- Free newsletter
- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
Another reason why Kamala Harris lost among young men
November 19, 2024
26 Reactions
As the wind blows away the confetti after the 2024 election for the American presidency, more clues are emerging about the strength of Trump’s victory.
Perhaps the most surprising result was that young men (18 to 29 years old) overwhelmingly voted for Trump – 56 percent for Trump versus 42 for Harris. Amongst young white men, the gap was 28 percent – 63 percent for Trump versus 35 percent for Harris. Amongst young men without a college degree, the gap was 18 percent; amongst those with a college degree, the gap was 6 percent.
In short, the Democrats lost the Gen Z men. Bigly, extremely very bigly. Why?
In the aftermath of the result, most pro-Harris commentators have attributed the loss to Trump’s “bro” appeal and his “hypermasculinity”. Young men felt like victims in an increasingly feminised world and voted for a boorish clown who validated their nostalgia for a patriarchal past. As one condescending writer on The Conversation mused:
young men seek out explanations for their struggles in ways that affirm their sense of injustice. These explanations are often found in the “manosphere” – a loose confederacy of social media platforms and influencers flooded with discussions about how “woke” politics, feminism and the rise of progressive values are undermining traditional masculinity.
How about a different take, one that doesn’t patronise young male voters, doesn’t infantilise them, doesn’t sneer at them?
Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis
Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.
The big mistake that Kamala Harris made was placing abortion at the front and centre of her campaign. Her message to young women was that the most important issues in their lives were abortion and the freedom to have sex wherever whenever. The corollary for young men was that they should be able to have porn wherever whenever.
So, one arrow in the Democrats’ quiver was to warn young men that “Republicans are going to steal your porn”. A group called "Hands Off My Porn" reportedly spent US$100,000 on ads for Kamala Harris. It was campaigning against age-verification for viewing online pornography.
Even more significant was the $2.5 million spent by the Democratic Super PAC Progress Action Fund on two ads, “Republicans In Your Bedroom – Part 2” and “Republicans Killing Your Wife.” The ads warned young male voters that Republican would ban abortions and online porn. They were a sinister, silly and obscene waste of money.
Another group, FTW PAC, ran anti-Trump ads on pornography websites in swing states during the final two weeks of the election. A 10-second ad featured a picture of the former president with the words "Trump's Project 2025 will ban porn."
"I'm not a male influencer or anything, but I am trying to get out this message to men: That this guy, who you might think is 'king of the bros,' actually has a very conservative agenda that is going to take away your porn, is going to ban abortion, is going to do all kinds of invasive, culturally conservative things and you should be aware,” Wally Nowinski, the brains behind the porn-site ads, told Newsweek.
How much influence this had on the election is unclear. But it suggests that pandering to the sex-positive vibe was bound to fail. At a key point in her campaign, Kamala Harris was interviewed on “Call Her Daddy”, the podcast with the biggest audience among young women – it’s a raunchy, sex-saturated show about girls’ relationships. It showed what her priorities were.
What had these Democrats been smoking when they assumed that pornography and masturbation were the top issues for young male voters? No wonder they lost. Trump is terribly flawed, but he treated them like men. He appealed to their sense of dignity and self-respect. Harris’s campaign treated them like doofus porn-addicts who live in their mother’s basement and don’t take showers. Game over.
Forward this to your friends!
Michael Cook is editor of Mercator.
Image credits: screenshot NBC News
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
David Page commented 2024-11-22 11:05:08 +1100Young men have become accustomed to privilege. They aren’t prepared for a world where they have to actually earn respect.
-
mrscracker commented 2024-11-21 18:32:39 +1100Hello Mr. Steven. In his last administration Mr Trump chose more establishment type cabinet members and it didn’t work out so well. Now he’s trying something different. We’ll see who actually serves and who doesn’t.
It is entertaining to watch in a way. The election was a circus so this is just seems more of the same.
I don’t have quite the same opinion of Lincoln’s presidential ability but he was in fact a very smart man and skilled politician. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-21 13:03:19 +1100mrscracker
I remember similar comments being made when the flamboyant Jack Welch was appointed CEO of General Electric all the way back in 1981. At the time GE was the most valuable company in the world.
They said Welch would “break the mould”. He broke the company instead.
Similar comments were made when Welch’s acolyte, James McNerney, was appointed CEO of Boeing. Another flamboyant “mould breaker” who broke the company..
