The recent U.S. presidential election shocked many as former President Donald Trump reclaimed the throne, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. This election, the first since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, was anticipated to center around women's reproductive rights, yet it revealed unexpected shifts within the female electorate.
On election night, as votes were tallied, the atmosphere at Harris's watch party at Howard University grew tense. Supporters who had gathered to celebrate her candidacy found themselves wishing for upbeat music to lift their spirits, as disheartening news from key states rolled in. By 11:45 p.m., Harris had still not made her appearance, and those present could sense the writing on the wall.
When she finally took the stage the next day to concede, she reflected, "The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear me when I say — the light of America's promise will always burn bright, as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting." Her concession signaled not only the end of her campaign but also the crumbling of expectations for the Democratic Party, which saw significant losses across the board.
The roots of Harris's loss can be traced back to her campaign strategy, which leaned heavily on highlighting Trump's record on reproductive rights, banking on the overturning of Roe v. Wade to galvanize women's support. Despite her best efforts, early national exit polls indicated she secured only 54 percent of the female vote, lower than President Joe Biden's 57 percent in 2020.
Many had thought Harris's platform centered on abortion rights would resonate powerfully after the Supreme Court's major decision affecting these rights. Yet, as analysts noted, when faced with economic concerns, many voters prioritized issues like inflation instead. A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found inflation topped women's voting concerns, cited by 36 percent of respondents as the most important issue, overshadowing the previously anticipated focus on reproductive rights.
The narrative of the campaign might have shifted if Harris had diversified her messaging to include more economic discussions, as many voters expressed skepticism about her ability to improve their financial situation. Reports revealed voters had more confidence in Trump's economic management, leading many to attach their votes to economic stability rather than reproductive rights. Campaign experts indicated Harris's failure to effectively address voters' primary concerns led to diminished confidence among those who had previously supported Democrats.
While Harris managed to maintain strong support among Black women—92 percent voted for her compared to Trump's 8 percent—her team struggled with white female voters, especially those without college degrees. Historically, this demographic has leaned Republican, and this election was no exception, with Trump winning their support by 8 percentage points. Harris's struggles did not extend to Black women, whose loyalty to her campaign was evident.
Even with the challenges, some analysts expected the Democratic candidate to fare well among Latina women. While Harris received 61 percent of this demographic's votes, it represented a significant drop from the 39-point margin Biden held over Trump just four years prior. This shift indicated a larger trend of waning support for Democrats among diverse voter groups, as factors like inflation and economic concerns took precedence.
Harris's campaign unyieldingly focused on messaging around reproductive health, often criticizing Trump for his past statements about punishing women over abortion—a stance he had tried to distance himself from leading up to the election. Trump's narrative around abortion evolved, with his campaign portraying it not as a federal issue but one left to the states, which led to support among segments of voters who typically align with Democrats.
The results of this election compelled professionals from both sides of the aisle to examine the core issues at stake. David Schultz, author and political science professor, suggested Harris's primary emphasis on abortion risked sidelining the economic worries plaguing middle-class voters, especially women. This neglect was particularly evident in battleground states, where Harris lost ground compared to earlier Democratic performances.
Experts noted how Trump's appeal as the so-called “working class candidate” drew votes from those seeking more tangible solutions to their daily woes. The numbers reflected this sentiment as CNN's exit polls indicated 51 percent of voters trusted Trump with the economy compared to 47 percent who trusted Harris.
The campaign's structure, maintained from Biden's time, perhaps hindered Harris's ability to forge her unique strategy. Some staffers felt the initial enthusiasm fizzled out, alongside lack of cohesive communication within her team, leading to confusion about her identity as a candidate. Voice campaign staff described how, even after assuming the nomination, voters still didn’t fully grasp who Harris was or what she stood for, which created missed opportunities.
With the election over, concerns linger over what Trump’s presidency will mean for abortion access. While it seems unlikely Trump would enforce a nationwide ban, the situation remains precarious as individual states may implement their restrictions. Even after his electoral victory, right-wing factions within the party are expected to pressure him toward more stringent policies. Harris's loss could result not only to setbacks on progressive issues but also to wider discussions around democracy and rights for various citizens.
After the election, political commentators were quick to analyze the signs of disillusionment evident among voters weary from years of political division and unrest. Many felt the results reflected something larger—an America still grappling with its identity, not yet unified, and uncertain about its direction forward. Now, as the dust begins to settle, the Democratic Party faces intense reflection on how to reassess its strategies, reconnect with voters, and prepare for future contests.
Harris's campaign may serve as both cautionary tale and lesson for Democrats on the importance of centering issues nearest to constituents and recognizing the vast and varied concerns of the electorate. The presidency has flipped once again, much to the chagrin of countless observers vigilantly monitoring the nation's fracturing political fabric, leaving questions of inclusion and progress hanging heavy over the upcoming years.
