Author: Edward Bartlett

Key Analyses of the Male Electorate in the 2024 Presidential Election

1. Pew Research Center: Validated Voter Study (June 2025)
   • Source: Pew Research Center’s in-depth study of validated voters, conducted November 12-17, 2024, using the American Trends Panel (ATP).
   • Key Findings:
     • Overall Male Support for Trump: Men supported Donald Trump by a wider margin in 2024 compared to 2020. Specifically, Trump won men by 12 percentage points (55% vs. 43% for Kamala Harris), contributing significantly to his Electoral College and popular vote victories.
     • Young Men (Under 50): Men under 50 were a critical demographic, splitting nearly evenly in 2024 (49% for Trump, 48% for Harris), a notable shift from 2020 when Joe Biden won this group by 10 points (53% vs. 43%). Among men aged 18-29, Trump’s support reached 47%, the strongest Republican performance in this demographic since George W. Bush in 2004.
     • Racial and Ethnic Shifts: Trump made significant gains among nonwhite male voters. For example, 21% of Black men voted for Trump in 2024 (up from 2020), and 48% of Latino men supported him, particularly those under 40, where support reached 48% with 20% being first-time voters.
     • Turnout Dynamics: Trump’s victory was driven more by higher turnout among Republican-leaning men than by vote-switching. Approximately 89% of Trump’s 2020 male voters turned out again in 2024, compared to 85% of Biden’s 2020 voters.
     • Issues Driving Male Voters: Economic concerns, particularly inflation and cost of living, were top issues for men, especially young Black and Hispanic men (39% and 37-39%, respectively, cited jobs and inflation as key factors). Pessimism about the economy (e.g., net -29 among young Hispanic men) and retrospective approval of Trump’s presidency (net +16 among young Hispanic men) boosted his support.
   • Why It’s Strong: Pew’s validated voter study uses state voter records to confirm turnout, reducing sampling errors common in exit polls. Its panel survey design allows for longitudinal comparisons with 2016 and 2020, offering insights into voter behavior changes over time.
2. Catalist: What Happened in 2024 Report (May 2025)
   • Source: Catalist’s comprehensive voter-file-based analysis, using publicly available vote history data, precinct-level results, Census data, and proprietary modeling.
   • Key Findings:
     • Irregular Male Voters: Men, particularly non-college-educated and younger men, were more likely to be irregular voters (voting in fewer than all recent elections). Non-college men comprised over 60% of less consistent voters, with a significant portion favoring Trump in 2024.
     • Demographic Composition: Men of color, especially Latino men, showed a notable shift toward Trump. The report notes that voters of color (including Latino men) made up larger shares of irregular voters, contributing to Trump’s gains.
     • Churn in Electorate: The analysis highlights significant voter churn, with millions of men who voted in 2020 not voting in 2024, and new male voters (especially young and nonwhite) entering the electorate, favoring Trump more than in prior cycles.
   • Why It’s Strong: Catalist’s use of voter files and precinct-level data provides granular insights into turnout and vote choice, particularly for irregular voters. Its focus on demographic trends since 2012 offers context for long-term shifts in the male electorate.
3. Navigator Research: Post-Election Survey (December 2024)
   • Source: Navigator Research’s survey of 5,000 self-reported 2024 voters, with 4,784 verified against voter files, conducted by BSP Research.
   • Key Findings:
     • Young Male Discontent: Men under 45, particularly Black and Hispanic men, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the economy (net -32 for men 18-44) and disapproval of Biden’s performance (net -30). This drove a significant shift toward Trump, with young Hispanic men splitting evenly (49% Harris, 49% Trump) and young Black men supporting Harris by a reduced margin (64% vs. 30% for Trump, compared to 86% vs. 13% for Biden in 2020).
     • Key Issues: Inflation and immigration were critical for young men. Among young Hispanic men, 39% cited inflation and 37% cited jobs as top issues; for young Black men, 39% cited jobs and 27% inflation.
     • Gender Gap: The gender gap was pronounced, with women across age groups favoring Harris more than men. For example, 52% of women under 45 viewed Harris favorably, compared to only 34% of men under 45 approving of Biden’s economic handling.
   • Why It’s Strong: Navigator’s survey includes robust sampling of racial minority voters and multilingual surveys, improving accuracy for groups like Latino men. Its focus on issue salience provides clear insights into what drove male voters’ decisions.
4. Brookings: Latino Male Electorate Analysis (November 2024)
   • Source: Brookings Senior Fellow Gabriel Sanchez’s analysis, using the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll.
   • Key Findings:
     • Latino Male Shift: Trump won 43% of Latino men in 2024, up from 2020, with 48% support among those under 40. Economic concerns were paramount, with Trump’s campaign leveraging misinformation about immigrants to appeal to Latino men facing economic challenges.
     • Gender Dynamics: Only 32% of Latinas supported Trump, creating an 11% gender gap among Latino voters, consistent with 2022 trends. Harris’s gender was a net positive for her among Latino men (17% net gain), countering speculation of widespread gender bias.
     • Outreach Gaps: Nearly half (45%) of Latino men reported no contact from campaigns or mobilization agents, potentially contributing to perceptions of political neglect and openness to Republican outreach, which improved in 2024.
   • Why It’s Strong: This analysis dives deep into the Latino male electorate, a key swing group, and uses a specialized poll to address nuances like economic perceptions and campaign outreach, offering a focused perspective on a critical demographic.
5. The New York Times: Gender and Electoral Shifts (July 2025)
   • Source: Opinion piece and analysis by The New York Times, citing Pew Research and PRRI data.
   • Key Findings:
     • Broad Male Shift: Men of all races and ethnicities shifted significantly toward Trump, with the male vote for the Democratic nominee dropping by 3.54 million from 2020 to 2024, compared to a 844,000 drop among women. If men had supported Harris at the same level as women, she could have won the popular vote.
     • Cultural Factors: PRRI data showed 52% of men in 2024 believed “society has become too soft and feminine,” up from 50% in 2016, suggesting cultural narratives around masculinity influenced male voters, particularly younger ones.
     • Electoral Impact: The broader shift among men, especially working-class and nonwhite men, was a dominant theme, overshadowing losses among minority groups alone.
   • Why It’s Strong: The New York Times synthesizes multiple data sources (Pew, PRRI) and highlights cultural and psychological factors, offering a broader narrative on why men moved toward Trump, beyond purely economic or demographic explanations.
6. Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP): Gender Differences (December 2024)
   • Source: CAWP’s analysis of exit polls (Edison Research, AP VoteCast) and BSP Research data, focusing on gender gaps.
   • Key Findings:
     • Persistent Gender Gap: Women supported Harris more than men across all racial, age, and education groups, but men, particularly young men (18-29), shifted toward Trump. Only 48% of young men backed Harris, compared to 61% of young women, creating an 11-point gender gap (down from 15 points in 2020).
     • Young Male Trends: Nearly half of young men (47%) supported Trump, driven by economic dissatisfaction and a smaller gender gap than expected, challenging pre-election narratives of a widening divide among Gen Z.
     • Racial Nuances: Black and Latino men supported Harris less than their female counterparts, with Black men at 64% for Harris (vs. 86% for Biden in 2020) and Latino men at 51% for Harris.
   • Why It’s Strong: CAWP’s focus on gender differences, combined with robust exit poll data, provides a clear comparison of male and female voting patterns, highlighting the male electorate’s distinct behavior.

