Was 2024 the Gender Gap Election?
Men and women vote differently, but 2024's gender gap was far from unique.

The lead-up to the 2024 election seemed to portend a historic gender gap in the results, with women assumed to swing heavily to Harris while men would leap to Trump.
"Heightened concerns about reproductive rights, ignited by the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, kickstarted a widening of the gender gap as women flocked to support Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections," reads one Politico analysis released in August. "The current presidential matchup—featuring the vice president's historic candidacy and Donald Trump, who is viewed very unfavorably by women—appears to be supercharging this trend."
"It's the battle of the sexes and it's no game," Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement last month. "There is a glaring gap in Michigan and Wisconsin between the number of women supporting Harris and the number of men supporting Trump. On November 5th, it will all come down to who shows up."
One Harris ad encouraged women to vote Democratic in defiance of their Republican husbands.
"In the one place in America women still have the right to choose, you can vote any way you want and no one will ever know," Julia Roberts narrates over footage of a woman—in a rhinestone-encrusted American flag baseball cap no less—hovering her pen over the Trump box on her ballot, before locking eyes with another woman and filling in the bubble for Harris.
However, exit polls indicate that the predictions of an unprecedented gender divide didn't come to fruition. Yes, there was a large gap in how men and women voted, but it was a similar divide to that seen in previous elections. According to CNN's exit poll, there was around a 10-point gender gap between men and women voting for Trump, with 42 percent of men and 53 percent of women voting for Harris while 55 percent of men and 45 percent of women voted for Trump. But these numbers aren't shocking.
The gap was larger for Latino and black voters than it was for white voters. Sixty percent of white men and 53 percent of white women voted for Trump. Meanwhile, there was a 14-point gap in black men's and women's support for Harris, with 21 percent of black men and 7 percent of black women voting for Trump. Latino voters had a 17-point gender gap, with 55 percent of Latino men and 38 percent of Latina women supporting Trump.
But while there is certainly a gulf between the candidates preferred by men and women, these numbers are hardly unprecedented. In 2020, exit polls found a gender gap between men and women's votes of between 9 and 12 percentage point. In 2016, polls found a roughly 8- to-11-point gap.
Even if men and women voted for Democrats and Republicans at roughly the same proportions as they have for the past several elections, it is hard to miss the gendered messages each campaign sent out.
While the Harris team aired cringeworthy ads depicting working-class men declaring that they're man enough to "support women," cry at movies, and "not ban young women from reading Little Women," Vice President-elect J.D. Vance made one of the most well-known gaffes of the election season when footage emerged of him griping about "childless cat ladies."
In their rhetoric, the Democrats are incredibly becoming a party interested in appealing primarily to women, while Republicans are shifting their messaging to broadly appeal to men. However, this strategy doesn't seem to have massively expanded existing gender gaps.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Conservative women eschewed post wall childless cat ladies and celebutardettes and voted for sometime to point the nation in s better direction for their children.
A young neo Marxist hipster like Little Emma doesn’t understand making decisions to look out for one’s offspring.
That is what government is for!
Perhaps valid Hollywood starlets are not the best people to listen to in regards to healthy relationships.
The question here is what happens when the younger (less votey) generations start voting en masse. Will the current trend of millennial and gen z women going extremely left reverse itself as those women grow up, or will the gender gap grow as the more moderate boomers die out?
Yeah I don't think we'll ever fully appreciate just how wrong JD Vance was about childless cat ladies. It was an Allepo moment that destroyed any hope of Trump returning to the white house. History will judge him harshly.
What's a leppo?
Am I the only one who thinks exit polls are mostly horseshit?
Polling is an inexact science though not as bad as say gender transitions or main stream medical’s response to covid. The betting sites looked to be more reliable than polls.
Yes. But I'm speaking exit polls in particular, the number of ways you can go wrong.
a) People willing to talk to someone after voting is probably going to be an unrepresentative sample of the electorate.
b) The responses people give will probably be heavily influenced by the identity of the person asking the question.
c) No matter what question you ask in a poll, there tends to be about 10% who will give a garbage answer just for the lulz.
d) There's no transparency to the behind the scenes machinations that are necessary to make any sense at all of the data.
So when the county with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters in the country goes for Trump, that is an actual sign of something. Exit polls not so much, I think.
There's a bit of talking past each other here.
In terms of cost or even (perceived) ROI, most-to-least:
1) Gambling prediction markets
2) Predictive polls
3) Exit polls
Even when Ann Selzer hits herself over the head with a bag of hammers and publishes an poll showing a 15-point jump for Harris in a historically red state, she still has to live with the self-inflicted brain damage.
