By Farida Jalalzai
Kamala Harris was a candidate of many firsts, including the first Black and South Asian woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee.
Her resounding, swift loss in the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump on Nov. 5, 2024, means many things to different people, including the fact that American voters are unable to break the glass ceiling and elect a woman as president.
Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Farida Jalalzai, a scholar of women political leaders and gender in politics, to better understand the significance of Harris’ defeat – and how the U.S. stands apart from other countries that have had female leaders.
Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
How important was Kamala Harris’ gender in her loss?
I can’t say it was a main reason she lost. But what I can say is it was a factor that contributed to her lack of support, especially when you compare her performance with Joe Biden’s in the same places and with almost all of the same voting groups he won in 2020. Gender was part of the campaign landscape in many different ways this election. Trump and his supporters used insulting tropes about what a woman leader would look like on the world stage. He used a lot of misogynistic and racist appeals in his campaign and tried to mobilize voters in ways that aimed to reinforce patriarchy.
What does Harris’ loss say about where gender equality stands in the country?
I am not surprised that the glass ceiling for women in politics is still super durable in the U.S. This is an example of the country’s limits of making true progress on women’s empowerment and equality. Of course, the fact that Harris was a woman of color vying to be the first woman president of the U.S. is pertinent.
Trump asserted that the country needs a strong man to lead. He portrayed Harris as a liberal extremist and generally got the message through that a woman would not be up to the job of president.
When Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first female vice presidential candidate nominated by a major party in 1984, there were a lot of questions about whether she would be tough enough on the world stage. Now, there are still questions about whether a woman would be tough enough to lead.
How does this election compare with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump?
In 2016, Hillary Clinton highlighted the historic nature of a woman running for president of the U.S. – and, of course, she received nearly 3 million votes more than he did, though she still lost the election. Harris was reluctant to mention the historic nature of her candidacy. She did not mention this when she gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2024. She recently explained this by saying, “Well, I’m clearly a woman. The point that most people really care about is can you do the job and do you have a plan to actually focus on them.”
Another important factor is Trump’s political trajectory. In 2016, Trump was still seen as an outlier and an extremist. Many political scientists – including myself – did not think he would receive the nomination, let alone win the general election that year. We see now that Trump is the new normal of the Republican Party. More moderate Republicans, such as Liz Cheney, are also not in power anymore. The party has become more extreme.
Is the country moving backward on gender equality, or is it stuck in neutral?
A few months ago, I would have said that the country is moving forward, but I feel like it’s moving backward now. That Trump’s sexist and racist messages resonated with a substantial number of people – or at least did not bother some enough – is a concern. Trump also said extreme things about women in 2016, including calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman.” This time around, these attacks seemed more normalized, saying that Harris was in a powerful political position only because she traded sexual favors, for example.
Matthew Hatcher/AFP via Getty Images
Women have led other countries. What makes the U.S. different?
The U.S. is a nuclear power and a major military and economic force. These realms are typically stereotyped by some as masculine. The president stands atop the U.S. political system and is directly elected. Women leaders often ascend through appointment as prime ministers in parliamentary systems. One of the vulnerabilities of prime ministers is that their terms in office are less secure. The traits deemed fitting for these roles – seeking compromise, for example – may prove less of a challenge to women than they would if they were seeking to be president of a powerful country like the U.S. on the world stage.
Only two women presidents in power in presidential systems were directly elected, and they are in Honduras and Mexico. The former is a former first lady, and the latter has strong ties to her predecessor. While women have been presidents of countries, several, such as the current presidents of Ethiopia, India and Greece, are essentially symbolic. Those positions are very different from the U.S. presidency, which has a more dominant role.
It is also pretty uncommon for a woman to be elected president in a presidential system without being a member of a powerful political family or without being supported by a male predecessor. When you look at Laura Chinchilla, the former president of Costa Rica, or former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, what connected a lot of these female politicians is that they were very much aided by male predecessors.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, had a wealth of political experience before she came to office in 2007, but she served immediately after her husband, Néstor Kirchner, was president.
There is a complexity to these cases, and a lot of these women brought in their own political credentials and experience. But there is still a tendency to have the additional demand that women in politics have these connections.
