62% Of Registered Women Voters Do Not Support Trump

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...t-gender-gap-62-percent-of-women-say-they-are

...
In a new poll, a significant majority of American women who are registered to vote say they are not likely to support President Trump’s re-election effort in 2020, setting him up with a gender gap that may prove difficult to overcome.
In a June 1-2 Hill-HarrisX survey, 62 percent of female registered voters said they were unlikely to support Trump’s bid to obtain a second term. Fifty-three percent said they were very unlikely to back Trump while 9 percent said they were somewhat unlikely. Thirty-eight percent of women who participated said they were likely to back Trump.
...

Men are almost evenly split.

...
The survey found that male voters were more evenly split about re-electing the president with 51 percent of respondents saying they were either somewhat or very likely to support him and 49 percent saying they were somewhat or very unlikely to support Trump, within the poll’s 3.1 percent sampling margin of error.
...

What matters is turn out and the recent abortion laws being passed may energize women voters to turn out in unprecedented numbers in 2020.

 

[Terrell]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Turn out was low in 2016. But very high in 2018. Trump will be a very polarizing figure all te way to 2020. I suspect we will see a rather high turnout then especially by women.

 

[Toni]

Turn out was low in 2016. But very high in 2018. Trump will be a very polarizing figure all te way to 2020. I suspect we will see a rather high turnout then especially by women.

2016 didn't really see low voter turnout:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

 

[Harry Bosch]

Turn out was low in 2016. But very high in 2018. Trump will be a very polarizing figure all te way to 2020. I suspect we will see a rather high turnout then especially by women.

2016 didn't really see low voter turnout:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Toni: that was a good link. To me, one of the most surprising stats about the 16 election was that a majority of white women voted for Trump. Many dems stuck their neck out supporting abortion rights and yet white women don't seem to care as much. As an aside, also very disappointing at how low the Latino voter turnout continues to be...

 

[Patooka]

Turn out was low in 2016. But very high in 2018. Trump will be a very polarizing figure all te way to 2020. I suspect we will see a rather high turnout then especially by women.

2016 didn't really see low voter turnout:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

I disagree; I'd say voter turnout in the US is consistently low, and 2016 was no exception. What is easy to assert, but difficult to prove, is whether the low turnout is due to voter apathy or voter disenfranchisement.

 

[Gun Nut]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

Is the claim, "I live in a radically blue city so regardless of how I vote, all electoral college votes are going for whatever Democrat that runs", questionable? Basically, "My vote is not counted".

 

[Politesse]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

Anyone who opposes Trump should certainly be politically active at this time. I do not agree that opposing Trump is synonymous with supporting the Democrats. What about a woman who supports traditional Republicanism but not Trump's specific brand of madness and anarchy? It would be more natural in their case to be actively pushing for reformation of their party, a project I for one would approve of. The Republicans of old were evil in spirit and frequently cruel, but nevertheless a logical evil that could be reasoned with and even negotiated with on occasion. I don't imagine that the entire country is going to suddenly rally behind liberal causes, but we really ought to be able to all rally around the idea of expelling personality cults from our structure of governance. I'll take a Republican across the aisle over the destruction of the entire aisle any day.

 

[Terrell]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

Anyone who opposes Trump should certainly be politically active at this time. I do not agree that opposing Trump is synonymous with supporting the Democrats. What about a woman who supports traditional Republicanism but not Trump's specific brand of madness and anarchy? It would be more natural in their case to be actively pushing for reformation of their party, a project I for one would approve of. The Republicans of old were evil in spirit and frequently cruel, but nevertheless a logical evil that could be reasoned with and even negotiated with on occasion. I don't imagine that the entire country is going to suddenly rally behind liberal causes, but we really ought to be able to all rally around the idea of expelling personality cults from our structure of governance. I'll take a Republican across the aisle over the destruction of the entire aisle any day.

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

 

[James Brown]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

#1 seems unlikely. Only a handful of Republicans have mumbled anything about a primary run. One of them, John Kasich, just gave up. Running as a Republican against Donald Trump's ever-loyal 40% seems futile, to me.

Actually, a third option would be for Trump to announce he won't run for a second term, but that also seems highly unlikely. Running for President is about the only thing that he enjoys doing these days.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

#1 seems unlikely. Only a handful of Republicans have mumbled anything about a primary run. One of them, John Kasich, just gave up. Running as a Republican against Donald Trump's ever-loyal 40% seems futile, to me.

Actually, a third option would be for Trump to announce he won't run for a second term, but that also seems highly unlikely. Running for President is about the only thing that he enjoys doing these days.

As far as I know, the only Rep still running against Bonespurs is Bill Weld.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

Anyone who opposes Trump should certainly be politically active at this time. I do not agree that opposing Trump is synonymous with supporting the Democrats. What about a woman who supports traditional Republicanism but not Trump's specific brand of madness and anarchy? It would be more natural in their case to be actively pushing for reformation of their party, a project I for one would approve of. The Republicans of old were evil in spirit and frequently cruel, but nevertheless a logical evil that could be reasoned with and even negotiated with on occasion. I don't imagine that the entire country is going to suddenly rally behind liberal causes, but we really ought to be able to all rally around the idea of expelling personality cults from our structure of governance. I'll take a Republican across the aisle over the destruction of the entire aisle any day.