Summary of Key Trends Across Analyses

• Trump’s Gains Among Men: Trump won men by 12 points overall, with significant gains among young men (18-29) and nonwhite men (Black, Latino, and naturalized citizens). Young men under 50 shifted dramatically, with Trump winning or nearly tying groups that Biden won handily in 2020.
• Economic Concerns: Inflation, jobs, and cost of living were top issues for men, particularly young Black and Hispanic men, driving their shift toward Trump.
• Turnout vs. Vote-Switching: Higher turnout among Republican-leaning men, rather than widespread vote-switching, was a key factor in Trump’s victory. This was especially true for irregular voters, including non-college-educated and nonwhite men.
• Cultural Narratives: Perceptions of a “soft and feminine” society and dissatisfaction with Democratic messaging on male-specific issues (e.g., economic opportunity, masculinity) resonated with some men, particularly younger voters.
• Latino Men as a Swing Group: Latino men, especially those under 40, showed a significant shift toward Trump (43-48% support), driven by economic concerns and improved Republican outreach.

Why These Analyses Stand Out

• Data Quality: Pew and Catalist use validated voter data and voter files, ensuring high accuracy in turnout and vote choice. Navigator and CAWP incorporate robust sampling of minority groups, addressing gaps in traditional exit polls.
• Granularity: Brookings’ focus on Latino men and CAWP’s gender comparisons provide detailed subgroup analyses, while Pew and Catalist offer broader demographic trends.
• Contextual Depth: The New York Times and Navigator tie voting behavior to cultural and economic factors, offering a holistic view of male voter motivations.

Limitations and Notes

• Exit Poll Variability: Differences between Edison Research, AP VoteCast, and BSP Research surveys can lead to varying estimates, particularly for minority groups. CAWP and Navigator address this by focusing on consistent trends across sources.
• Incomplete Data: Some analyses (e.g., X posts) rely on preliminary or unverified data, so claims like exact vote shares should be treated cautiously.
• Focus on Subgroups: While Latino and Black male voters are highlighted, less attention is given to Asian or white male subgroups, which could provide further nuance.

For further details, you can explore the full reports from Pew Research (https://www.pewresearch.org), Catalist (https://catalist.us), Navigator Research (https://navigatorresearch.org), or Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu). If you’re interested in specific subgroups (e.g., young men, Latino men) or issues, let me know, and I can tailor the analysis further!

