Harris’s Identity Is Unlikely to Determine Her Fate
People tend to overestimate the prevalence of racism and sexism in U.S. society—and their effect on our politics.
When Democrats formally selected Kamala Harris as their nominee in Chicago last month, it marked a milestone in American history: they became the first political party to run a woman of color for the presidency. Many celebrated the development as a sign that the country was building on its promise of being a place where anyone, regardless of identity, can be successful and potentially even ascend to the highest office in the land.
Others, however, immediately began lamenting the possibility that racism and sexism could derail Harris’s bid for the White House. Even before the convention, the dust had barely settled on Joe Biden’s announcement to not seek re-election when Reuters published a story titled, “With Kamala Harris, Democrats would bet against US history of sexism, racism.” The Week asked, “Can a racially and culturally divided country elect a multi-precedent-setting candidate?” Both pieces nodded to the very real sexism that both Harris and former nominee Hillary Clinton have faced.
There should be no doubt that minority candidates have historically encountered some level of discrimination on the basis of their identity traits. But Americans must resist the temptation to overstate the prevalence of such discrimination or to chalk up the electoral losses of minority candidates to it. Doing so obscures the highly complex nature of elections and risks increasing cultural animus — and it could lead political parties to unnecessarily handicap themselves in future cycles.
The Clinton Case Study
People who fret about the prospect of sexism, specifically, being a vulnerability for Harris often point to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to justify their concerns. In their telling, the fact that Clinton lost to Donald Trump, whose history of derogatory remarks about women (including Clinton) was widely documented, was proof that the country is plagued by a scourge of misogyny. Some even opined that it may be impossible for a woman to ever win the presidency. Many of Clinton’s defenders seemed convinced of the idea that her loss was directly influenced by sexism rather than entertaining other possible explanations.
However, this theory oversimplifies things. First, it ignores the fact that Clinton actually won a majority of all votes cast that cycle, and her national lead over Trump in the popular vote wasn’t particularly small, either: she defeated him by 2.1 points (or 2.9 million votes). Moreover, Trump’s national vote share was only 45.9 percent, the lowest for a winning Republican nominee since 1968 and even lower than Mitt Romney’s 47.1 percent in 2012, while Clinton’s 48 percent support was on par with other recent Democratic nominees who lost, including Al Gore (48.4 percent) and John Kerry (48.3 percent).
Trump won despite losing the national popular vote by a modest margin because the Electoral College bias against Democrats exploded in 2016 to its highest level in more than half a century. This was driven by non-college voters in several ancestrally Democratic states in the Midwest, many of whom voted twice for Obama, swinging to Trump. In truth, had Clinton only turned a few more knobs—for instance, increasing black turnout in pivotal states like Michigan and Wisconsin, which dropped significantly from 2012—she may have pulled out the win. As it stood, Trump became president thanks to just 77,744 votes across those two states as well as Pennsylvania.
In other words, the election results were far from a repudiation of Clinton.
Second, Trump did not improve on Romney’s performance with key identity-based voting blocs. For example, after 52 percent of men supported Romney in 2012, Trump won the exact same share.1 Perhaps just as telling: Trump essentially matched Romney’s support among self-identified Republicans, with both men winning roughly 90 percent. Trump also lost some ground from 2012 among white voters. This doesn’t exactly suggest that his Electoral College advantage over Romney was powered by racial or misogynistic animus; on the contrary, much of Trump’s backing simply came from voters who traditionally leaned more Republican than Democratic—and who were likelier to support his policy ideas over Clinton’s on that basis.
Finally, the sexism narrative reduces an election that was replete with ups and downs to a univariate cause. Let us not forget a few things. It’s exceedingly rare for a political party to win the three consecutive presidential terms. Since the adoption of the 22nd amendment in 1951, it has only happened once: when George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan. History was thus not on Clinton’s side. She also famously never visited the key swing state of Wisconsin, which ultimately went for Trump by a mere 0.7 points (or 22,748 votes) but which Clinton would have won if she’d just matched Obama’s vote total in deep-blue Milwaukee. Additionally, both Clinton and Trump were historically unpopular. While Clinton’s high unfavorables may have in part been due to sexism, she also represented an elite political class that had drawn the ire of much of America following the Great Recession—and her extensive ties to Wall Street surely didn’t help.2
It’s important to get the history of the 2016 election right because failing to do that could lead people to draw the wrong lessons moving forward. (Clinton herself continues to claim sexism was a driving force behind her loss.) Is it likely that some voters who opposed Clinton held sexist views? Of course. The U.S. is a big country, and lots of people hold all kinds of prejudices.3 But it just isn’t clear that this was the main reason for her defeat.
Why Harris Could Lose
As I wrote last week, I view Harris as a slight favorite to win this November, and there are several factors working in her favor. But is plenty working against her, too. For instance, she has a minimal policy agenda. When journalists have pushed her to give more substance, she often responds with vague or empty platitudes, which voters can typically see through. She also has still not fully accounted for the more unpopular positions she espoused in her 2020 presidential campaign but has since disavowed, which has led to charges of flip-flopping and insincerity.