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

Agreed. And I've got a bunch of friends on FB who are saying if the Dems nominate someone they don't like they will vote 3rd party, or just not vote. Their fucking idiots, and I told them so. They are just as bad as GOP single issue voters.

 

[Politesse]

Being against Trump isn't enough. They have to show up & vote for the Democratic candidate if they want Trump out. If they're doing anything other than that, their claims to want Trump gone are questionable.

Anyone who opposes Trump should certainly be politically active at this time. I do not agree that opposing Trump is synonymous with supporting the Democrats. What about a woman who supports traditional Republicanism but not Trump's specific brand of madness and anarchy? It would be more natural in their case to be actively pushing for reformation of their party, a project I for one would approve of. The Republicans of old were evil in spirit and frequently cruel, but nevertheless a logical evil that could be reasoned with and even negotiated with on occasion. I don't imagine that the entire country is going to suddenly rally behind liberal causes, but we really ought to be able to all rally around the idea of expelling personality cults from our structure of governance. I'll take a Republican across the aisle over the destruction of the entire aisle any day.

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

If this is the only, or even just primary argument Democrats put forward in 2020, then the entire discussion is a moot point. Because they will certainly lose the election. No one ever actually took the White House just by not being their opponent.

 

[jab]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

If this is the only, or even just primary argument Democrats put forward in 2020, then the entire discussion is a moot point. Because they will certainly lose the election. No one ever actually took the White House just by not being their opponent.

um--JFK?
um--Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter?

 

[Politesse]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

If this is the only, or even just primary argument Democrats put forward in 2020, then the entire discussion is a moot point. Because they will certainly lose the election. No one ever actually took the White House just by not being their opponent.

um--JFK?
um--Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter?

Are you suggesting that John F. Kennedy had no personal charisma of his own? Or Ronnie Reagan, Hollywood B-lister-turned-politician? Did you, like, never turn on a radio at the time, or what?

 

[Terrell]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

If this is the only, or even just primary argument Democrats put forward in 2020, then the entire discussion is a moot point. Because they will certainly lose the election. No one ever actually took the White House just by not being their opponent.

I doubt that it's the only argument they'll put forward. My point is that they're the only viable alternative to Trump. If those people genuinely want Trump out, that's the course of action to take. I'm saying judge them by their actions, not what they say to pollsters.

 

[Politesse]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

If this is the only, or even just primary argument Democrats put forward in 2020, then the entire discussion is a moot point. Because they will certainly lose the election. No one ever actually took the White House just by not being their opponent.

I doubt that it's the only argument they'll put forward. My point is that they're the only viable alternative to Trump. If those people genuinely want Trump out, that's the course of action to take. I'm saying judge them by their actions, not what they say to pollsters.

That's an absurd argument to make to someone who is on the fence. It's not enough to convince someone that one candidate is bad, you have to show that their opponent is better. Otherwise, the most likely course of action is non-voting. Or, voting for a third party candidate. And personally, I'd be fine with that; it's still one less vote for Trump than might have gone to him otherwise. Democrats have very unreasonable and often insulting expectations about whose votes they are "owed".

 

[jab]

um--JFK?
um--Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter?

Are you suggesting that John F. Kennedy had no personal charisma of his own? Or Ronnie Reagan, Hollywood B-lister-turned-politician? Did you, like, never turn on a radio at the time, or what?

Well, I'm not American, so perhaps their charisma passed me by.
Actually, during Reagan's election I was watching tv. Were you?
Radio for Nixon--and on radio JFK didn't come across as particularly charismatic. On t.v. Nixon looked unattractive, JFK did't (i.e. JFK wasn't Nixon)
In both cases they were presented as the anti-Nixon, the anti-Carter, and their images were carefully curated as such.
I found both of them but particularly Reagan absurd, and believe he won only because of the holding of the hostages, which made Carter look ineffectual. (i.e. Regan wasn't Carter)

 

[Elixir]

There are only 2 realistic ways to unseat Trump. 1 a primary opponent that defeats him, 2 Democrats win the presidency.

There is only ONE way to mitigate the cause of Trump getting elected in the first place: Dems need to take the Senate and hold the House. If they could do that, Trump becomes a non-factor.

 

[Terrell]

I doubt that it's the only argument they'll put forward. My point is that they're the only viable alternative to Trump. If those people genuinely want Trump out, that's the course of action to take. I'm saying judge them by their actions, not what they say to pollsters.

That's an absurd argument to make to someone who is on the fence. It's not enough to convince someone that one candidate is bad, you have to show that their opponent is better. Otherwise, the most likely course of action is non-voting. Or, voting for a third party candidate. And personally, I'd be fine with that; it's still one less vote for Trump than might have gone to him otherwise. Democrats have very unreasonable and often insulting expectations about whose votes they are "owed".

Who said anything about owed? I'm talking about two things only. Do you really want Trump unseated? Are you willing to vote in the manner necessary to make Trump be unseated? I'm not saying that the Dems only argument is, or should be, that Trump is bad. I'm not saying that the Dems don't have to make an effort & a good argument. I'm saying that the Dems are the only viable alternative to Trump holding the White House. I'm saying if you want Trump gone, then the Dems are the way to get rid of him. There is no viable 3rd option if you want Trump unseated.

@Elixir, I don't disagree. Holding the house & retaking the Senate does give the Dems the power to stymie Trump.