For years I have been told, pretty convincingly, by experts on the subject, that the partisan gender gap has little to do with the gender of the candidates. That is to say, women voters are more likely than men are to vote for the Democratic candidate—by about 10 percentage points, give or take—regardless of whether it’s a Jane or a Joe on either line of the ballot. They’re voting for the party, not the candidate’s sex.
I’m convinced that the theory is pretty much true at most levels—but I’m not sure whether it’s going to be true in the current election for the potential first woman President. And I’m not sure whether the gap might be bigger than usual or smaller—or which of those scenarios would mean victory for which party.
I am lost, and hoping that post-debate polls might begin to guide my way, so let me walk you through my confusion.
We’ve had only one previous test at the Presidential level, of course. The gap was 11 points when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, according to exit polls; that was just a point higher than in 2012 and a point lower than in 2020. According to other research, however, the gender gap shrunk a bit in 2020.
And where is it now? Good question! A whopping 14 points, according to last weekend’s attention-grabbing New York Times/Siena poll, which showed that 53 percent of women support Harris, but just 39 percent of men do. Or 12, in an Activote poll. But just six if you believe a YouGov/Economist poll, in which Harris receives 48 percent support among women and 42 percent among men. A Harris poll had a mere two-point gap. All of these were taken over roughly the same time frames early this month, and had overall results within a point or two of even. But quite different gender gaps.
And then there are the individual battleground states, where, as you might have heard, everything will be decided. I saw a Michigan poll today in which Harris leads Trump 56-36 among women, and Trump leads her 60-37 among men. That works out to a massive 19 percent gender gap, and a 47-47 tie overall.
An important thing to remember is that the gender gap can be as much or more about how men vote than about women. I remember this, because I was reminded by Meredith Conroy, political science professor at California State University, San Bernardino and researcher at the Geena Davis Institute on Gender In Media.
“The gender gap will be bigger than it would have been with Biden,” Conroy says, “because of men.” Biden ran just about even with male voters across races, according to a Pew analysis, which was quite a bit better than Clinton did with them. Harris appears to be having trouble with men, at least in some polls, even as women who were shaky on Biden come around to her.
“Hillary was the first cycle when you started to see that attitudes toward women were a predictor for vote choice,” Conroy says. That suggests that, at the highest level, a woman candidate threatens men in a way that turns them to vote the other party.
And Conroy points out that Clinton won with white women in 2016, but Donald Trump won with them four years later. Today, it appears that Harris is in position to win them. What accounts for this Clinton/Trump/Harris voting pattern if not the pull of gender identity?
Actually, it might not be women changing their partisan choice, but wavering in their enthusiasm. New polling suggests that women planning to vote for Harris report being more eager to cast that vote if reminded of the historic aspect of her gender.
So, maybe it’s all about turnout, as I’ve heard somewhere before. Midterm data suggests that the gender gap was lower in 2022 than in 2018, not so much because men and women acted very differently once at the polls, but because Democratic women were so juiced to come vote against Republicans during the Trump administration, and less so in the Biden years.
Then there’s my personal theory regarding Hillary Clinton: that her potential to be the first women President was less motivating for some men and women, because she was seen as getting there by virtue of marriage. I’m not saying it’s fair—gender views seldom are in the real world. I just suspect that it was.
Conroy points out that Harris too has this potential obstacle of legitimacy, stemming from the unusual, abrupt, primary-skipping way that she gained the nomination.
This led Conroy to an observation related to her work at the Geena Davis Institute: a lot of fictional first women Presidents in media are depicted with similar legitimacy issues in their path to that ultimate seat of power.
Davis herself once played such a character on Commander in Chief, gaining the title position when the elected President drops dead. Scandal similarly had the male President assassinated. Selina Meyer on Veep gets there via resignation. None directly elected.
This really got me thinking. I recall a woman President in 24, who I believe was duly elected; although she turned out to be bad and resigned in disgrace, so not an ideal example. Robin Wright’s character on House of Cards manipulated her way illegitimately into both the Vice Presidency and the Presidency, if I recall correctly. And I know that Lisa Simpson becomes President, but is not the first woman President.
This turns out to be a fun diversion while waiting for some post-debate polling to offer some clues to the real-life 2024 gender gap. Can you think of other media depictions of first women U.S. Presidents? Did they obtain the job through direct, earned election? And did they complete their term without resigning? I prefer fiction these days anyway most of the time.
What, David, is the gender agreement or gap in age cohorts for women & men? Will Taylor Swift move younger (than I!) fans to vote and vote for Harris? Are some women polled fearful of saying they’ll vote for Harris is a male partner or parents are Trump voters? Will we know much before the Electoral College votes are certified? Thanks.
Really helpful piece and Conroy is terrific on the gender gap. Highly recommend her stack. I'd add that abortion is an issue in 2024 in a way that it was not in 2016 or 2020. HRC could suggest that electing Trump would affect SCOTUS appointments but that was not controlling for voters. With the overturn of Roe and attention on miscarriage, abortion, and birth control, one would expect to see women support the candidate who is leaning in hard on reproductive choice.