By Adam Eichen, Jesse Rhodes and Tatishe Nteta
Since President Joe Biden exited the presidential race on July 21, 2024, and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, Harris’ campaign has generated widespread enthusiasm and attention. She quickly became the official Democratic presidential nominee and erased Donald Trump’s lead over Biden in national and swing-state polling.
Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have also drawn tens of thousands of supporters to their recent rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada.
Although things could change dramatically over the next two-plus months, there is a real possibility that the United States may finally elect its first female president.
But in polling that we conducted in August 2024, after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, we found that sexism is still a powerful force in American politics.
Hope and change?
Yes, the scars of the 2016 campaign – in which sexism played a key role in Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Trump – are still fresh for Democrats. But many hope that America has changed and has become more accepting of women in leadership roles.
Harris’ gender, this argument goes, won’t be a significant deterrent for voters.
On the surface, our recent nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults supports this, with 51% of Americans agreeing with the statement: “America is ready for its first African American female president.” Only 23% of Americans disagreed.
Even so, some Republicans appear to think they can win by making gender an issue in the campaign. This is apparent in the sexist rhetoric that Trump and other Republicans are using when talking about Harris.
Trump, who has a history of making sexist statements, asserted that foreign leaders would regard Harris as a “play toy,” referred to her as unintelligent, and is now commenting on her appearance. Both The Associated Press and The New York Times have reported – based on unnamed sources – that Trump has also called Harris a “bitch” in private, although Trump’s spokesman denied he used that term.
In a similar sexist vein, Trump allies have attempted to turn Harris’ past romantic relationships into campaign issues, with one conservative commentator on Fox Business News crudely labeling Harris the “original hawk tuah girl,” an obscene sexual reference.
Will such attempts to exploit sexism as an electoral strategy backfire? Or, after all these years, might it still be out of reach for a woman to overcome sexist stereotypes and win the highest office in the United States?
Understanding the importance of sexism
We are political scientists who study the role of identity in American politics and who conduct polls that explore Americans’ views on gender and the extent to which sexism still pervades the nation.
We conducted two national polls this year – one in January 2024 when Biden was still in the race, and the other in August 2024, after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. For each poll, we surveyed 1,000 American adults 18 and older and asked about their thoughts on the election, their policy views and their attitudes toward various groups in society.
With the change at the top of the Democratic ticket, we can better assess the impact of sexism on vote choice in the presidential election by comparing the results from January, when the race featured two male candidates, with August, when Harris entered the race.
In both surveys, we first asked respondents which candidate they would vote for if the presidential election were held today.
To measure sexism, we then asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of three statements that express prejudice, resentment and animus toward women, or what political scientists call “hostile sexism.” The statements in the “hostile sexism” battery are: “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men”; “Women are too easily offended”; and “Women exaggerate problems they have at work.” Greater agreement with these statements indicated more sexist views.
We also measured respondents’ demographics – including age, gender, race, education and income – their political attitudes and identities, and their racial views.
Sexism mattered, even when Biden was in the race
Due in part to Trump’s sexist rhetoric throughout his campaigns and presidency, sexist attitudes have become closely linked with whom individuals support for president. On average, more sexist individuals have tended to prefer Republican candidates in recent elections.
Thus, even in our January poll when Biden was the Democratic nominee, sexism was strongly correlated with support for Trump. When we examined a head-to-head matchup between Biden and Trump, the more individuals agreed with the statements measuring hostile sexism, the more likely they were to prefer Trump over Biden.
Of those who most strongly disagreed with the statements measuring hostile sexism, 73% supported Biden, while approximately two-thirds of those scoring highest on the sexism scale supported Trump.
Taking into consideration other factors that influence support for Biden – partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, education, economic views and so forth – we found that those with the least sexist views had an 83% chance of supporting Biden, while those with the most sexist views had a 17% chance of doing so.
Westend61/Getty Images
With Harris, sexism matters more
If sexism depressed individuals’ support for Biden’s candidacy, does that mean Harris faces no additional penalty in terms of lost support for her candidacy? Hardly.
Hostile sexism, as we measured it, costs Harris votes.
While sexism mattered in January, it mattered more in August once Harris had taken over the Democratic ticket.
