Look at that collapse after the Comey email announcement, which, of course, turned out to be nothing.
This is also the first presidential election since Roe v Wade was overturned by Dobbs, and since the U.S. no longer ensures a woman’s right to an abortion.
Being a man, I have no personal perspective on this, but I hear a lot of women framing this change as a healthcare issue. Trump made it harder for them to get medical treatment they may need, and there are already horror stories of the impact that is having (such as women with a non viable fetus needing to wait until they are near death before they can be treated).
I expect that Trump will lose soundly, and this will be a big reason why.
The abortion issue’s influence on the female vote will be one of the prime movers in this election, in my opinion.
I think this is true. Many men have no idea how big of a deal this is to women. The Dobbs decision has put the lives of millions of women at risk of harm or death, to say nothing of interfering with their right to control their own bodies and futures as they see fit.
If there is an unforeseeable blow-out in this election, it will be due to the millions of women new to voting, who intend to claw back their rights with respect to bodily autonomy. And the men who agree with them.
An interesting side-question:
Assume there’s enough of a blow-out that the upcoming Congress does pass a comprehensive Federal law requiring abortions be available to everyone everywhere with the states prevented from regulating further.
The Federalists’ / Heritage Foundation’s pet SCOTUS that trump compliantly emplaced will have ample opportunity over the next decade or so to shred any such legislation. How will they justify their totally predictable decision?
It certainly would be very difficult. Still, people have come up with things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to deal with the inequities of the E.C.
Makes me wonder if either Hillary or Kamala have said anything on the record about that initiative. (Don’t have time to research it now.)
The Tyranny of the majority. Large states could then just ignore small states.
Yep. It puts Florida in play.
It would be very … entertaining … if Harris lose PA … and then wins FL for the win! 
I’ll prefer winning both of course!
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority, like we have now. Objectively worse. Especially given how even in those small states the far right minority tends to be able to lord it over a non-right wing majority.
Maybe but not just “She’s a woman. I’m not going to vote for her.” She definitely suffered from the likability bias similarly to Amy Klobuchar when she just ran for President in the primaries. For those not familiar with the likability bias, it is well-known in business that characteristics associated with powerful people are seen as a positive in men and negative in women. A man is direct while a woman is a bitch. A man values advice while a woman is indecisive. A man is passionate about his work while a woman is being emotional. &c.
Further this presupposes that “states” are somehow entities worthy of representation rather than populations.
Like most countries, our governing arrangements are an anachronistic hodgepodge of historical accidents. The difference seems to be that Americans think it was designed, and further that it is, or ought to be, changeable to keep up with modernity.
I remember in 1992 she responded to that by baking cookies and giving them to the press. As a slightly sarcastic joke. Believe it or not, she does have a sense of humor.
I remember in 2000 after Gore won the popular vote but got screwed by the Electoral College, the new senator-elect Hillary Clinton expressed the wish to get rid of the unfair EC.
The complicated finagling at the constitutional convention to set up the EC and everything is inextricable from the demands of slave states to enshrine slavery into the Constitution. The whole project is permanently blighted from the start because of slavery, God damn it.
That makes sense.
I mean, most thinking people see the Electoral College as an artifact of US history that fails to adequately represent the votes of the population on a one-person-one-vote basis. (The same being true of the system of ‘two Senators per state’.)
(It would be interesting to know if being a passionate defender of the Electoral College system correlates with being reluctant to have a female President (the “woman factor”).)
Agree completely.
Far better had the nascent USA simple said: “No, slave-owning colonies are not welcome to enter into our grand experiment in building a better system of governance. Go make up your own system for your own country(ies). Good bye, good luck, and good riddance.”
I agree. The result would have been a smaller US, but one better off in basically every way.
Yep, she was a guest on Wait Wait Dont Tell Me.
So no United States then, as you wouldn’t have had New York or New Jersey or more importantly Virginia. New England and Pennsylvania does not a viable country make.
“No United States” would have still been better than one with the slavers in it. Including them twisted the US at its foundations in ways it’s never recovered from, and probably can’t.
Gift article that addresses this thread’s themes well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/us/politics/kamala-harris-female-president.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E04.vmmT.WCusdHOw6PNt&smid=url-share
What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments
A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments
We find that the average effect of being a woman (relative to a man) is a gain of approximately 2 percentage points
Deleted.