Harris beating Trump in Iowa

[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.

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

Lol… Come back when you can tell me what can and cannot be inferred from rejecting a null hypothesis. Moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Someone who can't even get in a barrel sounds jelly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Copium

Like i said, you’re free to think whatever you want. Experience tells me you are wrong and Seltzer is wrong.

Selzer, Selzer. If you are going to call someone wrong, then don't top it off with your own misspelling.

[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/

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.

You don't think women being out of a job or underemployed doesn't affect the economy? You don't think women and children who fall into poverty affect the economy? You don't think having sole breadwinners (because there are too many babies at home) doesn't affect the economy?

[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:

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

Lol… Come back when you can tell me what can and cannot be inferred from rejecting a null hypothesis. Moron.

Lol, if only I were impressed by someone regurgitating something they remembered but never really understood from Stats 101, that would've been a really sick burn!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Copium

Like i said, you’re free to think whatever you want. Experience tells me you are wrong and Seltzer is wrong.

Except Seltzer has been spot on for the last 12+ years, even as she’s contrasted other polls. I tend to lean on her reliability as a good indicator of where things are vs. your gut.

That’s your choice. I believe she is wrong. I would not even be surprised to learn she got paid big money to put out a poll like this. I fully expect these types of organizations to throw out some last minute polls purporting to show that Kamala Harris is riding high as a last ditch effort to try to push her across the line. It is all BS by a very partisan set at this point.

Conspiracy is all MAGAs can argue at this point. They refuse to face reality

IDK if Harris will win, though hope so. But Selzer is based in IA and that's her bread and butter. Getting paid big money for a one-off poll is not how she works.

YK, a lot of folks out there are not grifters in the way MAGATs are.

[Anonymous]

Not happening!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. You're right. Educated women are not dumb because they vote for Trump. Agreed.

They're morally bankrupt.

People who don’t vote the way you want them to are morally bankrupt?

🤭

My supposedly Catholic mother who thinks he’s a disgusting pig but votes for him anyway because her taxes will be lower because she’s rich certainly is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. You're right. Educated women are not dumb because they vote for Trump. Agreed.

They're morally bankrupt.

People who don’t vote the way you want them to are morally bankrupt?

🤭

My supposedly Catholic mother who thinks he’s a disgusting pig but votes for him anyway because her taxes will be lower because she’s rich certainly is

The most honest post ever to appear on DCUM, right here

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, I am the older woman who is ANGRY and PISSED that my adult daughters are living in a country that has taken away their reproductive rights. Disgusting how sleazy tRump made this happen and women and families are now suffering. The polls don't reflect the DISGUST these women feel that we have gone back to the dark ages. Will voting rights be next. If they take away reproductive rights they will continue to take away other rights. Women who actually vote for the deranged convict clearly are following a cult leader and have no mind of their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. You're right. Educated women are not dumb because they vote for Trump. Agreed.

They're morally bankrupt.

People who don’t vote the way you want them to are morally bankrupt?

🤭

My supposedly Catholic mother who thinks he’s a disgusting pig but votes for him anyway because her taxes will be lower because she’s rich certainly is

If at some point she brings up declining church attendance in this country, please ask her to look into the mirror .

[Anonymous]

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’s a sex pest who works for NewsMax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tik Tok is where the “bone smashing” trend started. But hey , it’s reaching a lot of young voters!

[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.

Yes, I am the older woman who is ANGRY and PISSED that my adult daughters are living in a country that has taken away their reproductive rights. Disgusting how sleazy tRump made this happen and women and families are now suffering. The polls don't reflect the DISGUST these women feel that we have gone back to the dark ages. Will voting rights be next. If they take away reproductive rights they will continue to take away other rights. Women who actually vote for the deranged convict clearly are following a cult leader and have no mind of their own.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not happening!!!!

I’d actually be willing to wager that Iowa gets called for Trump within an hour of polls closing. If not minutes after.