People who successfully reform companies are rarely messiah types. They are usually, quiet, stolid, businesslike. They first listen and take the time to understand the situation. They surround themselves with people who are able to challenge their ideas. They avoid “yes men” like the plague.
Satya Nadella. who rescued Microsoft when it was in danger of losing its way, is a case in point.
And Bill Gates is a great example of a founder who knew when it was time to step down..
I think the same applies in government. Abraham Lincoln, arguably one of America’s most able presidents, was noted for surrounding himself with people who were widely believed to be smarter than he was.
The fact that Trump has chosen to surround himself with yes man mediocrities does not augur well for the people of your country.
On the other hand, it does make for a really entertaining show. :)
Oh, I am enjoying this!
Hopefully it doesn’t end in World War 3 and I am sorry for the brave fighters in Ukraine. They’re about to be sold out to Putin.
But, the show must go on. -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-21 11:17:50 +1100Have you considered where Pres. Trump’s cabinet nominees are coming from? It’s a pretty interesting crew and one I think was chosen to disrupt the status quo. Not implement establishment think tank policies.
But we’ll see what happens. Things change, cabinet members can get replaced.
It’s getting a bit chilly here , just in time for Thanksgiving next week. My son in law’s going to fry a 20 some pound turkey .
🍂🦃🍁 -
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-21 11:00:56 +1100Wild thunderstorm last night, Mrs Cracker. It was lovely lying in bed watching the flickering lightening.
I guess my concern is, Trump doesn’t really listen to himself when it comes to policy, because he has no ideological position himself, and I don’t think he really cares much about the minutia of government. He is, however, easily manipulated through flattery and obsequiousness. He will be surrounded by hard-right policy wonks who ARE very much interested in implementing Project 2025. Trump will sign whatever they put in front of him. -
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-21 06:05:26 +1100Looking forward to the data caps on cell phone plans and internet plans that the FCC chair is proposing, too.
Freedom! -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-21 01:33:06 +1100Mr. Mouse, Brendan Carr’s been with the FCC for some time with bipartisan support. I doubt he was nominated chairman on the basis of what he wrote for the Heritage Foundation. He’s one of Pres, Trump’s more experienced nominees:
“President-elect Donald Trump over the weekend nominated Brendan Carr, currently serving as the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to be the commission’s next chairman.
The FCC is an independent agency overseen by Congress that governs, among other things, radio stations transmitting on AM or FM frequencies, satellite radio and TV stations, cable networks, and broadcast TV stations. Its top leadership includes five presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed commissioners, by law a mix of Republicans and Democrats, who serve five-year terms.
A graduate of Georgetown University and The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, Carr has enjoyed bipartisan support during his tenure at the FCC, having been first nominated to sit on the commission during Trump’s first term and renominated twice under current Democratic President Joe Biden. The Senate unanimously confirmed him as a commissioner after each nomination. …" -
Juan Llor Baños commented 2024-11-20 23:57:46 +1100Extraordinary article!! Congratulations!!
-
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 23:43:52 +1100Mrscracker,
His nomination for FCC Chair coauthored project 2025, and his talk of revoking broadcast licenses is straight from project 2025. That’s a grave attack on the first amendment. -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 23:29:58 +1100Good morning Mr. Fedders. I hope you are having a lovely spring day.
First of all, Project 2025 was an effort of the Heritage Foundation, a Reagan era think tank. They have had some good ideas in the past but they’re not a group Donald Trump appears to listen to. He listens to himself, for better or worse. Often for worse.
Only 2% of Americans farm full time anymore. I raise a few cattle, not crops. A friend who does farm full time has been offered a role in Trump’s Department of Agriculture which should be very interesting because they think outside the box.
I believe there’s room for all sorts and sizes of agriculture. One size doesn’t fit all. If the Federal government has a proper role in agriculture, fine. But I personally stay away from most of that. I do appreciate our university agriculture extension service though. They do a great job. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-20 14:39:41 +1100Part of Project 2025 is to repeal the two principal crop insurance programs used by most farmers, the Agricultural Risk Coverage and the Price Loss Coverage Program, the twin pillars of U.S. farm policy that farmers use to insure an estimated 81% of all eligible food-producing acres.
This means that farmers are going to suffer massive price hikes to insure their crops, or they won’t be able to afford to.
I’m interested in what you think of this, Mrs Cracker. I think you’ve alluded to owning a farm before?