There are macro-level factors working against her as well. For instance, Gallup polling shows that more voters trust Trump than Harris to handle the country’s top issues: immigration and the economy. Since 1952, the candidate with such an edge has gone on to win the election every time. Moreover, as we at The Liberal Patriot have regularly documented, Harris has been losing ground with traditionally Democratic groups, including non-white voters, which complicates claims that racism could fuel a loss.4 She has also struggled to gain back ground among non-college voters, a crucial voting bloc that makes up a large share of the electorate.
Even before Harris, Biden was struggling mightily, a sign that reluctance to support Harris may actually have less to do with her, personally, and that voters may just have reservations about the administration or, even more broadly, the Democratic Party. She has notably also gained ground with white voters relative to Biden’s 2020 margins, muddling the idea that racism is to blame if Trump wins.
Additionally, it’s important to remember that partisanship has hardened over time, and voters on both sides of the political divide are becoming increasingly predictable in their vote choices while the number of true swing voters has declined. This means that Trump may again receive substantial support, and the reasons for it are likely to be myriad—including that he’s the Republican Party’s nominee and Republican voters like his policies. Attributing support for him (or against Harris) to nothing more than voter prejudice papers over a much more complex story.
Give Voters Some Credit
The rise of Trump has led many Democrats to adopt a particularly pessimistic view of America. Revulsed by his long history of discriminatory statements and behavior, they concluded that his win validated Clinton’s contention that his supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables.” It also convinced many of them that America isn’t ready for a female leader.
But these narratives are poorly conceived, and believing them carries some clear risks: when political analysts and professionals misread the electorate, they become likelier to make ill-advised moves in the aftermath of an election.
Earlier this week, a tweet went viral positing that if Harris loses this November, Democrats would be convinced they must nominate a “moderate white guy” in 2028. Sadly, this sentiment is likely to prove correct. There are of course plenty of pols who fit that profile and would be strong contenders. But the problem with this kind of thinking is that assuming voters won’t be open to voting for any other type of candidate could needlessly constrict the party’s pool of possible talent.
What’s more: there’s just no real evidence suggesting most voters have a problem with female or non-white candidates—but there is plenty indicating the opposite is true. Journalist Zaid Jilani reviewed a meta-analysis of research that found voters are on average quite open to supporting such candidates. CU Boulder professor Regina Bateson has similarly found that voters often overestimate the ubiquity of racism and sexism in American life, which can lead to misperceptions around what kind of candidates are “electable.” The Atlantic’s Jerusalem Demsas has also reported on how partisan polarization may actually help to crowd out sexist or racist attitudes in the minds of voters who hold them, as their views on other issues take greater precedence.
More than identity, many voters are simply looking for someone who shares their values. This means that candidates who embrace the middle by trying to position themselves closer to the median voter tend to find more success.
When humans become convinced of certain narratives about the world, especially ones that jibe with our preexisting understanding of it, we risk developing blind spots that inhibit our ability to see things clearly. In this case, many Democrats have come to believe that racism and sexism are more widespread than they are and that minority candidates are at an obvious disadvantage because of it, despite ample evidence to the contrary. And drawing such sweeping conclusions could engender greater antipathy toward those who have different politics and unnecessarily dividing the country further along political and cultural lines.
If Harris does ultimately lose, there are bound to be voices pushing the simplistic narrative that it was because of her race and gender. But as our team has thoroughly noted, she has other, very real vulnerabilities that could jeopardize her candidacy. The party would be wise to acknowledge those in the event of a loss and learn from them moving forward.
Data showing how various demographic groups voted comes from averages across four datasets: the Edison exit poll, AP VoteCast survey, Catalist “What Happened” report, and Pew validated voter analysis.
And who could forget the scandal regarding her private email servers, the WikiLeaks hack, her “basket of deplorables” comment, or the infamous Comey letter?
This also comes in less acknowledged forms.
We also mustn’t forget that the country has already broken the barrier of electing a black president—and did so twice.
Excellent article. What about voters that main reason for voting FOR a candidate is one’s color or gender. This certainly plays as large a role (probably more) than those that vote against for the same reason.
It's also important to remember, and for Kamala Harris to remember, that Hillary Clinton was a wildly controversial and divisive First Lady, who sought to play an oversized role in husband Bill's White House. From firing the White House travel office staff so that she could reward the jobs to patronage friends to rewarding major campaign donors with Lincoln Bedroom bed & breakfast stays, her audacity was unmatched. Then there's her being placed in charge of crafting national health care legislation, which she did with unmatched secrecy or public input, and which when completed was so bad it could not garner even one vote from a Democratic Senator.
Harris has much to learn, notably from Hillary's misguided and misjudged bitterness about why she lost in 2016.