In a head-to-head matchup between Harris and Trump, 89% of those in the lowest third on the sexism scale – meaning those who disagreed most with the statements measuring hostile sexism – support Harris compared with 11% for Trump. On the other hand, only 18% of those scoring highest on sexism support Harris, versus 82% for Trump.
When we take into account other considerations that influence whether individuals prefer Harris or Trump, our findings are even more striking. The least sexist respondents have a 92% chance of saying they will vote for Harris. But the most sexist respondents have only a 4% chance of supporting her.
What this means is that, while sexist attitudes influenced individuals’ presidential preferences when Biden was the Democratic presidential nominee, they have a greater effect now that Harris is the Democratic candidate.
Without sexism
Since Harris seems to be narrowly leading Trump in the polls, why should we care about the influence of hostile sexism in the election?
To answer this question, imagine a world in which hostile sexism doesn’t influence attitudes toward presidential candidates who are women. Our findings imply that, in such a world, Harris’ lead over Trump might be larger. Put simply, hostile sexism is helping to make the election closer than it would otherwise be.
Sexism has long played a powerful role in influencing Americans’ voting behavior and attitudes toward political issues. This is especially so today, given the high political importance of gender-related issues such as abortion, contraception and LGBTQ+ rights.
Our analysis shows that people with negative attitudes toward women are much less likely to support Harris for president. Whether the Harris campaign can successfully navigate this reality is still to be determined.
Adam Eichen is a doctoral researcher in Political Science, Jesse Rhodes is Associate Professor in Political Science and Tatishe Nteta is Provost Professor of Political Science and Director of the UMass Amherst Poll, all at UMass Amherst.
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.
Nancy N. says
Trump – and anyone who would take his statements about the attitudes of foreign leaders seriously – seems to be forgetting something about foreign leaders: We are one of an ever-vanishing few Western nations that has yet to have a female leader. It’s beginning to be embarrassing. It makes it hard to have any gravitas on the world stage advocating for human rights for women when presidential candidates are being given the kindergarten “ewww, she’s a GIRL” treatment. Grow up already, America.
Feddy says
Nancy I do agree with some of your statement but to but a female or a select group in a position just to say we did is not the answer. Who is best qualified for a position that’s the number 1 factor, now you have 2 equally qualified people and 1 is a female other is a male and the decision was made to go with the female instead of a white male then that’s great and it’s fair but to already pre-determine that you need to select someone in advance because of their sex is considered sexism. Remember when Biden selected his supreme court nomination and he came out and said he was going to select a black female even before the process started, that was wrong on every level. Even if that was his intention, he should of kept quiet and just selected her then celebrated it but he gave the optics that he didn’t care about the best, most qualified for the position, he chose to fill a quota. I have no problem voting for, selecting a female Canidate as long as that’s the best choice.
JimboXYZ says
Democrats hitching & circling back the wagons to racism & sexism, like they always do. Inflation knows no skin color & gender. We all go into the same grocery store for self checkout station or pull up to the same gasoline pumps. None of us get asked what race or gender we are. We’ve heard Harris before in a brief run for POTUS in 2020, she was Joe Biden before she was Kamala Harris. Then she laid it on thick for being that little girl in the 1970’s that was bussed to school. Think about it, most kids as students get bussed to school regardless of their race or gender. I know I rode the bus to school every day K-12. Exception was 6th grade, we lived too close to the school, so I had to ride a bicycle every day, in sickness & in health, until a relative graduation sent me to the next non-air conditioned school in Volusia County. Good enough for me, good enough for everyone.
Joe D says
For Jimbo:
You have a distorted memory of the term “Bussed.” It had NOTHING to do with taking a bus to school or not…that had been done for DECADES.
Harris wasn’t referring to the fact that she had to take a school bus to school, she was talking about the fact that she had to be bussed to an “out of zone” school, because at the time most schools there were either predominantly “White” OR were predominantly “Black.” The “bussing” Harris is referring to was the government’s attempts to integrate public schools, not based on where you lived (back then, there were mostly “white” neighborhoods with high resource zoned schools, and “black” neighborhoods, with less well funded zone schools).
