“How could this happen … again?”
In the days since the election, many are asking how Donald Trump twice won the US presidency over accomplished, well-qualified women. While more women than men voted for Kamala Harris, Donald Trump still appeals to female voters, particularly over the age of 45.
Perhaps surprisingly, fewer women voted for Harris in 2024 as voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is despite issues of abortion rights, Trump’s liability for sexual abuse, and patriarchal overtones at Trump rallies.
Neither Harris nor Clinton were perfect candidates. Clinton had years of baggage from her involvement in politics and a candidacy dogged by an email scandal. In 2016, perhaps the novelty of Trump’s candidacy combined with Clinton’s hubris could explain away some of the gains Trump made with the disaffected white working class. But what explains Harris’ loss this time around?
Several factors played a role, the biggest ones unrelated to the candidates’ sex.
For starters, in a country without compulsory voting, Trump is a household name. On top of his celebrity, he’s been campaigning or in the White House for close to a decade. Harris, despite being the sitting vice president, is relatively unknown to the American people.
There is a pipeline for the next generation of female presidential hopefuls, which includes impressive women on both sides.
Another major factor is that Trump is a better retail politician than Harris. Trump’s campaigning was bold, direct and unapologetic. He produced sound bites the media ate up.
In contrast, Harris came across as guarded, unsympathetic to concerns over “establishment” shortcomings, and verbose in media appearances – the opposite of what a fast-paced digital media age calls for. A significant blunder was failing to differentiate herself from Biden by saying she couldn’t think of anything she’d have done differently over the past four years.
Trump also connected with Americans on cost-of-living pressures, which may explain why a slim majority (51 per cent) of married women voted for Trump. During the Biden-Harris administration, US inflation soared to 9 per cent, pushing up prices faster than wages.
Trump appealed to low- and middle-income Americans who have felt worse off over the past four-year term – despite inflation now being down to 2.4 per cent and close to full employment. Harris chose to promote the strength of the economy while Trump read the room and tapped into “the vibe” – a winning strategy.
Although Harris primarily lost for traditional political reasons, the message her defeat sends to women seeking high office is negative and could sow seeds for more political discord in the US.
We know that the women who ran in 2024 did well, with more winning races against men in Senate contests on both sides of the aisle. But fewer women ran in 2024 than other post-2016 elections and studies show declining women’s representation more broadly around the world.
The women in the middle
Progressive women and conservative women alike may be emboldened to enter politics after Trump’s second victory – with women on the left finding new meaning to fight for progressive issues and women on the right finding a movement in MAGA that welcomes women who embrace traditional gender roles.
But who are the women that could sit it out? Perhaps they are the women in the middle, the centrist women, well qualified but tired after two women who looked like them, from middle-class backgrounds, smart and ready to hit the ground running, lost to a man who showed up with “concepts of a plan”. In these situations, it’s easier to turn inward and focus on your inner circle rather than enter the political spotlight.
We know that representation matters when it comes to political participation, therefore, perhaps watching well-qualified female leaders lose does too. If so, what lessons can the next female candidate seeking to make history take from 2024?
The first is about authenticity. Voters saw Trump as raw and authentic and Harris as polished and risk-averse. The second is about broad appeal: what can you do to improve everyone’s lives? A third but by no means final area is media impact in a rapidly changing online environment. X and podcasting had an impact on this election. In hindsight, it was another missed opportunity when Harris failed to meet Joe Rogan on his terms for a podcast. You need to meet voters where they are, not where you want them to be.
However, there is a pipeline for the next generation of female presidential hopefuls, which includes impressive women on both sides. In 2028, keep an eye out for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Wisconsin senator Tammy Baldwin. On the Republican side, former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be in the mix too.
Clinton banked on her experience and Harris on her joy, but neither could prevail. To win the presidency, the first successful female candidate will need to convince all Americans and the media of her authenticity, not just the young and college-educated.