Farida Jalalzai is Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Sinan Wiese says
I think gender equality took a turn for the worse. It started with JD Vance’s Cat Lady remarried got progressively worse from there. The Party’s Platform or should I say Trump’s wish list demeans women throughout. Project 2025 will even be worse. If this digression continues, I fear for my Granddaughter’s future.
Kola says
Yep! Just keep believing the “fear” mongering Democrats. Trump just put a “woman” as his Chief of Staff. If the Democrats would just stick to the issues instead of calling people names they might have won. I’m so glad we won’t have to see men dressed as women lipsticked in Joe’s Cabinet.
JimboXYZ says
I was actually shocked that Harris didn’t stay true to “count every vote” like 2020. From the online vote counter, California never was indicated as anything more the 55% of the votes, Oregon & Washington +/- 75-80% precincts reported. OK, that doesn’t do anything much for EV differentials, but it sways the popular vote for appearances, whether she won, or in the case of under reporting to lose the popular vote. The battleground states, those were the 10’s & low 100’s of thousands of votes short in 2024, just like 2020 that was the driver behind the 4 day vote counting post-Tuesday. I was expecting to hear results for the election on Saturday, not the concession speech of Wednesday. And with 80+ days before anything has to be done for J20ish inauguration, fewer days for a J6ish deadline to certify results, I have the time, you have the time, we all have the time to “count every vote”. That was the premise that Biden-Harris was elected into power in 2020, California was reported at near complete vote reporting counts and the popular vote differential was CA & NY, lopsided 65/35 D:R vote ratios. No glass ceiling beyond elected or not for the win for POTUS ?
As we Thursday progressed. DOJ looks to end/close the lawfare vs Trump. All those untried cases disappear, to never be tried. And then there’s the backroom deal we are most likely more concerned with the Hunter Biden sentencing vs Trump Felony counts sentencing ? Pardon-fest ? Biden has 2 ways to pardon his son, Trump or Biden. The Harris loss eliminated Harris 3rd way to pardon Hunter Biden. The NY state case is going to be reversed one way or another for the lawfare it was. And what becomes of 2025-2028, DOJ investigations of Biden-Harris era ? They won’t be POTUS-VPOTUS by the end of the 3rd week of January 2025. As far as Biden trying to leverage a pardon for his son against Trump pardons isn’t that a application of how Hunter Biden served on the Burisma BOD when Biden was VPOTUS ? One of the very sources of offshore income & money laundering that created the IRS Tax Evasion case in the 1st place ? Categorize & file these as the glass ceilings & white privileges that the rest of us don’t get ? The nepotism & cronyism that have always existed.
YankeeExPat says
I an N.P.A. so excuse me if I am speaking
out of line, but the Dems needs to get some fresh thinking. By all means Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to retire from politics as she is out of touch with the constituency. She screwed Hillary Clinton with horrible advice, and now has done the same for Kamala Harris.ris.
Brian Chrestoff says
You are absolutely correct YEP. The pathetic attempts by the Left to pretend Harris lost because of racism, misogyny, sexism or (roll the drums) a “glass ceiling” are embarrassing. Harris lost because she ran a horrible campaign. She was handed nothing but softball questions by her media allies. When a host of The View asked her “is there anything you plan to do differently than President Biden”? She said “No…..not really” Lester Holt of NBC asked her twice if SHE planned to go visit the border and admitted she had not been there but added “I haven’t been to Europe” ….”I don’t understand the point you are trying to make”. Say what? You don’t understand the point of the Lester’s question? Ms. Harris surely did understand the point of the question but felt she would get cover from her admirers in the media and get away with this non-answer. When black cast members on Saturday Night Live make fun of your non-answers during interviews you know you are in trouble.
BMW says
At some point competency has to be a factor. Meanwhile, we now have the first female Chief of Staff ever to rule the White House. You can label a male the most egregious of names, question their mental faculties, refer to their physique – but, a woman gets a pass because of her gender or racial makeup? This is the type of divisive commentary the American people just rejected in a major way. Keep peddling the bull because goodness knows there are no other note worthy items to share for the common good.
dave says
Why Harris lost has zip to do with her gender. It falls on Bidens not accepting the fact that he should not have run for -reelection, which would have given the party and chance to find candidates that could have beaten Trump.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
In 2020, Tlaib won in Michigan with 223,205 votes and Biden won with 2,804,040 votes, with 70.5% of the voting age population voting (7,914,600 were of voting age, as per michigan.gov data)
In 2024, Tlaib won in Michigan with 253,188 votes and Kamala lost with 2,720,831 votes, with 70.7% of the voting age population voting (2023 census: 7,925,350 are of voting age)
So more people voted in Michigan in 2024, Harris lost by a greater *number* of votes than Biden won with, and Tlaib got not only more votes this cycle but 4.5% of the votes by voting age population compared to 4% in 2020.