Nobody's ever going to go back to an exit poll or pollster and say, "Hey! You didn't represent my opinion correctly!"
I've never had anybody ask me questions when I leave the polling location. This time I brought my kid and wore my "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" shirt. Have a feeling they wouldn't have wanted to poll me.
By my reckoning, there's no meaningful interpretation to be had from raw exit poll data in the immediate aftermath of an election.
Really have to wonder if the polls are telling the organizations who hire the what the want to hear or if they are trying to manipulate tge electorate by making the Dems look more popular than they really are.
You do?
[shakes Magic 8-ball]
"All Signs Point To Yes"
Raw exit poll data is garbage. Past elections indicate it takes about 5 months of cross-referencing, data-crunching, post election surveying and polling and miscellaneous political science magic to produce a in-the-ballpark semi-reliable picture of how, where and why people voted.
The assumption is that Democrats are appealing to "women " by providing radical feminist messaging, which is not univeraslling appealing to women. Unfortunately, the Dems seem to think women who don't support Critical Theory feminism are suffering from false consciousness, hence those truly insulting ads. Outside of Leftist academic theory, men and women are not generally in an adversarial relationships, which explains the statistical voting patterns of married women relative to single women. The Dems are not going to change until their thinking is less influenced by their radical academics.
Good luck waiting for that.. Even suggesting such will cause screeches about so-called "anti-intellectualism" and "isms" etc etc. By design they have created a narrative that self insulates itself from any and all open doubt or questioning. To even keep an open mind about something decreed, is treated as an act of war.
Maybe.
Democrats want, above all, to win. They will promote, or abandon, anything that will advance their desire for power, including wacko faculty lounge ideas.
I think this election was America rejecting wokeism. We can have meaningful debate about how much .gov should be involved in *insert topic here*. What we can’t do is meaningfully debate what a woman is. I think there are enough half-reasonable lefties who simply, if also silently, don’t buy that brand of bullshit.
Socialism requires ‘identity’ politics to define who the ‘TAKERS’ will be and who the ‘ROBBED’ will be since ‘Guns’ don’t make sh*t.
It’s literally a consequence of the ZERO-Sum (Who gets the last twinkie) resources socialist game because socialism doesn’t consider the supply side at all. It's all about 'Guns' and 'Demands'.
But… but… PIV is always rape, ok?
https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
J.D. Vance made one of the most well-known gaffes of the election season when footage emerged of him griping about "childless cat ladies."
Just think, prior to 1920 there would be no argument or whining about anyone's gender gaps and no objectively insane opinion that the decisive victor committed a "gaffe" like this.
Cope harder Emma.
Interpreting Vance's words as a general insult to all women instead of of certain subset of women that most people (including other women) find absurd and annoying is what makes this a "gaffe".
Yeah, my wife simply cannot abide cat ladies or their shitty politics.
Uh....No gender gap...except the gender gap?
Again, would an editor please step in and help these younger writers with their messages?
It is unclear what point Emma is trying to make here. She seems to say that gender didn't seem to make a difference while admitting that in fact there was a major gender gap.
In Harris's key constituencies: younger voters, and minorities, the gender gap explains her loss. She lost support among most un
Biden won 59% of the Male Latino vote, and 69% of the female vote. Harris only won 43% of the male and 60% of the female. So she lost 9% of females but a whopping **16%** of males.
Further, in 2020, Men represented only 33% of the Black electorate and went 79% for Biden. But in 2024, that was up to 41% of the Black electorate, and only 77% went for Harris.
Another way to look at it is age cohorts. Young men abandoned Harris in droves- they didn't come to the polls in the same numbers and those that did voted against her.
Make no mistake- Trump ran up the numbers in all constituencies, reducing the percentage of votes for Harris. But the gender differential between Biden and Harris is about 1%. That is, if men had defected from Harris at about the same as women did, she would have had 1% more votes, putting her in a near tie with Trump.
It is almost like the woman who discriminates based on skin color and heritage and sex lost to the Man who helped EVERYBODY live a better life when he was in office.
If this election taught be anything it's; Identity Politics is the Most Important Thing!
Only to leftards and Reason-Authors in D.C. who pretend to be Libertarians.
I thought the gender gap was the thigh gap when you remove low T men, feminine men, and men that chop off their nuts, dye their short hair blue, and take female hormones.
I thought the gender gap was when you paid women more than twice as much to lose an election to a man doing the same job, twice.
Bob Dole won the male vote in 1996.
One Harris ad encouraged women to vote Democratic in defiance of their Republican husbands.
