Especially since Kamala Harris’ entry into the 2024 presidential race, media outlets have predicted the “gender divide” will be a determining factor in the election outcome and have characterized gender as “defining issue of the election.” Gender is absolutely a central dynamic at play in the presidential contest, but its influence – in type, sites, and magnitude – is not as distinct to 2024 as some are making it out to be. Instead, the 2024 presidential election demonstrates the ways in which gender is a persistent force in presidential politics.
Much attention to gender in this election has been on the difference between men and women in vote choice, a measure that has been both misstated and overstated in election coverage. The gender gap in presidential vote choice refers to the difference between the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for the leading or winning candidate. That gap has been ten points or more in five of the past eight presidential contests. In 2020, Edison’s exit poll reported a twelve-point gender gap, with women twelve points more likely than men to support Biden. Compare that to the gender gap evident in four of five major national polls in the past week, which all show gender gaps of twelve points or less. This does not negate the importance of women’s greater support for Harris but instead demonstrates that she is faring equally well to the Democrats who came before her.
Moreover, this single data point is insufficient in capturing the more complex ways in which gender shapes presidential elections. First, women and men voters are not monolithic, so over-emphasizing a singular gender gap misses the important diversity in voter preferences and behavior among women and men. Age, race/ethnicity, and education are just some key demographics that intersect with gender in mapping patterns of voter preferences and behavior in and beyond this year’s election. Additionally, elections are determined not only by vote choice but by voter turnout. Gender and intersectional differences in who votes (and who does not) have been consistent in presidential elections, with women outnumbering and outvoting men in every election since 1980. Women’s engagement and mobilization is far from wavering and is unlikely to buck this trend in 2024.
Predictions that the gender differences in voting will be especially great in 2024 are often paired with assumptions that gender matters more when a woman is on the ballot. Research continually demonstrates that candidate gender is not a primary predictor of vote choice, instead showing consistently party as a more determinative factor.
Divides on gender beliefs and gender-focused policies among both candidates and voters, which align with party at present, are larger and more influential than the differences in vote choice between men and women. And while those beliefs and policies have been more at the forefront of this year’s election, they are not new in their influence on presidential campaigns and outcomes.
Donald Trump has emphasized a traditional – and even toxic – masculinity in each of his presidential campaigns, feeding on and fueling the backlash to gender progress already evident among Americans. In 2016, for example, more than two-thirds of Trump supporters told the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) that “society is becoming too soft and feminine.” Multiple researchers found that hostile sexism, which encompasses perceptions that women’s advancement comes at a cost to men, was a significant predictor of votes for Donald Trump among men and women alike. Four years later, when Trump was running against another white man, majorities of Republicans agreed that both society has become too soft and feminine and that society punishes men just for acting like men, tapping into a particular brand of male/masculine grievance. Studies again showed sexist beliefs – perceptions that women are seeking special favors and that complaints about discrimination are causing more problems than they solve – were a significant predictor of votes for Trump in 2020. Again in 2024, we see this correlation between gender beliefs and candidate support; 84% of Trump supporters told CBS News/YouGov that gender equality efforts in the U.S. are going too far, while 86% of Harris supports say they are not going far enough.
Trump’s gender strategy is not distinct to male-female contests. As scholar Jackson Katz argues, “Presidential politics are the site of an ongoing cultural struggle over the meaning of American manhood.” His book outlines the dominance of white masculinity in presidential politics since the birth of our nation, and the ways in contestations over masculinity are evident in its most prominent political contests. In this way, gender has been a consistent force in presidential politics, well ahead and outside of the two contests with women nominees.
Harris does not need to explicitly talk about being a woman for her gender to influence her strategy, messaging, tactics, and how voters and media evaluate her. No one is mistaken about Harris’ gender and racial identities, especially those that stand apart from the status quo of the U.S. presidency. But the fact that it is only Harris who is asked why she has not emphasized her gender more is evidence of the ways in which women and men navigate differently gendered terrain en route to Election Day. After eight years of doubling down on a hyper-masculine style of self-presentation and strategy, Donald Trump has rarely – if ever – been asked why he spends so much time emphasizing his gender in campaigning.
Instead of focusing on being a woman as a primary point of contrast with Trump, Harris and her surrogates have emphasized more consequential differences in beliefs about gender equality, appropriate gender roles, and even how gender is defined. When Trump touted himself as a “protector” of women, Harris responded, “I don’t think the women of America need him to say he’s going to protect them. The women of America need him to trust them.” Reproductive rights have been central to this argument, but it is not the only issue where there are clear divides between campaigns. Trump’s demonization of transgender people – and the policies that are proven to save their lives – has escalated over time. These attacks are consistent with the gender beliefs that have fueled Trump’s support, whereby fear of gender disruption motivates a policing of sex and gender binaries that constrains conceptions of gender, promotes conformity, and upholds an unequal balance of power to men over women. In response, Harris has said, “I believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, period, and should not be vilified for who they are, and should not be bullied for who they are.”
The outcome of this year’s presidential contest will have significant gendered implications for individuals, institutions, and culture, and not only because a woman has the potential to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling in U.S. politics. Contestations over masculinity, women’s and LGTBQ+ rights, and gender progress that have been persistent in presidential elections are echoed in 2024. But the especially stark differences in the gender beliefs, gendered rhetoric, and policy positions by this year’s nominees make this more complex and consequential gender story impossible to ignore.