While millions will still vote for the Republican candidate, perhaps hating immigrants more than they love reproductive rights, the only certainty at this point is that many millions more will vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. In the latest ABC News/Ipsos national poll, the Democrat enjoyed a 14% advantage with women over Trump; among women with a college degree, that number rose to 23%; among women voters under 40, it rocketed to 34%.

That, in turn, is causing some MAGA commentators to break from their usual posture of feigned confidence to outright panic.

“Early vote has been disproportionately female,” Charlie Kirk, head of Turning Point USA and helping to lead the Trump campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort, posted on social media. “If men stay at home, Kamala is president. It’s that simple.”

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    As much of a controversial term as it can be, this is why we need Feminism, with a capital F. Go wives! Do what you know you must! Do not let your husbands control you! Never go back!

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      2 days ago

      Feminism is only controversial to reactionaries.

      Everyone else thinks women should be equal members of society.

      Wave that feminism flag!

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If they think women are equal then who can they default to thinking their better than after a hard day? I guess there’s still minorities.

      • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Doesn’t feminism basically boil down to “everyone should be equal”?

        I think I agree with most everything RBG has said for example. Women should be anywhere decisions are made, etc. I struggle with her statement that it will only be enough when all the justices are women. I don’t think men should be excluded. I understand folks that are fine with the pendulum swinging that far, men have controlled women for as much of history as I have learned about. I would think a diverse representative body of justices that include men, women, along with disadvantaged groups (be it sexual orientation, gender, race, etc) would be the goal. I’m not smart like her, and she’s certainly more informed than I am on the topic, so I figure I don’t understand because everything else from her seems intuitively obvious and easy to follow for me.