Connect with us

Economics

Did sexism propel Donald Trump to power?

Published

on

AS DEMOCRATS COME to terms with their decisive loss, some have begun pointing fingers at a temptingly simple—and conveniently self-absolving—explanation: it was sexism. America is simply not ready to elect a female president, suggested several news outlets, as it became clear that voters had rejected a woman for the highest office for a second time. In the early hours of November 6th David Axelrod, a campaign strategist turned political commentator, said on CNN that anyone who claimed that sexism did not play a role in Ms Harris’s defeat was simply “wrong”. Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, said to Politico that “the country is still sexist and is not ready for a woman president.”

Meanwhile, angry young women have taken to TikTok and other social-media channels to call on each other to emulate South Korea’s feminist 4B movement, which rejects sex and heterosexual dating, in retaliation against young men voting for Mr Trump. “The good news is that men hate us, so there’s no point in catering to them,” starts one video that quickly attracted over 1.3m likes. “No more kitty cat” for men, adds another.

Yet there is little evidence that Ms Harris lost because of sexism, and plenty that she did not. She suffered from structural disadvantages, including her ties to an unpopular presidency and perceptions of a bad economy, that had nothing to do with her sex. While a minority of Americans do hold overtly sexist views, including the idea that men are emotionally better suited for politics, they are clustered in Mr Trump’s base and so were never likely to vote for Ms Harris anyway. And at first glance, those states with a higher prevalence of sexist views (according to metrics devised by economists at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and National University Singapore) appear to have been no more likely to have swung towards Mr Trump than states with lower levels of sexism.

Research suggests that the electorate, on average, is not influenced by a candidate’s sex when they enter the voting booth. A meta-study, by Susanne Schwarz, now of Swarthmore College, and Alexander Coppock, of Yale, found that some voters (particularly if they are Democrats or women) are slightly more supportive of hypothetical female candidates. And unlike Mrs Clinton, Ms Harris throughout her campaign managed to avoid one of the few things that studies suggest can measurably hurt a female candidate’s chances with male voters: emphasising the historical nature of her candidacy.

None of this is to say that Ms Harris did not face sexist attacks. T-shirts and caps sold at Trump rallies were emblazoned with “F*** Joe and the Hoe” and “Biden Sucks, Kamala Swallows”. A now-deleted ad, by Elon Musk’s PAC, repeatedly called her “a big old c-word”. After she was announced as the Democratic nominee, sexist language online surged, sometimes fuelled by Mr Trump himself. Google searches for Ms Harris with the word “bitch” rocketed, much as they did after Mrs Clinton announced her candidacy.

But gender can be both highly relevant in an election and yet not hurt the chances of a female candidate. One reason for the speculation that sexism influenced the outcome is that this election became seen as a “battle of the sexes”—stoked by comments such as J.D. Vance’s about “childless cat ladies”—and a referendum on women’s rights. Because of this, several analysts predicted that the gender voting gap could reach a new high as women flocked to Ms Harris and men to Mr Trump.

With only exit-poll data to go on, it is too early to draw firm conclusions. But clearly the central Democratic hope of mobilising women in unprecedented numbers did not materialise. According to early estimates, women did not make up a larger share of the voting population than in 2020, and there is little evidence so far to suggest that the gender gap widened. Damningly, there is plenty to suggest that women (at least modestly) pivoted to Mr Trump. Where in 2020 some 55% of women overall voted for Mr Biden, AP VoteCast estimates that in 2024 Harris’s share slipped to 53%.

It appears that one of the few groups with whom Ms Harris gained ground compared with Joe Biden in 2020 were white college-educated women. Her support among black women remained stable even as it slipped among Hispanic women (although a majority still supported her). As in 2020, a majority of white women seem to have voted for Mr Trump. Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s lead among white men appears not to have increased, but he did see meaningful bumps among Hispanic men and young black men.

What came of the Gen Z “gender schism”? In the final stretch of the election, Mr Trump and Ms Harris actively courted young men and young women, respectively. Before November 5th pollsters were divided on how much weight to give to the idea that young men and women were growing apart. This is the generation most likely to say they lie to loved ones about how they vote, so it is hard to know how honest they are with pollsters. The first exit-poll data paint a similarly mixed picture, and it is too early to say whether the youth gender gap widened. Although talk of radicalisation of all young men is overblown—about half still voted for Ms Harris—Mr Trump has been successful in appealing to grievances among large segments of this age group.

What is clear is that the (relatively) young did not save Ms Harris. Quite the opposite. Among the under-45s, according to AP VoteCast, the swing towards Mr Trump was similar among both men and women and much greater than the very marginal shift in the over-45s. Instead, young people are the group who have shifted farthest, regardless of gender or race. This is not the key variable for explaining Trump’s vote, it’s the key variable explaining the swing. For a party that had hoped to count on both a gender- and a youth-quake, that is damning.

Continue Reading

Economics

The pivotal February jobs report is out Friday. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

People walk past digital billboards at the Moynihan Train Hall displaying a new initiative from New York Governor Kathy Hochul titled ‘New York Wants You’, a program designed to recruit and employ displaced federal workers across New York State, in New York, U.S., March 3, 2025. 

David Dee Delgado | Reuters

Mixed signals lately from the labor market are adding to angst for investors already on a knife’s edge over the potential threat that tariffs pose to inflation and economic growth.

Depending on the perspective, employers either are cutting workers at the highest rate in years or skating by with current staffing levels.

What has become clear is that workers are increasingly uncertain of their employment status and less prone to seek other opportunities, at the same time as job hunters are reporting it harder to find new positions, according to several recent surveys.

