jordan pulse -

Questions surrounding why candidate Kamala Harris did not win the 2024 U.S. presidential election have gained particular importance, as nearly everyone anticipated her victory, or at least a closer result. Even those who doubted her victory were surprised by the scale of her loss. For instance, most semi-scientific opinion polls either predicted Harris’s win or at least a very tight race, potentially decided by a few votes in swing states. No poll foresaw Trump’s landslide victory.

The same was true for American history professor Allan Lichtman, known as the “Nostradamus of elections,” who successfully predicted the outcomes of 9 out of 10 U.S. elections since 1984. Lichtman had also predicted Harris’s victory, later commenting that he “couldn’t understand it at all,” as his predictions rely on his White House Keys model, which includes 13 qualitative indicators. Similarly, the satirical series The Simpsons, known for its remarkably accurate predictions over the past 35 years, also “predicted” Harris’s win—marking the first time it missed the mark. In the Arab world, both Michel Hayek and Laila Abdel Wahab had forecast Harris’s victory, and on a national level, renowned journalist Bassam Sakijha was nearly certain of her success.

There are, indeed, many factors that can be cited to explain Harris’s unexpected loss, such as the short length of her campaign (less than four months), which limited her ability to distance herself from President Biden, whose popularity had hit unprecedented lows, especially following recent signs of diminished concentration. Other factors may include the U.S. administration’s stance on the unprecedented war in Gaza, along with economic issues and Democratic policies on immigration.

However, while these factors are worth considering, my view—based on some observations and initial impressions—is that Harris’s gender also played a role in determining the winner of this election. I believe that gender hasn’t received the analytical attention it deserves in this election, despite being a powerful influence on various social and political phenomena. From a gender perspective, it seems that American society, with its relatively less homogeneous cultural makeup compared to other Western societies, has not yet reached a stage where it can accept a “woman” as president, regardless of her qualifications and abilities for the role.

This perspective can be observed among some Americans of non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, who continue to hold conservative values that affect their view of women and thus shape their voting behaviour toward female candidates. For example, conservative Muslim Arab American communities in states like Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona did not extend the same level of trust to Harris that they did to Biden in the 2020 election. In that election, Biden won Michigan by a margin of 154,000 votes, largely influenced by Muslim American voters. While Gaza may have impacted Harris’s support among these voters, cultural factors related to attitudes towards women cannot be ruled out.

This is similarly applicable to Latino voters, who tend to be relatively conservative and who leaned towards Trump in 2024, although they had largely supported Biden in 2020. As for Anglo-American voters, a significant proportion still uphold conservative values that shape their attitudes toward women, regardless of her qualifications. This group often hides or hesitates to express such attitudes to avoid being labelled as biased against women. This might explain why, according to exit polls, only about 50% of women nationwide voted for Harris, a much lower percentage than expected given the candidates’ differing stances on women’s rights and the media coverage of Trump’s sexual misconduct allegations.

These observations about the conservative cultural tendencies in parts of American society, including views on women’s roles and status, not only help explain some of the reasons behind Harris’s defeat but also the extent and nature of her loss, contrary to most predictions. Harris was seen as more effective than Trump in the pre-election debates, similar to Hillary Clinton’s experience in 2016 when she lost to Trump despite outperforming him in the debates.

In conclusion, while American society is often viewed as relatively more progressive than European societies, it has not yet reached a level of cultural readiness to accept a woman as its president. Despite American women attempting to run for the presidency for over 150 years, they have yet to succeed. The experiences of Clinton and Harris, who had unprecedented political opportunities and broad predictions of success, deserve further study and analysis from a gender perspective. This perspective suggests that a significant proportion of American voters—both men and women—are still not ready, due to cultural values, to elect a woman as president solely because she is a woman. For this reason, I believe that gender should be considered as one of the indicators or keys to accessing the White House. This factor should be taken into account by those, like historian Allan Lichtman, who aim to predict future U.S. election outcomes.

Dr. Muneera Jaradat
Head of the English Language and Translation Department
Jadara University