And I agree with Anon Emouse here. If the average Trump supporter is so worried about inflation and high costs for basic items, why would they vote for tariffs that will make everything considerably more expensive?
It literally makes no sense. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-20 13:40:12 +1100Thank you mrscracker. I think the show will spread well beyond DC.
I’m sorry for the Ukrainians. I’m pretty sure Trump will sell them out. But dems de breaks.
This one should be interesting:
Trump’s Radical Play to Dominate the U.S. Economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq4chieVJfg
If you watch it you should know that, in one sense, I agree with Trump. The Fed should not be independent. Politicians should be held accountable for ALL the consequences of their legislation including interest rates. -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 12:18:07 +1100I wish you a long life Mr. Steven and I hope you continue to enjoy the show in DC.
🙂 -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-20 10:12:15 +1100mrscracker, mainly I’m chilling out and watching the show. I thought it would be entertaining and Trump has not disappointed.
His appointments so far have been beyond hilarious. I searched the thesaurus to find the right words to describe my level of mirth but even my old faithful Roget’s failed me.
We need a new word. I suggest Trumpilious, a concatenation of Trump, and bilious.
This is the most fascinating social science experiment of my lifetime. I do hope I live long enough to see the outcome. :) -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-20 09:23:20 +1100The Republican were very smart on the abortion issue. Abortion was on the ballot in ten states. In seven of them constitutional amendments entrenching the right to an abortion passed in seven. They were Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and New York
This tactic enabled women to vote for Trump while voting to protect their personal right to an abortion.
However I agree with Michael Cook on the whole. The Republicans are becoming the men’s party and the Dems the women’s party. And both parties are now corporatist parties. -
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-20 08:58:41 +1100Journalist Jamie Tahsin reckons Barron Trump had a big influence on young male voters. Tahsin apoke about this last night on Late Night Live ABC radio. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/manosphere-trump-bro-vote-barron-trump/104621812
-
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 07:13:08 +1100Mr. Mouse, I don’t want to make assumptions either & perhaps your family, coworkers, & best friends voted for Trump & you are speaking from personal conversations & experience. But even if so, we can’t read a "not insignificant "number of other people’s hearts & minds & assume what or what not they didn’t realize about economics or immigration. That’s going to vary. Just as it varies on every other subject & voting sector.
The farmers in our area already hire seasonal workers legally. I see them every day being bussed to their job sites in vans & operating trucks & harvest equipment. I know that poultry processing plants have been raided by ICE over the past few decades but poultry’s still pretty affordable. Unless bird flu strikes, Heaven forbid. -
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 05:30:52 +1100Does China pay the tariffs? Or does the importing company pay the tariffs and then pass the price onto the consumer?
I wouldn’t say this is infantilizing, mrscracker – it’s correcting misunderstandings. Because there is a not insignificant number of Trump voters who believe that China will be paying the tariffs, when they won’t be. There is a not insignificant number of Trump voters who voted for mass deportation – not realizing that deporting migrant workers will force farmers to hire non-migrant labor at higher rates, thereby raising grocery prices even more. -
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 04:21:34 +1100Mrscracker,
Of course economic concerns are legitimate. However, I noticed you didn’t answer my question as to who will pay the tariffs :) (and no, this isn’t a “different takes on tariffs” situation)
Id encourage you to look up the Smoot Hawley act of 1930 and how that impacted the US economy -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 04:06:05 +1100Mr. Mouse economics is a legitimate thing to be concerned about & people can have quite different ideas on tariffs & the like.
The problem is more with the assumptions made about others. especially assumptions made about the working class. -
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 03:05:35 +1100Mrscracker,
Who is going to pay for those tariffs on all those Chinese imports? -
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 02:13:39 +1100“…there is a significant amount of Trump voters who misunderstand the consequences of the policies they’re voting for”
**********
Mr. Mouse,
Speaking of infantilizing…
:) -
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 01:45:58 +1100Also – it’s hard to campaign on issues voters care about (grocery prices, eg) when your voting base doesn’t fully comprehend that the tariffs they’re voting for will also be paid by them. You can say she ran a bad campaign, but there is a significant amount of Trump voters who misunderstand the consequences of the policies they’re voting for
-
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-19 23:45:39 +1100Abortion outperformed Kamala at the polls, Michael. And Trump distanced himself from a national ban (re: lied).
-
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-19 22:21:44 +1100Who infantizing young men now?
-