Bussing was the attempt to “even out” the racial balance of public schools, so where you LIVED didn’t determine the quality of public education you received.
The process, unfortunately had children criss-crossing counties on buses for HOURS daily going to distant schools to ensure a racial balance. There was no longer Community “Ownership” of the neighborhood school. Your neighbor’s children might be assigned to a different school than your children. It was also EXPENSIVE!
It was so disruptive, that within a few years they abandoned this “Bussing” practice.
And as an aside: the Democrats have no control (yet) of what food producers and grocery chains charge you. The food industry SAID the price increases were due to labor cost increases/transportation costs, and supply chain issues….however, once the companies subtracted those cost increases out of their profits, they still had the HIGHEST LEVELS of NET PROFITS …higher than BEFORE the pandemic ( remember from 5th grade…Net Profit was what you kept AFTER you took off all your expenses). The grocery stores are GOUGING the American Consumers…because they CAN…and they think people won’t notice it.
Gas prices are under the control of oil suppliers. US oil producers ( not the government) are cutting back production to keep the supply short, and your prices high.
OPEC+ (Arab oil producers and RUSSIA) are cutting back oil (gas) production so companies can jack up the price of crude oil…the US government has no control over gas production (prices) for the US customer, except to periodically release some oil from the National Emergency Oil Reserve Stockpiles…which you can’t do FOREVER. And while I’m on the subject of energy prices, Republicans in general have been anti-solar power/ anti-wind power /anti-electric vehicle programs, because US BIG OIL wants to keep us buying from THEM, instead of looking for cleaner energy alternatives.
Feddy says
Great post and after reading and thinking when I lived in Jacksonville the high schools does something in the same line with magnet schools. My neighbor has 4 children and they all went to separate high schools throughout the city. Their children were very smart and all the different schools they went to were all in some seedy parts of town and had to travel far and also switch busses. This was a demographic game being played to raise the school district scores throughout Duval county.
Laurel says
Thank you again, Joe D. I can tell you that in the early 80’s, I was a substitute teacher in Broward County, for a year or so. The difference between the older predominately black school I worked at, and the brand, new, wealthy, subdivision predominately white school I worked at, was dramatic. The white kids had a completely different, upbeat attitude, whereas the black kids were a bit hopeless, some of them, not all. The new school, obviously, was fresh, bright and new, and fully equipped while the black school certainly was not. New or old build, this is not acceptable. The black school had good, caring teachers, but the building and equipment was not keeping up. As I recall, it was the white parents who complained about bussing the most.
As for the food, it is clearly gouging. Blaming it on Democrats is absurd. People may be surprised what the long time locals in the Hammock know, but they know that they are being gouged here because the few food stores, big and small, are catering to the vacationers, of which there are way too may. The vacation rentals have disrupted our Hammock lifestyle. Now our peaceful quiet area, with a church that practiced the carillon on Saturday mornings, is nothing but noise, on even weekdays. Constant building, the cracking of oak branches on trees coming down, and noisy vacationers with dogs running loose.
It’s all about money for a few.
Ed P says
Average publicly traded grocery chains net profit is 1.5-2.5 % of gross sales with 2.2% as an industry average. That doesn’t really tell us that gouging is a problem. Farmers and wholesalers are making even less, just north of 1.5 %.
Regional banking nets 30%. Average of 7.7 % across all industries in the US.
Price controls will lead to shortages and higher prices. No for profit business is going to operate at a deficit, they would shift industries or cease operations.
If you are following Ray W you know the oil industry is very complex.
Finally, basic economics tells us that even an oligopoly has difficulty in setting prices or has the ability to gouge.
Laurel says
EdP: Oh, it’s gouging alright. Take into consideration that big corporations are merging, and they are price setting, which is illegal. Kroger is trying to buy Albertsons, and the government is trying to stop the merger. There are companies that help these corporations to communicate with each other on pricing. These mergers are common practice, where the competition is getting smaller and smaller.
Corporations and investment groups are also buying up houses and apartment buildings, all across the country, raising rents and price fixing amongst themselves, causing unaffordable housing for average Americans. This, too, is being investigated.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
Try buying a computer, any besides Apple, and what operation system interface is on it?
