This US election season, many political commentators have noted how little attention Kamala Harris’s race and gender have received in media coverage. Compared to the 2016 election with Hilary Clinton, classic sexist stereotypes haven’t have not dominated the conversation in the same way. Attempts to make the campaign about her gender and race didn’t seem to stick to her. Yet, while this classic stereotyping didn’t stick, policy stereotypes got repeated again and again.
In my research on discrimination, I recently completed a project examining how voters respond to candidates’ race and gender. The findings were surprising: we reanalysed existing experimental studies and discovered that, on average, voters actually prefer women candidates over men. When it comes to race, we found that voters tend to favour Asian politicians and generally make no significant distinction between Black and white politicians. This suggests a somewhat positive or neutral voter stance on race and gender, which is certainly a shift from older assumptions of entrenched bias.
However, these findings don’t mean that sexism or racism has disappeared from electoral decision-making. The averages mask the reality that small groups of voters with very negative views of women and people of colour can still be highly influential, especially when stereotypes are strategically activated by opponents during a campaign. Moreover, latent stereotypes can be activated during the course of a campaign. Which stereotypes did the Trump camp attempt to activate? Besides some failed attempts to activate classic stereotypes, Trump seems to have successfully mobilised policy stereotypes.
“Unjust” stereotypes: women as honest, demure mothers
In this paper, I analysed all theoretical frameworks of academic publications on how race/gender affect voting behaviour. I distinguish between two schools of thought: “Unjust” and “Useful” stereotypes. Unjust stereotypes are based on social beliefs such as that women cannot be strong leaders, and that women in politics should embody traits like humility, honesty, and a focus on family life. Historically, these stereotypes have made it difficult for women in politics to be viewed as credible leaders without compromising other facets of their identity.
The Trump campaign has attempted to reinforce such “unjust” stereotypes in this election. Examples are “childless cat lady,” “Lying Kamala,” and “Laughing Kamala.” However, it seems that the attempts to mobilise these stereotypes have backfired. Taylor Swift proudly calling herself a childless cat lady can be seen as an indication of a failed attempt to mobilise a sexist stereotype. Trump calling her “Lying Kamala” soon became “Lion Kamala,” a celebration of her fierce power. Furthermore, attempts to disparage her laughter have led to viral TikTok videos celebrating her joy, which seems to have humanised her to some voters.
“Useful” stereotypes: women as extreme Left radicals
The second school of thought in the literature argues that there are “useful” stereotypes in political psychology – traits that voters use as mental shortcuts or cues to make quick decisions. For instance, on average, voters assume that female or non-white candidates lean more left politically than their white male counterparts. These assumptions can sometimes help voters in low-information elections, where candidate positions may not be widely known.
Yet, these same stereotypes can also be used unfairly against candidates, as seen in the Trump campaign. Throughout the election cycle, Harris has faced attempts by opponents to label her as “extreme left” nicknamed as “Comrade Kamala,” with her race and gender exploited to amplify these labels. Despite her efforts to reach moderate voters, these stereotypes of left-wing extremism persist. It might have even influenced her to lean more to the Right than she would have otherwise, in turn, possibly alienating her from more Left-leaning voters.
In the Trump campaign, “useful” stereotypes didn’t serve their supposed purpose of informing voters. Instead, they seem to have become a weaponised form of bias. This approach plays into voters’ policy stereotypes, pushing them towards a preconceived notion of the candidate. In Harris’s case, the repeated portrayal of her as a far-Left figure taps into deep-seated ideas about Black and woman politicians, aligning with progressive causes.
Voters’ True Motivations: Policy Above All
Despite the impact of gender and race, voters consistently show that policy is their main concern. Research shows that voters prioritise a candidate’s stance on issues over their race or gender. Nonetheless, in the absence of direct policy knowledge, many voters still turn to race and gender as indicators of a candidate’s likely positions – and this bias can be exploited.
For Harris, besides her race and gender, her image could also be shaped in part by assumptions about her California roots and her partisanship. These associations align with the stereotype of minority women candidates being more Left-leaning, even if they do not reflect Harris’s policy platform. Opponents have capitalised on this perceived association, working to maintain her image as a representative of the “extreme left.” This shows how policy stereotypes can create a self-perpetuating narrative that is difficult for a candidate to break, regardless of her actual policy positions.