1. Emmeline Pankhurst and Suffragettes (WSPU, UK, Early 20th Century)
   • Context: Emmeline Pankhurst led the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a militant suffragette group in the UK fighting for women’s voting rights. While the WSPU initially focused on protests, by 1912, it escalated to property damage, including arson and bombing campaigns targeting empty buildings, postboxes, and infrastructure to pressure the government.
   • Actions: Pankhurst and WSPU members like Emily Wilding Davison and Christabel Pankhurst orchestrated acts such as setting fire to mailboxes, smashing shop windows, and planting bombs in unoccupied structures (e.g., railway stations). Davison’s death under the King’s horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby is often debated as a deliberate act or accident but was politically symbolic. These actions were controversial, alienating some supporters but drawing attention to the suffrage cause.
   • Impact: The WSPU’s militancy contributed to public debate on women’s suffrage, though it also led to arrests and hunger strikes. Posts on X highlight ongoing debates about their legacy, with some criticizing their tactics as terrorism, while others view them as justified resistance.
   • Source Note: Historical records and X posts confirm the WSPU’s shift to violent tactics, though the extent of individual involvement varies.
2. Ulrike Meinhof (Red Army Faction, Germany, 1970s)
   • Context: Ulrike Meinhof, a journalist-turned-militant, co-founded the Red Army Faction (RAF), a far-left terrorist group in West Germany. The RAF aimed to overthrow capitalism and imperialism, targeting state and corporate entities.
   • Actions: Meinhof participated in bank robberies, bombings (e.g., the 1972 attack on U.S. military bases), and the 1970 armed liberation of RAF leader Andreas Baader. She was involved in planning and executing attacks that killed several people, including soldiers and civilians.
   • Impact: Arrested in 1972, Meinhof’s actions fueled debates on political extremism. Her death in prison (1976) remains controversial, with supporters claiming state foul play. The RAF’s violence is widely condemned, though some leftist groups still romanticize it.
   • Source Note: Meinhof’s role is well-documented in historical accounts of the RAF.
3. Valerie Solanas (United States, 1968)
   • Context: Solanas, a radical feminist and author of the SCUM Manifesto, advocated for the violent overthrow of patriarchal structures. Her manifesto called for eliminating men, though it’s debated as satire or serious intent.
   • Actions: In 1968, Solanas shot and critically wounded artist Andy Warhol and art critic Mario Amaya at Warhol’s studio, motivated by personal grievances and her broader anti-male ideology. She surrendered to police, claiming it was a political act.
   • Impact: Solanas was convicted of attempted murder and served three years. Her act is often cited in discussions of radical feminism’s extremes, though it alienated mainstream feminist movements. X posts mention her alongside other ideological extremists.
   • Source Note: Court records and biographical accounts confirm her actions and motives.

Contemporary Examples

4. Female Members of Antifa (United States, 2010s–Present)
   • Context: Antifa (short for Anti-Fascist Action) is a decentralized, far-left militant movement opposing fascism, racism, and capitalism. Women have been documented as active participants in Antifa’s street actions, which often involve clashes with far-right groups or police.
   • Actions: While specific names are rarely publicized due to Antifa’s anonymity, women have been arrested in violent protests, such as the 2017 Inauguration Day riots in Washington, D.C., or 2020 Portland clashes, where Antifa members engaged in property destruction (e.g., burning buildings) and physical confrontations. Videos and arrest reports show women throwing projectiles or wielding improvised weapons.
   • Impact: Antifa’s actions are polarizing—defended as resistance to fascism but criticized as undermining free speech or escalating violence. X posts list Antifa alongside other violent ideological groups. No centralized data tracks female Antifa members specifically, but their involvement is evident in open-source footage.
   • Source Note: News reports and X posts provide evidence, though individual attribution is limited.
5. ISIS Female Fighters and Supporters (Syria/Iraq, 2010s)
   • Context: The Islamic State (ISIS) recruited women globally, some of whom engaged in or facilitated political violence. While men dominated combat roles, women in ISIS’s all-female Al-Khansaa Brigade enforced brutal punishments, and others conducted or planned attacks.
   • Actions: Examples include women like Sally Jones (UK) and Hoda Muthana (U.S.), who joined ISIS and supported violent jihad. Jones, a former musician, was linked to recruiting and planning attacks, including a reported 2017 drone strike death. Muthana, who left the U.S. to join ISIS, spread propaganda and called for attacks on Western targets. Some women carried out suicide bombings, such as a 2018 attack in Tunisia by a female ISIS operative.
   • Impact: These women’s actions reinforced ISIS’s global terror campaign, though their numbers were small compared to male fighters. Many, like Muthana, later sought repatriation, sparking legal and ethical debates.
   • Source Note: Counterterrorism reports and news articles document their roles, though exact numbers are unclear.