The inflation rate is just under 3%. A scrawny, little herb, grown here in Florida, sells at Lowe’s for $9.98.
Ed P says
The Sherman Act of 1890 has only been used twice, once to break up Standard Oil as well as The American Tobacco company in 1911 and AT&T in 1984.
Proving antitrust and price setting must be difficult.
If big Pharma is not seen as gougers, I reassert that our grocery chains are innocent as well.
Also as consumers, we have choices. Those choices are the key to market forces keeping chains from price fixing.
Given on line retailers along with brick and mortar outlets, it would be next to impossible to gain a monopolistic position today.
We all know that excessive government spending (too much money chasing too few goods) along with the influx of 10,000,000 “new” mouths to feed is the real reason for inflation and higher prices.
All the billions of dollars being spent on illegals is hitting the retail markets. Those dollars are being drained from other programs like infrastructure that do not normally drive up prices for consumer everyday items.
Covid and open borders were the perfect storm.
Dennis C Rathsam says
You want to talk about GOUGE!!!!!!!! Yesterday in Publix, I saw Miami Burgers, that I normally by in Winn Dixie for $ 9.99oo In Publix, the same identical burgers were $ 15.oo! TALK ABOUT A RIPP OFF!
BillC says
The exact quote: “Kamala Harris — she’s the original ‘Hawk Tuah’ girl — that’s the way she got where she is.”
“Hawk Tuah” is a vile degrading term for oral sex. Just when you think the MAGA crowd has hit rock bottom they sink even lower. What a disgraceful, negative “campaign strategy”. Somebody please open the windows and let some fresh air in!
Laurel says
This race will be a perfect example how a female must work harder, be smarter, be better than her male opponent, simply to break even. Yes, clearly sexism stupidly still exists, but on the bright side, at least Hillary Clinton garnered the popular vote.
OMG! I watched both Michele Obama, and Barack Obama, speak last night! Oh, how I miss them! Anyone who is on the fence, or even on the opposition side of the fence, should listen to those speeches. Both talked and had so much to say. I’m a pretty tough cookie, but my eyes teared up and my heart loosened up. To listen to sanity again! Positive, intelligent, meaningful speeches. Then, I think about Trump and Vance, and hope disintegrates. Trump will spend an hour and a half blabbering on like a fool in a strait jacket about nothing and himself. He is clearly sexist “…and blood coming out of her wherever.” Vance is a socially awkward plant, who loves to insult women, telling them the only value they have after menopause. My God! They cannot be our future. Our children deserve so much better than that. We all deserve much better than that.
Socially, we are made up of a variety of humans, and we should celebrate the positive and push away the negative. If you put one candidate behind door number one, and the other behind door number two, and you didn’t know their gender or their political party, who would you vote for after each made a speech? I’m going with intelligent sanity, not baby shit, divisive babble.
Feddy says
I totally agree with your comment “Socially, we are made up of a variety of humans, and we should celebrate the positive and push away the negative”. As far as putting them behind a door I agree with that also. If we did not know who was being interviewed for a job and all you had was a number to identify them and they were hired only on qualification and skill and apply the same to politics do you think that would eliminate the accusations of racism and sexism? Honest question.
Laurel says
Feddy: Yes. Names would also have to be removed, as ethnic sounding names would have an effect. There are all kinds of biases. We hire tall men over short men. We hire handsome men over average looking men.
I was once hired for a technical job because the male supervisor thought women were better than men at tech jobs (he told me so).
I once lost a bartending job to a woman nicknamed “Boom Boom.”
We cannot remove prejudgement from everyone, but the masses are evolving, and they like discrimination less and less. Thank goodness. I am now seeing more young women in “handyman” jobs.
Jackson says
How can we be stupid enough to have Donald Trump on the ballot? He should have been found guilty in either impeachment, and prevented from running!
