Sections

Commentary

Women favored abortion rights but not Harris

November 7, 2024


  • Many expected that a gender gap in favor of Harris would counterbalance weaknesses in other parts of the electorate and help Harris win, but it didn’t happen.
  • A method for protecting abortion (state referenda) had reduced the need for voters to vote for pro-choice candidates since they could still vote to keep abortion legal.
  • On October 1, Trump, after a serious meeting with his staff where he was shown just how costly his support for abortion bans could be, issued a statement saying he would not support a federal abortion ban. 
Voters fill out their ballots for the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Election Day in Fort Supply, Oklahoma, U.S. November 5, 2024.
Voters fill out their ballots for the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Election Day in Fort Supply, Oklahoma, U.S. November 5, 2024. REUTERS/Nick Oxford

In the weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election, speculation was rampant that if Harris won it would be because of a historic gender gap in favor of women, a gap that ran through all the age cohorts in the electorate and that would be magnified by the gap in voter turnout between men and women. Three factors supported this belief: 1) Harris is a woman; 2) the issue of abortion rights being taken away which had played a big role in the 2022 midterms and the 2023 off-year elections; and 3) Trump’s often misogynistic attitudes toward women. Many expected that a gender gap in favor of Harris would counterbalance weaknesses in other parts of the electorate and help Harris win, but it didn’t happen.

What did happen? Of the three possibilities, the most likely one is that abortion ceased to be an issue that would impact the vote beyond matters such as the economy, immigration, and crime. That was not the case in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 Dobbs decision that sent abortion regulation back to the states. In the 2022 midterm elections and in the 2023 off-year elections in Virginia, there was clear evidence that abortion directly affected voting for Congress and voting for the state legislature. But by 2024, two things happened to blunt the impact of abortion on the presidential race.

First, in the two plus years since the Dobbs decision, the pro-choice movement has concentrated on winning state ballot initiatives to protect the right to an abortion. Beginning in 2022, there were state referenda in six states and in every one—even very conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana—they passed by comfortable margins. Seeing a way to increase the number of women able to get an abortion and avoid unfriendly courts and state legislatures, the pro-choice movement went into action and placed a referendum on the ballot in Ohio in 2023 (which won easily) and then placed referenda on 10 more states for 2024. Some of these states—Colorado, Maryland, and New York—were blue states where Harris was expected to win. The referenda were expected to pass easily and did. They also passed easily where Trump was expected to win—in the deep red states of Montana (57.6%) and Missouri (51,6%,). In Florida, it did not pass, but that’s because although it got 57.1% of the vote, the legislature raised the bar for winning to 60%. South Dakota was the only state where the pro-choice referenda lost.

In the two swing states with abortion on the ballot, Arizona and Nevada, the referenda won easily, with 61.4% of the vote in Arizona and 63.8% of the vote in Nevada. What is clear from the outcomes in those states is that many people figured they could have their cake and eat it too—so to speak. They could vote to keep abortion legal but then vote for Trump for president. In Arizona, Harris so far only has 46.8% of the vote, meaning that 14.6% of the voters voted for the pro-choice position on abortion and for Donald Trump. In Nevada, Harris has so far received 47.2% of the vote—meaning that 16.6% of the voters voted pro-choice and for Trump. In many states voters have had a way to protect abortion rights while voting for Republican candidates.

The second thing that happened was that midway through his general election campaign, on October 1 to be precise, Trump—after a serious meeting with his staff where he was shown just how costly his support for abortion bans could be—issued a statement saying: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters (the will of the people!).”

By the time of the actual election, the gender gap had been cut in half and Harris’ lead among women had plummeted. A method for protecting abortion (the referenda) had reduced the need for voters to elect pro-choice candidates since they could still vote to keep abortion legal. And Trump, seeing the writing on the wall, clarified that he would take no federal action, clearing the way for large numbers of pro-choice voters to vote for him on the economy, immigration, or many other issues. Although Harris fared much better among women than men, according to election exit polls, she ended up doing no better than Biden with women. That torpedoed her strategy of emphasizing reproductive rights—and in the end helped to elect Donald Trump.