The 2024 Election’s Gender Gap

by Mariel Surprenant on November 18, 2024

Featured Slider

Young Men for Trump, Young Women for Harris

While tapping through Instagram stories on the morning of Nov. 6, I noticed a trend. With some exceptions, mostly men were reposting pro-Trump posts and mostly women were reposting pro-Harris posts. Looking back, the data from the 2024 presidential election aligns with the trend I observed on my own social media feed. Young men aged 18 through 29 shifted 28 percentage points to the right from 2020, voting for Donald Trump by a 13-point margin. Young women also shifted to the right, but remained far enough left to vote for Kamala Harris by a margin of 18 percent. This trend begs the question; why was there such a large gap between the voting behaviors of young men and young women?

Why the majority of young women voted for Harris rather than Trump seems obvious. Harris promised to focus on several issues that directly impact women: abortion, reproductive healthcare, childcare, domestic violence, and protection in the workplace from gender-based discrimination. Trump, on the other hand, has been found liable for sexual assault, accused of rape, and has bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.” Policy-wise, he’s promised to decrease women’s access to abortion and reproductive healthcare, and will allow the current realities of childcare, domestic violence, and workplace discrimination to remain unchanged. Young women’s motivation for voting for Harris and against Trump appears evident. But what about young men?

Policy-wise, many of the men who voted for Trump cite concerns like the economy and immigration, but these concerns exist for women too. The difference is that the stakes of a Trump presidency are much lower for men. Neither candidate plans to regulate their body and their reproductive system, so young men have the luxury of voting on the other issues that matter to them.

Another major reason that men have cited as a reason for voting Republican is simply their dislike of Harris and Democrats. Disregarding any possible sexist origins of these claims, these young men are voicing the reality that the Democratic Party has failed to appeal to them. As Dave Portnoy expressed in a three-minute Instagram reel posted the morning after the election, the “moral superiority” of the Democratic Party turned a lot of potential voters off. Within the Harris-Walz campaign, many young men could not see themselves or the policies they cared about reflected in the campaign’s messaging. Trump, on the other hand, appealed directly to the people young men idolize. For example, Trump has been endorsed or promoted by Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, the Nelk Boys, Theo Von, Elon Musk, Adin Ross, and the Paul brothers.

The recent overall sentiment from intellectuals and experts, like those at the Wall Street Journal, is that young men have “fallen behind” in terms of things like share of the labor market and education. Young men likely hear and feel that sentiment and reality, and as they look for a candidate to recognize their selfhood, masculinity, and their role as men. Trump arguably embodies and promotes some of the classic traits of masculinity, such as strength, assertiveness, and self-reliance. His blunt communication style, “self-made” origin story, and tough, “winner” personality appeal to what young men think masculinity embodies.

Obviously, all young men did not vote for Trump, and all young women didn’t vote for Harris. In fact, according to NBC exit polls, 37 percent of young women aged 18 through 29 voted for Trump. In reality, there are many intersecting and complex reasons why a voter of a certain gender chooses to vote for a certain candidate. Nonetheless, the large gender gap between young voters represents a widening ideological gap between genders and their lived experiences. If the Democratic Party wants to avoid making the same mistakes in 2026 and 2028, they need to take notes from the Trump campaign and appeal to the country’s young men.

Rebecca Cheptegei is Now One of Many

by Christina Charie '25 on October 16, 2024
Opinion Editor

Opinion

Why Femicide is Appearing in Your Feed Now

In the past month, Ugandan Olympian Rebecca Cheptegei died after her partner set her on fire in their home in Kenya. Unfortunately, Cheptegei’s death is not a unique occurrence in Kenya. She is one of at least 500 such incidents that have occurred since 2016 in Kenya, according to the United Nations. With recent high-profile cases of femicide and violence against women, there is new motivation to examine the context in which these situations have developed.

Americans should be asking why we are only hearing about the systematic nature of these issues now. Certainly, Cheptegei’s status as an Olympic athlete contributes to international interest in her well-being, but the lack of media attention surrounding the systematic femicide occurring in Kenya reflects our “America First” mindset.

I am sure everyone expected a writer versus a writer about the recent Presidential Debate in The Cowl. Surely, it has occupied most of my Instagram feed, from serious analysis of key issues to parody song remixes. Instead, I challenge us to consider that our occupation with domestic politics often sidelines international concerns. This is not meant to devalue the importance of domestic policies and elections. However, Americans often use rhetoric that suggests using time, tax dollars, and resources to help the women of another country is wasteful. Even if one does not claim to ascribe to the “America First” ideological leanings, not caring about the femicide in Kenya contributes to the lack of international awareness prevalent throughout American media.

Cheptegei’s tragic death has not been getting the media attention it deserves because Americans are preoccupied with debates and elections. Candidates often suggest that it is time to address real issues that affect people globally. Cheptegei’s fate reflects a growing problem across the globe that should be addressed. Ignoring the situation because it occurred in a country that is not of primary importance to the U.S. further emphasizes an imperialist mindset, one that puts its own culture above all others globally. Giving the situation the time and attention it deserves does not mean the government initiates military involvement. But it’s time for us to acknowledge the situation and how greater public awareness can force unwilling actors to develop solutions.

Even though Cheptegei’s death may seem far detached from American life, these attitudes have historically allowed the disregard for human life to rise among our cultural frameworks.