Dennis C Rathsam says
How STUPIT are all of you????? In the last 30 days, Flip Flop Harris has yet to form a plan to fix the economy that she helped destroy. Not one press conference! No plans, just keep hiding. She stole TRUMPS no tip tax, & the child credit. Soon she,ll come out with TRUMPS no tax on SS! This woman is not qualified to be president! Remember the 13 killed in Afganistan???? She was the last person in the room with Biden…..She agreed. Remember the so called Inflation reduction Act? She was the deciding vote! After that prices started to clime, & clime. Her only job, that Biden gave her was BORDER CZAR. She failed miserably at it, so bad, now the Dems are trying to rewrite history saying she never was the Border Czar!!!! MORE BULLSHIT! I saw & herd Biden say it on national TV! Wheres she gonna get all the money she plans to give away to her invaders, for housing?& her other socialist plans????? Where, right out of your wallet.
Sherry says
Fox Business News crudely labeling Harris the “original hawk tuah girl,” an obscene sexual reference.
FOX. . . the most watched station by far right extremists= Disgusting, Filthy, Low Life, Depraved, Vile! You don’t agree, Republicans? Just click on that link in the article and watch the clip. Since I am a “decent” human being. . . I had to look up what “hawk tuah” means. . . you should too!
Ya’ll love this kind of FOX filth? Nothing bleeped, they just let it go on the air! This explains so much!
Hank says
Please tell me how saying someone is incompetent, regardless of how they identify, is “sexism”. Please try to answer without saying Trump or Kamala.
Sherry says
@hank. . . did you even read the article at all? Saying that anyone got where they are in their careers because they performed sexual favors is “SEXISM” full stop!!! Geez! FOX and Republicans have gone way beyond the word “incompetent”!
Nancy N. says
It’s coded language. It’s a charge leveled at female candidates over and over, even when they are ridiculously more qualified than their opponent. What it really means is that they don’t fit the masculine image society has created for the role. (But of course, if they do have masculine qualities, then they are crucified for that, too, for not being feminine enough.) Think about the attacks leveled on the last two female candidates on the national ticket…she’s bitchy, she’s too serious, she can’t control her husband, she never smiles, she laughs too much, she doesn’t have kids, she dated powerful people…all of these are attacks that hinge on the candidate’s womanhood and an acceptable definition of it. It’s a trap…because if you meet the definition of womanhood, then you fail the serious image for the role test. But if you meet the serious image for the role, then you fail the womanhood test and are still unelectable.
Laurel says
Nancy N.: Yes, well said. Many time in my life, I have seen men dumber than rocks promoted.
So, before someone jumps all over my statement, I am for the most qualified. On one job, I did beat out two, good men for a position. I was more qualified, and the male director chose me. When an advancement came up, a man beat me out. He was more qualified for that particular position, and we got along very well and worked well together. However, you must admit, you’ve seen many men promoted who were not the best fit too. Many.
Sherry says
Hi Laurel,
In the 1970’s when I first went to work for Prudential Insurance. . . their human resources officer actually told me point blank “you will find that men get paid MORE for the jobs that you will be doing, they will also be promoted BEFORE you. . . that is because they are the BREAD WINNERS”. I even had to sign a form saying that “I received this information”!
Talk about gender discrimination. . . it was Prudential’s Official Company Policy in the 1970’s!
Ray W. says
That type of thinking might be referred to a status quo thought; it is not reason based upon intellectual rigor. As I used to tell young assistant public defenders: If you learn by watching older attorneys in court, pretty soon you will be practicing their custom, not law. Look it up every time.
Laurel says
Sherry: Oh, I know. To this day, the guys place pictures of the wife and of the kids on their desks and turn them outward for all to see, as if they are the only one who must support a family. These days, it takes two, and in many cases, the women are raising the kids alone.
I’ve heard the same comments, but no company was stupid enough to have me sign a document!
I remember going to Kmart, in the late 70’s, early 80’s (don’t recall exactly) and pulled out my Discover charge card for a sale, and was questioned as to where my husband was. The cashier, a woman, was about to turn my charge down. I stated I was not married, and why the hell would it matter? She thought about it, realizing how that sounded, and proceeded to check me through.
I’m not going back!
Sherry says
Right on Laurel! “We’re NOT Going Back”!
Laurel says
times
I seem to have an issue with plurals on this site!
No Political Affiliation says
“I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” -Donald J. Trump
Gets convicted of rape.
***Conservatives sleep***
“They’re weird.” -Kamala Harris
There is no other headline to go along with this.
*** CONSERVATIVE NUCLEAR RAGE ACTIVATED***