Harris beating Trump in Iowa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one trusts her. Ask anyone here (Iowa) how she decimated funding for public schools and banned books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one trusts her. Ask anyone here (Iowa) how she decimated funding for public schools and banned books.

I was going to say that Kim Reynolds would have a lot to do with an Iowa loss for Trump, if that materializes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Seriously? You don’t think when and how many children a person has is the most literal kitchen table issue of all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I tried to watch the Mark Halperin interview of Ann Selzer but gave up because right wingers suck as interviewers, but she was pretty clear about her methodology that, though they talked to all 1000 people they random dialed, they only poll likely voters, which was about 800 people. Who are the most reliable voters? Old ladies.

It was one poll, Harris probably isn’t winning Iowa and the maga pps are still losing their minds over this.

Halperin is not a right winger.

He has a history of racism and sexual harassment so I think he fits in perfectly in the right wing

So does Joe Biden.

It never fails to boggle my mind that Republican chuds handwave away Trump's sexual misconduct but never fail to turn up to bleat "hEy GuYsSsSs DiD yOu SeE sLeEpY jOe SnIfF a GiRl'S hAiR?????"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Seriously? You don’t think when and how many children a person has is the most literal kitchen table issue of all?

Abortion and how many children you have are completely different. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...

According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/

This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1

The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.

The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...

According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/

This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1

The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.

The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/

It’s in a report so it must be true.

"I can't actually rebut any of this, but it conflicts with my fee fees so it must be wrong!!!!" --Median Trump voter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...

According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/

This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1

The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.

The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/

It’s in a report so it must be true.

Oh, that's right...DCUM Trumpsters told us they hate economists. They hate scientists. They hate experts. They hate journalists. But, they LOOOOOVE Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...

According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/

This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1

The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.

The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/

This paper just cherry picks correlations and presents them as causation. Granted, it does effectively convince readers like you who are unfamiliar with research methods and just blindly cite anything published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Why are Trumpsters so adverse to Google and facts? DP here to give you the facts (that you'll probably ignore)...

According to IWPR research, abortion restrictions have a detrimental cost on women’s health and education leading to disproportionate impacts on the national and state economy. IWPR’s analysis shows that restrictions on abortion cost the U.S. an average of $173 billion per year. On an individual level, abortion restrictions lower the likelihood a woman will graduate from school (both high school and college), lower her overall lifetime earnings, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for her children. Additionally, in states where abortion is banned, women work more hours per week, have a lower income, become mothers earlier, and give birth to more children. Access to abortion is especially important for economically vulnerable groups: denying abortion increases poverty among individuals. Conversely, reducing poverty can decrease the need for abortions. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-fallout-of-reproductive-rights-restrictions-on-womens-futures/

This report argues that abortion access is fundamentally intertwined with economic progress and mobility. Specifically, in states where abortion has been banned or restricted, abortion restrictions constitute an additional piece in a sustained project of economic subjugation and disempowerment.1

The states banning abortion rights have, over decades, intentionally constructed an economic policy architecture defined by weak labor standards, underfunded and purposefully dysfunctional public services, and high levels of incarceration. Through a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of state level abortion access status and five indicators of economic security—the minimum wage, unionization, unemployment insurance, Medicaid expansion, and incarceration—we find that, generally, the states enacting abortion bans are the same ones that are economically disempowering workers through other channels.

The results of the analysis underscore that abortion restrictions and bans do have economic effects, given the strong correlation between abortion status and various economic wellbeing metrics.https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/

It’s in a report so it must be true.

Oh, that's right...DCUM Trumpsters told us they hate economists. They hate scientists. They hate experts. They hate journalists. But, they LOOOOOVE Trump!

They were right about scientists…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if Harris wins, Dems lose senate.

Nothing is getting done.

Because GOP are total nihilists with no commitment to governance, only power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

But this incumbent is a rubber stamp for the dysfunctional do-nothing GOP House, in a district that is only R+3, is mostly urban (to the extent that Davenport and Iowa City are urban), and may prefer a representative who believes that the government should function competently. This seat had flipped back and forth in four consecutive elections before 2022 when it was redrawn.

Flipping is plausible. D+16 is not.

You might think so, but there could be a big shift among women in these cities. There appears to be a snowball effect among older women and college women, as there was in other cities and suburbs in 2018 and 2020. The release of the poll may actually contribute to it.

The assumption that other women feel the same way you do is very 2016.

I’m telling you what happens in realignment elections. This is a realignment election. A bunch of “safe” House districts shifted 20%+ in 1994 and 2006 and 2010 and 2018. It’s more common in mid-terms but Trump is gifting Democrats a potential landslide of women voters this year.

There are too many women who feel that there are issues more important than abortion.

Honestly, if you truly believe in the influence of women voters, which you should, then you would recognize that they have already expressed their views. We are not where we are today solely because of male voters.

I don’t know ANY

Because you surely are familiar with the political views of women across the nation. This idea is exactly why you’re wrong.

Sure lots of issues, but none as big as reproductive rights.

I would bet the economy drives more votes than reproductive rights.

And you’re a bonehead if you don’t understand that abortion is an economic issue as much as it’s a human rights issue.

That’s a reach.

Seriously? You don’t think when and how many children a person has is the most literal kitchen table issue of all?

Abortion and how many children you have are completely different. Nice try.

🤣
Are you trolling or just seriously mental?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I tried to watch the Mark Halperin interview of Ann Selzer but gave up because right wingers suck as interviewers, but she was pretty clear about her methodology that, though they talked to all 1000 people they random dialed, they only poll likely voters, which was about 800 people. Who are the most reliable voters? Old ladies.

It was one poll, Harris probably isn’t winning Iowa and the maga pps are still losing their minds over this.

Halperin is not a right winger.

He has a history of racism and sexual harassment so I think he fits in perfectly in the right wing

So does Joe Biden.

It never fails to boggle my mind that Republican chuds handwave away Trump's sexual misconduct but never fail to turn up to bleat "hEy GuYsSsSs DiD yOu SeE sLeEpY jOe SnIfF a GiRl'S hAiR?????"

We found out this week that Epstein and Trump were in close and continuing contact throughout Trump’s presidency and the GOP doesn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

Yes. Older women are super super pissed. They don’t want people messing around with reproductive rights and they remember pre-roe and many have a lot of sad stories. Not so much back alley abortions, but misguided marriages and lost career opportunities.

Plus they don’t want the gop cratering social security and Medicare. The media has not given this much attention, but it has been a consistent plot line from the gop to get rid of those entitlements and older women are sensitive about the issue.

Some other analysis I've seen mentions that while young voters may have no memory of Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy," older women do remember. They are also more likely to accurately remember that Trump's economy was inherited from Obama and how badly Trump screwed up Covid response, stuff that many voters appear to have randomly forgotten or never knew. But it all undercuts Trump's argument to voters that they were "better off" when he was president.

a number of tik takers are making hay, using Trump's words as a soundtrack while shooting the changes on their faces when hearing the words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol if you believe this. Have you been to Iowa? I grew up there. The Democrats are dead to those people. I have family members that were Democrats for years, but are now loyal Trump supporters. No chance those people are backing Kamala Harris.

Nope, I’m sitting here in Iowa right now. Every family member, all of my friends, the entire neighborhood is voting for her. Young ppl, most of Des Moines, the university cities, all for Harris. Ppl here have had it, starting with our own governor.

They've had it with the governor? That would make sense as she sucks.