Rashida Tlaib is a woman, of Palestinian descent, and has been openly critical of both Trump and Biden while in office. She wants Israel aid to end, she’s been censured over October 7th statements, and supports openly many, many views of people on the left. Left, not democrat. So this isn’t about gender, this is about messaging and what democrats actually deliver.
Steven Nobile says
I wish I could have been there to debate this election with you Pierre. LOL
Pierre Tristam says
We miss you here Steven.
Kevin says
She lost because the American people were burdened with, what has been….. period
Robert says
Something just doesn’t add up.
DaleL says
The Atlantic has an excellent article titled: “Blame Biden”. Joe Biden left the Harris candidacy (campaign) at a huge disadvantage. Biden and his aides, in 2020, messaged that because of his age, he would be a one term president. Surprise, surprise when in 2023, he ran for reelection. As a result, the Democrats, out of deference to Biden, did not have a real primary. Then in early 2024, as comedian Jon Stewart (Comedy Central, Daily Show) observed, it became obvious that something was amiss with Biden. This continued to be denied until his disastrous debate with Trump. Biden then waited for a MONTH before dropping out. He sabotaged the Democratic Party primary process, which might have produced a stronger candidate than Kamala Harris, and he cut a month off her campaign time.
In addition, the Biden administration was notably slow and ineffectual. How many times did Biden announce that a ceasefire was imminent in Gaza? Three years into his presidency, Democrats tried to get a bipartisan border bill passed. Why didn’t they do it in the first two years when they had control of the house and barely the senate? Instead there was the American Rescue Plan, passed in early 2021, which stimulated inflation more than economic growth. Investigations and prosecutions of Mr. Trump proceeded at a snail’s pace. Biden kept pushing college student loan forgiveness. Had he had his way he would have added nearly 1/2 trillion dollars to the future US deficit. The courts cut him back to only 173 billion or so dollars.
The question now is whether Mr. Trump and Republicans can do an even worse job of governing so much so that Democrats win in two years.
joe says
It’s really beyond some of the details of the campaign – the bigger issue and bottom line:
“What deserves the lion’s share of our attention are the facts that a major political party could have even considered nominating Trump despite his manifest criminality, moral depravity, psychological derangement, and cognitive deficiencies and deterioration—and that nearly half the country would have voted for him no matter what he did or said and no matter whom he had run against.
That was the ultimate problem in this election, and remains so. We suffer from a deep sickness in our national polity. Far above all else, before it’s too late, thoughtful Americans of good faith must work together to confront, to better comprehend, and to ultimately address that grave and metastasizing ailment if our great experiment in self-governance is to survive. Scapegoating and blame-assigning about anything else serves no end but to diminish our chances of overcoming our profound national moral crisis.”
– George Conway
Pogo says
@joe
By God, thank you.
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+maher+and+michael+douglas
Atwp says
She lost the election by a big landslide. I think she lost because she had very little time to prepare, but she accepted the offer. In 2016 the people said they didn’t want another Bush or Clinton, we know what the results were. If the the people didn’t want a Clinton woman, they didn’t change their minds, they didn’t want a woman to lead the country. Here we are. Do we seriously think they would vote for a woman of color, we should face reality about this country. We got the message loud and clear this time. We as Democrats need to look at the victories we have and build on those victories. These victories can increase if we elect the right candidates to run for office. We should concentrate on the little elections across the state and country. I think we need to start building from the bottom up. Speak the message the people want to hear, get good winning candidates, mostly white, don’t like saying that but I must face reality, look at the politicians in our city, most if not all are caucasions. In my conclusion the Democratic Party need elect a popular white male to run for President in 2028. By the way, the only candidates Trump defeated were women, something to think about.