The sentiment indicators counter otherwise solid numbers showing up in more traditional data points like nonfarm payrolls growth and the jobless rate, which is still at a level historically associated with full employment and a bustling labor market.

Sound fundamentals

“Fundamentally speaking, things are still relatively sound in the United States. That doesn’t mean there are no cracks,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You can just whistle past that and just hang your hat on the payrolls report, or recognize that the payrolls report is a lagging indicator and some of those other indicators that give you a better flavor of what’s happening under the surface are looking softer by comparison.”

Markets will get another snapshot of labor market health when the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its February nonfarm payrolls report Friday at 8:30 ET. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect growth of 170,000 jobs, up from 143,000 in January, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 4%.

While that represents a stable labor market, there are a number of caveats that point to more difficult times ahead.

Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported Thursday that layoff announcements from companies soared in February to their highest monthly level since July 2020. A big reason for that move was the effort by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to cull the federal workforce. Challenger reported more than 62,000 DOGE-related cuts.

DOGE actions as well as other labor survey indicators showing worker angst likely won’t be reflected in Friday’s jobs number, primarily due to the timing of the cuts and the methodology the BLS uses in its twin counts of household employment and jobs filled at the establishment level.

Consumer confidence drop

But a recent Conference Board report showed an unexpectedly large drop in consumer confidence that coincided with a spike in respondents expecting fewer jobs to be available as well as harder to get. Similarly, a University of Michigan’s survey saw a slide as respondents worried about inflation.

In the world of economics, such fears can quickly become self-fulfilling prophecy.

“If workers don’t feel confident that they’re going to be able to find a new job … then that’s going to be reflected in the economy, and the same in terms for how willing employers are to hire,” said Allison Shrivastava, economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. “Don’t ever discount sentiment.”

In recent days, economists have been ramping up the potential impact for DOGE cuts, with some saying that multiplier effects involving government contractors could take the total labor force reduction to half a million or more.

“They’re going to have some trouble being reabsorbed into the economy,” Shrivastava said. “It also does shake people’s confidence and sentiment, which can certainly impact the actual economy.”

For now, Goldman Sachs said the DOGE cuts probably will lower the headline payrolls number by just 10,000 or so and exepcts weather-related impacts to be small. Overall, the bank said the current picture, according to alternative figures, is one of “a firm pace of job creation, and we expect continued, albeit moderating, contributions from catch-up hiring and the recent surge in immigration.”

In addition to the employment numbers, the BLS will release figures on pay growth. Average hourly earnings are expected to show a 0.3% monthly gain, up 4.2% from a year ago and about 0.1 percentage point above the January level.

Continue Reading

Economics

Treasury Secretary Bessent says the American dream is not about ‘access to cheap goods’

Published

on

Scott Bessent, US treasury secretary, during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, US, on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. 

Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday offered a full-throated defense of the White House’s position on tariffs, insisting that trade policy has to be about more than just getting low-priced items from other countries.

“Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,” Bessent said during a speech to the Economic Club of New York. “The American Dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this.”

The remarks came with markets on edge over how far President Donald Trump will go in an effort to attain his goals on global commerce. Stocks fell sharply Thursday despite news about some movement from the administration on Mexican imports.

In a speech delivered to a crowd of leading economists, Bessent indicated that Trump is willing to take strong measures to achieve his trade goals.

“To the extent that another country’s practices harm our own economy and people, the United States will respond. This is the America First Trade Policy,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Commerce Department data underscored how far the U.S. has fallen behind its global trading partners. The imbalance swelled to a record $131.4 billion in January, a 34% increase from the prior month and nearly double from a year ago.

“This system is not sustainable,” Bessent said.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: Tariff revenues will reduce the deficit & help balance budget

Economists and market participants worry that the Trump tariffs will raise prices and slow growth. However, White House officials point out that tariffs did little to stoke inflation during Trump’s first term, touting growth potential from reshoring as companies look to avoid paying the duties.

“Across a continuum, I’m not worried about inflation,” Bessent said. He added that Trump considers tariffs to have three benefits: as a revenue source with the U.S. running massive fiscal deficits, as a way to protect industries and workers from unfair practices around the world, and as “the third leg to the stool” as Trump “uses it for negotiating.”

Thursday’s talk was hosted by Larry Kudlow, the head of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.

In addition to discussing tariffs, the two chatted about deregulation as well as the onerous debt and deficit burden the government is facing. The budget is already $840 billion in the hole through just the first four months of fiscal 2025 as the deficit runs above 6% as a share of gross domestic product, a level virtually unheard of in a peacetime, expansionary economy.

“This is the last chance bar and grill to get this done,” Bessent said of imposing fiscal discipline. “Everyone knows what they should do. It’s, do they have the willpower to do it?”

Bessent also advocated a deep examination of bank regulations, particularly for smaller institutions, which he said are burdened with rules that don’t help safety.

As Bessent spoke, stocks added to losses in what has been a tough week for Wall Street.

“Wall Street’s done great, Wall Street can continue doing well. But this administration is about Main Street,” he said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Andrew Cuomo plots a comeback in New York

Published

on

Political disgrace isn’t as constraining as it used to be. Andrew Cuomo, whose public career was thought to be dead just three years ago, is back in the spotlight as a candidate for mayor of New York City—and he is topping polls. Mr Cuomo resigned as governor of New York state in August 2021 amid multiple sexual-harassment allegations (which he denied). On March 1st he announced his comeback.

Continue Reading

Trending