Yep all chicks are a retarded hive mind, believing only what msm tell them to believe.
No. People were tired of the Liberal Socialist bullshit from the Democrats and decided that they had enough of it. The other thing is that this election was watched too close for the cheating that went on in 2020. Somehow 13 million votes just disappeared.
There were no concerns about reproductive rights; there were concerns about not being able to kill babies.
There is no woman of reproductive age who doesn't know how contraception works.
There is no woman of reproductive age who doesn’t know how contraception works.
¿Estás seguro?
That said, the number of women of reproductive age who know how contraception works is very high and the number of women, actual birthing persons, legal or illegal, who can see that legalizing abortion because illegal immigrants fleeing third world oppression don't grok contraception isn't just an insanely evil perpetuation of the third world oppression here is significantly different from zero.
I can't imagine the fucked up view of feminism that thinks "We need to keep abortion legal so that women fleeing S. American regimes can have abortions, especially in the case of rape and incest, and raise daughters who are free to have abortions, especially in the case of rape and incest." is a/the good place to be.
Gov-Gun FORCE those State-Owned incubators to supply sperm to their babies so they don’t get to kill them every month (i.e. PMS). /s
Killing is a TAKING act; and the only TAKING is coming from Pro-Life making servitude demands on Women at the end of a ‘Gun’. Ironically in every hard-stance on Individual Liberty case that ‘Gun’ will be shooting two birds (in their imaginary fairy-tale creature world) with one stone.
Enter the most prominent demonstration of how repeated BS propaganda turns LIES into a TRUTH.
In Florida, men and women vote exactly the same; fill in the little circles (on a 2 page ballot!) and get the results in an hour and a half after the polls close.
Nothing to it.
Florida registered voters in 2024 = 13,845,913.
Arizona registered voters in 2024 = 4,367,593.
As Ricky used to say, 'splain to me!
Since when are Reason writers biologists?
They/Them need to report to training:
https://thesafezoneproject.com/
Does everyone remember several years ago when ENB approvingly posted a link to a political scientist that "proved" that Dems talking incessantly about Identity politics helped them? I do.
all your buddies went T lol tell them thanks
Rich Daddy-Gov syndrome?
.
Oh fuck off! All elections are "historic" and, therefore, all candidacies are "historic" as their campaigns are part of the election history.
It truly was historic.
The first candidate to run without receiving a single vote in her favor.
If we define enough genders, I am sure we can find gaps.
For example, people with vaginas and husbands voted in favor of Trump, like many other artificial demographic divisions. But people with vaginas without husbands were among the few groups that voted in favor of Harris. What kind of gap does that signify?
Republican reach! A childless Republican cat lady at least does not feel the least bit ostracized by being called by her civic qualifications. Whilst in your thoughts of mind, or at least my mind, it looks like the fringe of obscurity.
And yet, were we to look into popular literature and screenplays, it was precisely one certain cat lady who was being ostracized by a man whom no one would likely identify as a Democrat, were that anything of a craze — a craze, mind you, for matching characterizations fancifully with party members :haha: ! He threatens that if she lets her cat walk freely at night as he tried to sleep that he would report her for violating the terms of their mutual lease. Does that look like a political move? Yes, certainly. But in the situation of being deprived of crucial sleep by a Republican cat lady, it does not matter how you vote. You can decide to turn your neighbor in to your landlord, if the grating does not stop, and it is not a legal matter in the least (for you) if your lease says no to cats!
For that matter, any idiot can vote Republican (has!) even if the neighbor threatens to turn that one in for violating a stipulation of the lease.
Here’s the thing. Democrats define things like “woman” and “black” specifically and exclusively around anyone who wants to wear those labels supporting them.
If you don’t vote Joe, you ain’t black. If you don’t vote Kamala, you ain’t woman. (What is a woman, anyway?)
They want to monopolize the term, and then act as if anyone disloyal isn’t deserving of it. Blacks become Uncle Tom’s. Women become Slaves to the Patriarchy or Willing Handmaidens, and so on and so on. And if that wasn’t enough, the Democrats go a step further and infantilize them as if they’re too stupid not to know any better.
The reason they talk about a “gender gap” is because they don’t consider the large swaths of blacks and women (and latinos) as legitimate. It’s a True Scotsman fallacy. So when they’re talking about “women” they’re not talking about ALL American women – they’re ONLY talking about white suburban Karens, Taylor Swift, Tim Walz, and childless cat ladies. Because those are the only “real” women in their book.
Well, that and the dudes wearing a dress calling themselves Sally.
Does the phrase "known offenders" mean anything to you?
You already mentioned Walz….