During her express campaign, Kamala Harris assured: the voters of the United States were “absolutely ready to elect and be led by a woman and a woman of color”. The results proved him wrong. As in 2016, the American population chose – in the majority – the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, to be the 47th president of their country.
For the second time in eight years, a woman candidate for the White House failed to “break the highest, the most difficult glass ceiling,” as Hillary Clinton described it. And for the second time, facing the same misogynist candidate, who was nevertheless beaten by Joe Biden in 2020.
So why is the United States still not ready to elect a woman as president? Decryption with Alexis Pichard, teacher of American civilization, researcher in American politics and media at the University of Paris Nanterre, and Esther Cyna, lecturer in American history, at the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en -Yvelines.
Female candidates failed where “an elderly white man succeeded”
“When we look at the last elections, it’s undeniable. Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris failed where an elderly white man, Joe Biden, succeeded,” says Esther Cyna. As she points out, the three candidates are “very comparable” from the point of view of their policies, their positions or even their rhetoric. “These are fairly “classic” candidates of the contemporary Democratic Party: centrists, economically liberal but fairly open to social issues. »
For this specialist, the gender of the candidates is also “underestimated” in the analyzes following the results of the election. “I think that, consciously or not, a large part of the electorate has the belief that a man is more qualified and more competent to lead the country,” she emphasizes, recalling “the countless examples that have showed that Trump was not fit to govern the world's leading power.
A glass ceiling “impossible to break”
The “highest and most difficult of glass ceilings” therefore remains “impossible to break,” recognizes Esther Cyna. “Kamala Harris had already broken a first one by becoming vice-president but that of the presidency seems untouchable,” she observes. We think back to Hillary Clinton's election night, which had anticipated a real glass ceiling that would be shattered in the event of victory… and which is still intact, literally and figuratively. »
However, the two Democratic candidates did not use the same strategy. “Hillary Clinton campaigned on gender, saying she would be the first woman elected, emphasizing the symbolic and historical issue,” emphasizes Alexis Pichard. As much as Kamala Harris didn't play it at all. She tried to move past that and sell something else and capitalize on her experience. »
The researcher adds: “The only one who led a racist and genderist campaign was Donald Trump. He constantly brought Kamala Harris back to her type, – a “stupid woman”, “an IQ of a sparrow”, by essentializing her, ensuring that a woman was “incapable of leading the first power in the world”. And he also often brought it back to his skin color. It was he who put his identity markers forward to mobilize his electorate, which is, in the majority, misogynistic, xenophobic and racist. »
A point that the lecturer in American history deplores. “Certainly, in the Trump electorate, there is a masculinist group represented in particular by Elon Musk or Andrew Tate. But what must be emphasized is that all the candidate's sexist and racist attacks did not bother him. In any case, they were not enough to question the electorate about its legitimacy, its morality, its competence to govern. For a majority of Americans – because he won the popular vote – it is not a problem to make such misogynistic speeches to be president. It was already shocking in 2016 but this time, the violence of the attacks against Kamala Harris, and against women in general, was quite unprecedented. »
A woman, like a man, must have a program
But Kamala Harris' defeat is “obviously not just due to her gender or skin color,” exclaims Esther Cyna. “It’s because she simply didn’t have a sufficiently elaborate political offer,” says Alexis Pichard.
Before expanding: “It’s really the Democratic Party that has failed to mobilize its electorate. The latter went on strike because the party's offer did not meet his expectations. The people questioned about their voting intentions said it in complete transparency: the question of the candidate's gender came well after concerns about what they might have left to eat at the end of the month. » Finally, “women politicians are “men like the others”, they must have a program”, he concludes.
In 2028, Democrats will not choose a woman
Despite everything, according to the results of the votes, many Americans – especially American women – are “ready to have a president”, affirms Esther Cyna who was able to observe that it was educated women who voted the most for the Democrats, and 91% of black women voted for Kamala Harris. Alexis Pichard also notes that the candidate was more successful in mobilizing than Hillary Clinton. He continues: “Already in 2016, a large majority was ready because the candidate had won the popular vote. It is only because the electoral system is based on the electors that she did not become president. »
All our articles on the 2024 American election
Can we then one day have a Democratic candidate at the head of the world's leading power? Maybe. But not in four years, according to Esther Cyna. She doubts that the Democrats will repeat the gamble of proposing a woman for the race for the White House.
