The Spire

Katie Russell ‘26

Guest Writer

A convicted felon, a man found liable for sexual assault, and a man who has adamantly attacked reproductive freedoms has been elected president of the United States, all because his opponent was a woman, or so it seems. When I woke up on the morning of November 6th, I remember feeling a sense of hopelessness, as it felt like women couldn’t win in this country. I remember looking at news sources and seeing the phrase “America isn’t ready for a woman” or other phrases that blamed the election results on one straightforward factor: gender.

This dominant narrative surrounding female politicians has been prevalent for years. The idea that a presidential nominee is not qualified based solely on her gender has been familiar rhetoric within the media ever since Clinton lost to Trump in 2016. While many other factors contributed to these presidential candidates’ losses, the sole focus post-election has always been gender. I will not deny that it is harder to win as a female candidate in the country. This idea of difficulty for female candidates has been reflected within many different disciplines, including political psychology; in a recent study, Tyler Okimoto and Victoria Brescoll showed that women seeking power were less likely to receive votes.

However, this practice of blaming gender is both unacceptable and unproductive.  Looking at the Harris campaign as a whole, many flaws within the campaign and the Democratic party contributed to her loss. Her general unpopularity is the main one. In 2022, a poll stated that less than 26 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to run for reelection in 2024. After Biden’s crippling debate performance in June, it was clear to the Democrats he would be unable to beat President Trump.

The question of who would replace Biden became the top question within the party, and almost immediately, the party chose Vice President Harris to step in. Even with every statistic pointing to the unpopularity of the Biden administration, the secondhand man within the Biden administration was selected as the presidential candidate without a proper primary election. How does one differentiate themselves from an administration in which they have played a significant role? The answer is, they don’t. While the Harris campaign used statements like “turning the page” and “we are not going back” in interviews, she pushed the Biden administration’s economic policies, something most Americans did not favor or want to go back to. Not to mention, Vice President Harris went on The View, and when asked what she would do differently from the Biden Administration, she responded, “Nothing,” further nailing her coffin for election.  The American people did not want a repeat of the Biden Administration but rather something different. 

This was a critical misstep by the Democratic party, as the candidate it chose to run was not even popular within its own party and could not significantly differentiate herself from the previous campaign. While getting rid of President Biden as the nominee was, in some sense, listening to the American people, the inability to vote for the Democratic nominee for president and the failure to differentiate herself from the Biden administration significantly damaged the Harris campaign’s ability to win. 

Not having complete support from her party wasn’t the only challenge the campaign faced, as the Harris campaign had significantly less time than other presidential candidates to run. Due to President Biden’s late exit, the Harris campaign only had four months to prepare and run her campaign, and while that might seem like plenty of time, within the political sphere, that is barely any. Despite critical endorsements from prominent figures such as Michelle and Barack Obama, Harris’s campaign was constantly running against the clock. This lack of time forced the Harris campaign to focus on voter groups that she needed to gain instead of the robust democratic base. This strategy majorly backfired on the Harris campaign, as she significantly underperformed in many historical blue states, including California.  President Biden easily won California in 2020, with sixty-three percent, while Harris only won fifty-six. The underperformance in the habitually blue states also made certain states, such as Virginia, a close contest.  

When looking at these factors of the Harris campaign, it is clear that the reason for the loss was not solely based on her gender but on a variety of factors. By scapegoating gender as the only answer for the loss, many of the fundamental problems within the campaign are overlooked. These losses by female politicians might accelerate the narrative that “America isn’t ready for a woman,” every day, more and more female politicians are climbing the ladder and being elected. 

While Harris’s defeat was disheartening for many women across the country, know that this loss was more extensive than just Harris’s gender. Do not let this loss diminish your hope for a day when a woman could be president. Keep working, keep fighting, and keep excelling in your field. Hope is our biggest weapon in this fight; without it, we are nothing. Women will eventually win, and when that day comes, we will be ready.

Featured image courtesy of The Conversation 

Copy edited by Lily Wasmund ’28