US voters say they’re ready for a woman president − but sexist attitudes still go along with opposition to Harris

Could Americans’ sexism tank yet another woman’s quest for the U.S. presidency? AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

Since President Joe Biden exited the presidential race on July 21, 2024, and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, Harris’ campaign has generated widespread enthusiasm and attention. She quickly became the official Democratic presidential nominee and erased Donald Trump’s lead over Biden in national and swing-state polling.

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have also drawn tens of thousands of supporters to their recent rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada.

Although things could change dramatically over the next two-plus months, there is a real possibility that the United States may finally elect its first female president.

But in polling that we conducted in August 2024, after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, we found that sexism is still a powerful force in American politics.

Hope and change?

Yes, the scars of the 2016 campaign – in which sexism played a key role in Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Trump – are still fresh for Democrats. But many hope that America has changed and has become more accepting of women in leadership roles.

Harris’ gender, this argument goes, won’t be a significant deterrent for voters.

On the surface, our recent nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults supports this, with 51% of Americans agreeing with the statement: “America is ready for its first African American female president.” Only 23% of Americans disagreed.

Even so, some Republicans appear to think they can win by making gender an issue in the campaign. This is apparent in the sexist rhetoric that Trump and other Republicans are using when talking about Harris.

Trump, who has a history of making sexist statements, asserted that foreign leaders would regard Harris as a “play toy,” referred to her as unintelligent, and is now commenting on her appearance. Both The Associated Press and The New York Times have reported – based on unnamed sources – that Trump has also called Harris a “bitch” in private, although Trump’s spokesman denied he used that term.

In a similar sexist vein, Trump allies have attempted to turn Harris’ past romantic relationships into campaign issues, with one conservative commentator on Fox Business News crudely labeling Harris the “original hawk tuah girl,” an obscene sexual reference.

Will such attempts to exploit sexism as an electoral strategy backfire? Or, after all these years, might it still be out of reach for a woman to overcome sexist stereotypes and win the highest office in the United States?

Understanding the importance of sexism

We are political scientists who study the role of identity in American politics and who conduct polls that explore Americans’ views on gender and the extent to which sexism still pervades the nation.

We conducted two national polls this year – one in January 2024 when Biden was still in the race, and the other in August 2024, after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. For each poll, we surveyed 1,000 American adults 18 and older and asked about their thoughts on the election, their policy views and their attitudes toward various groups in society.

With the change at the top of the Democratic ticket, we can better assess the impact of sexism on vote choice in the presidential election by comparing the results from January, when the race featured two male candidates, with August, when Harris entered the race.

In both surveys, we first asked respondents which candidate they would vote for if the presidential election were held today.

To measure sexism, we then asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of three statements that express prejudice, resentment and animus toward women, or what political scientists call “hostile sexism.” The statements in the “hostile sexism” battery are: “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men”; “Women are too easily offended”; and “Women exaggerate problems they have at work.” Greater agreement with these statements indicated more sexist views.

We also measured respondents’ demographics – including age, gender, race, education and income – their political attitudes and identities, and their racial views.

Sexism mattered, even when Biden was in the race

Due in part to Trump’s sexist rhetoric throughout his campaigns and presidency, sexist attitudes have become closely linked with whom individuals support for president. On average, more sexist individuals have tended to prefer Republican candidates in recent elections.

Thus, even in our January poll when Biden was the Democratic nominee, sexism was strongly correlated with support for Trump. When we examined a head-to-head matchup between Biden and Trump, the more individuals agreed with the statements measuring hostile sexism, the more likely they were to prefer Trump over Biden.

Of those who most strongly disagreed with the statements measuring hostile sexism, 73% supported Biden, while approximately two-thirds of those scoring highest on the sexism scale supported Trump.

Taking into consideration other factors that influence support for Biden – partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, education, economic views and so forth – we found that those with the least sexist views had an 83% chance of supporting Biden, while those with the most sexist views had a 17% chance of doing so.

Pollsters found that negative attitudes toward women make people much less likely to support Kamala Harris for president in 2024.
Westend61/Getty Images

With Harris, sexism matters more

If sexism depressed individuals’ support for Biden’s candidacy, does that mean Harris faces no additional penalty in terms of lost support for her candidacy? Hardly.

Hostile sexism, as we measured it, costs Harris votes.

While sexism mattered in January, it mattered more in August once Harris had taken over the Democratic ticket.

In a head-to-head matchup between Harris and Trump, 89% of those in the lowest third on the sexism scale – meaning those who disagreed most with the statements measuring hostile sexism – support Harris compared with 11% for Trump. On the other hand, only 18% of those scoring highest on sexism support Harris, versus 82% for Trump.

When we take into account other considerations that influence whether individuals prefer Harris or Trump, our findings are even more striking. The least sexist respondents have a 92% chance of saying they will vote for Harris. But the most sexist respondents have only a 4% chance of supporting her.

What this means is that, while sexist attitudes influenced individuals’ presidential preferences when Biden was the Democratic presidential nominee, they have a greater effect now that Harris is the Democratic candidate.

Without sexism

Since Harris seems to be narrowly leading Trump in the polls, why should we care about the influence of hostile sexism in the election?

To answer this question, imagine a world in which hostile sexism doesn’t influence attitudes toward presidential candidates who are women. Our findings imply that, in such a world, Harris’ lead over Trump might be larger. Put simply, hostile sexism is helping to make the election closer than it would otherwise be.

Sexism has long played a powerful role in influencing Americans’ voting behavior and attitudes toward political issues. This is especially so today, given the high political importance of gender-related issues such as abortion, contraception and LGBTQ+ rights.

Our analysis shows that people with negative attitudes toward women are much less likely to support Harris for president. Whether the Harris campaign can successfully navigate this reality is still to be determined.

Jesse Rhodes receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and Demos.

Adam Eichen and Tatishe Nteta do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.