to be as such, and most are at least apologists/enablers for one or the other. Trump's platform and actions are clearly racist and misogynistic.

[N35t0r]

We discussed this right after the results were in, but one of the groups where Trump made most gains wrt 2020 was Latino men. I know for a fact that misogyny is a very big problem in Argentina, even in the city of Buenos Aries, which is much better than the rest of the country, and we are still light-years ahead in that respect compared to most of the rest of Latin America.

[Geronimo]

I said it's reasonable that it (Trump's misogynistic/racist supporters) could cover the spread. You were all "what about my daughter who likes the idea of a female president". It's whataboutism.

It's also absurd to equate a person being excited to see a breaking of racist/sexist glass ceiling to those who want (and try to enforce) the continuation of discrimination based on sex/race. THEY ARE POLAR OPPOSITES.

you are not paying any attention. POLAR OPPOSITES is exactly the point! they pull the election in opposite directions in response to the same criteria. As such to insist that a candidate being female or non-white definitely is a liability in the general election is speculation at best. the net pull can't be quantified with the tools available.​

I agree it can't be quantified exactly.

I don't agree that it's unreasonable to suggest that there's still enough racism and misogyny in Trump's voter base to cover the spread. Because there clearly are still many millions of racists and misogynists who voted for Trump. Many of his supporters explicitly claim to be as such, and most are at least apologists/enablers for one or the other. Trump's platform and actions are clearly racist and misogynistic.

sure, but, for example, there might be enough assorted incels and like-minded crapstains who vote against candidates that they perceive to be "popular" "Chads" to cover the spread too but even if that were the case it would not follow that being a sexy charismatic person the incels would vote against for their charisma and sexiness would make the charisma and sexiness a liability in the general election.

[N35t0r]

sure, but, for example, there might be enough assorted incels and like-minded crapstains who vote against candidates that they perceive to be "popular" "Chads" to cover the spread too but even if that were the case it would not follow that being a sexy charismatic person the incels would vote against for their charisma and sexiness would make the charisma and sexiness a liability in the general election.

Ah, right, the historically oppressed group *checks notes*, ******* white males.

[Geronimo]

Ah, right, the historically oppressed group *checks notes*, ******* white males.

ok cool. To hell with white males or not to hell with white males. I don't care. My point was that identifying a group of voters larger than the election spread that is expected to vote against a candidate with whatever quality they are thought to oppose in a candidate is not sufficient to establish that the quality or qualities those voters are expected to effectively vote against are a net liability in the election itself. You also have to consider voters who may effectively vote for those qualities instead. Generally efforts to quantify either tend to be more speculation than actual numbers, especially reliable numbers with consistent methodologies and so are futile. that's fine I suppose. However, if a major expected effect of speculating that an intrinsic trait of a candidate such as their gender or perceived race is a decisive liability in the election then I would expect that to potentially seriously discourage would-be-candidates who have that trait. At the very least it the conversation should treat it as speculation to be challenged and not some kind of empirical established "fact".

In any case I'm not sure how your response relates to that.

[N35t0r]

ok cool. To hell with white males or not to hell with white males. I don't care. My point was that identifying a group of voters larger than the election spread that is expected to vote against a candidate with whatever quality they are thought to oppose in a candidate is not sufficient to establish that the quality or qualities those voters are expected to effectively vote against are a net liability in the election itself. You also have to consider voters who may effectively vote for those qualities instead. Generally efforts to quantify either tend to be more speculation than actual numbers, especially reliable numbers with consistent methodologies and so are futile. that's fine I suppose. However, if a major expected effect of speculating that an intrinsic trait of a candidate such as their gender or perceived race is a decisive liability in the election then I would expect that to potentially seriously discourage would-be-candidates who have that trait. At the very least it the conversation should treat it as speculation to be challenged and not some kind of empirical established "fact".

In any case I'm not sure how your response relates to that.

What? You don't appreciate strawman replies to your posts? Shocker!

Also, Harris got over six million fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. Trump got 3 million more votes than he did in 2020 (still fewer than Biden did in 2020). The greatest differences between both elections were among men, particularly non-college-educated, Latino and black men. And you claim that "it's possible" that she gained more votes for being a woman than she lost (either to not voting or to trump)? Just based on a hypothetical scenario?