Did sexism propel Donald Trump to power?
Enjoying this newsletter? Get it in your inbox every weekend, as well as our daily round-up of The Economist’s best journalism, by signing up for free here .
Hello from London,
I’ve just returned from watching a momentous week unfold in American—and world—affairs. Even in New York City, that redoubt of liberal cosmopolitans, the share of support for Donald Trump surged. Those who focus on the voting habits of various demographic groups can point to almost any category of voter—by education, ethnicity, geography, income or whatever—and see that the Republicans gained. Republicans also seem poised to retain control of the House , giving them full legislative control for at least two years. I can see only one tiny disappointment for Mr Trump: it appears that turnout dipped slightly lower than the 67% who voted in 2020.
Some ask if American voters are sexist. After all, the Democrats have now twice seen a woman candidate defeated by Mr Trump. I don’t buy it. Our article on the topic sets out why other explanations for Kamala Harris’s loss are more compelling. My hunch is that no incumbent candidate, of either sex, could have won this election: voters the world over are in a surly mood and mostly want to throw out the ruling bums. The surest way for the Democrats to have won in 2024? They should have lost the contest four years ago and thus run this time as the real candidate of change. (My guess is that in that counterfactual world, we would today have been writing about the success of president-elect Gretchen Whitmer.)
Why are voters everywhere so furious? We are living in an era of grouchiness. When the German election is held you will see the party of Chancellor Olaf Scholz badly thumped. In France, Emmanuel Macron gets to preside for a couple more years yet, but he will leave office in 2027 with voters’ insults ringing loudly in his ears. Already, in Britain, voters are cooling on the new government of Sir Keir Starmer, just months after Labour won a landslide victory.
The answer, I think, lies in trends that are common to all democracies. I look at the lingering effects of covid lockdowns and of previously high government spending that must now be rolled back. Voters see they are paying high taxes but their public services, too often, are falling to bits. They suffer prices that have surged for years and remain high (whatever official inflation rates might say), especially when you factor in the cost of renting or buying property, or paying for education. Wages may have risen too, but every individual believes he or she earned their pay rise. That will never make up for prices being high.
Add to that the uneasy feeling among many voters (maybe small-town ones especially, and perhaps men and older voters more) that the world is moving too fast. Cultural change, such as having to face new ideas of sexual identity, or how to talk about race, or about climate change, is deeply unsettling for some. All of the above can then be summed up in a simple idea, such as that immigrants, especially illegal ones, are to blame for everything. And who is to blame for letting in those foreigners? Why, the government of course.?
So, welcome to the era of grouchiness. It, too, may pass. Let’s hope so.
Once again, pollsters flopped . For the third presidential election in a row they underestimated support for Mr Trump. Polling companies know they have a problem: they can’t get enough of the people who support him to respond to their questions. Their answer had been to try clever ways of weighting poll results in his favour, but that’s harder to do than it sounds. As for those—such as The Economist—who build predictive models on the back of polls, there are evidently challenges, too. But predictions are incredibly hard to do well, and it’s all too obvious when they go wrong.
Adam Roberts, digital editor
Recommended reads
Most read by subscribers
Get full access to our journalism
Read three free articles each month on Economist.com —register for free . If you are not a subscriber, enjoy full access by subscribing here .
Industrial Engineer | Business Development, Operations Management, Life Insurance
3 天前9 millions more voted for Biden over Kamala, the convicted felon only gained 1 million more, so thanks to the undecided this next 4 years Final numbers: ?? 2024 : Trump 75 million Kamala 72 million 2020 : Trump 74 million Biden 81 million 2016 : Trump 63 million Hillary 66 million
Sachbearbeiter EDV
5 天前bla bla bla
Vacation planner - team outing & adventure activities
5 天前A change to bring a change to erase the hatred activities and to restore normalcy in the life of humanity should be the main cause of the mandate, rest of course are for the expected course of actions based on the performance of the incumbent team of governance
Experienced and Certified Project & Program Manager and Data Analyst. Certified GIS and Business Intelligence Analyst with a background in Geo-Environmental Engineering and Scientific / Technical Writing.
5 天前It blows me away that (just like 2016) more White women voted for Trump than the better alternative. This time Americans knowingly voted for a seditious sex offender and serial liar and fraudster! To be fair though, all of the American demographic groups marginally shifted for Trump, I think out of frustration with inflation in our economy, not realizing that the USA has done far better than other countries in the Post-Pandemic Inflationary cycle. I don't think Americans knew how they were better off than their global counterparts in EU and Asia. I just don't think people pay enough attention to Factual News instead of trolling the speculative garbage on Social Media.
President at David Ushko Professional Corporation
5 天前I do feel sexism and racism played a role, but not sure how big of a role. I do not feel these were the only factors. I agree being an incumbent seems to be very unpopular these days, not only in the US but throughout the world.