Photo by Nathaniel St. Clair

Last May, he weighed in on Florida’s abortion ballot measure, suggesting that advocates not only faced a big hurdle to pass it, but an uphill battle in trying to use it to mobilize support for Kamala Harris. in a state that was starting to lean decidedly towards Red. Florida is particularly notorious for its split vote on ballot measures — even though conservative voters might support a ballot measure, that didn’t mean they would support the party and its candidate promoting it. Florida just proved the point in spades. While the measure came pretty close to passage (getting 57% voter support, just shy of the 60% required), Sunshine State voters cast their ballots in record numbers for Donald Trump by a margin of victory by almost 14 points. If there was any doubt that Florida had joined the traditional red states elsewhere in the South and Southeast, the 2024 election results completely dispelled them.

But the problem extends far beyond Florida. In Arizona, voters overwhelmingly affirmed (by nearly two-thirds) an abortion ballot measure that continued to protect abortion rights in the state against ultra-conservative forces seeking to roll them back. But in the general election, Trump cruised to victory, beating Harris in the presidential vote by a solid 6 points, 53%-47%. There was also good news on abortion in two other states — New York and Colorado — but both are solidly blue states that Harris captured, and no one expected abortion measures to sway the general election battle in one way or another.

Even in these states, however, it’s pretty clear that abortion hasn’t worked as well as Harris and the Democrats had hoped. Harris won New York by 38 points, but that was 15 points less than Biden’s victory in 2020. In Colorado, Harris’ margin over Trump was just over 10 points, down from 14 Biden’s points in 2020. In both cases, as in Florida and many other states, there were significant swings in the electorate toward Trump among working-class voters, especially men and women of color. But it’s Harris’ poor performance among women that’s particularly remarkable.

There are two dimensions of underperformance that are particularly troubling for Democrats. One is whether abortion can get more women to the polls; the second is how women and voters generally vote in elections beyond the abortion ballot measure. In 2024, women didn’t turn out in record numbers, and worse, when they did, they didn’t vote overwhelmingly for Harris.

Harris’ national margin among women was just 10 points, 54%-44%; that’s actually lower than Biden’s 55% in 2020 and a 12-point margin over Trump. But in Florida and Arizona her margins were much slimmer.

What is the powerful lesson for Democrats and their female supporters here? Democratic women may find abortion a compelling reason to vote for Harris, but they’re already voting for Harris anyway. Among the general electorate, and even among women voters in general, abortion was not a top priority. Fewer than 10 percent of voters, and in some polls as few as 5 percent, even listed abortion as a top concern, compared to the economy, immigration and crime — issues heavily promoted by the GOP. Most Americans support abortion rights — and oppose strict bans — so if abortion is on the ballot, they will vote for a state measure that protects those rights. But they won’t let their vote influence their preference for the presidential election – quite the opposite.

In retrospect, Democratic women — and indeed, many pundits and pollsters in general — appear to have misread the results of the 2022 midterm elections, where Democrats beat Trump-backed Senate candidates in measure states of abortion on the ballot. Midterm elections are not general elections—the entire fate and political direction of the nation is not at stake. Moreover, many of these Trump-endorsed candidates — such as Dr. Oz from Pennsylvania – there were weak competitors who ran weak campaigns. Their own crass opposition to abortion and their general lack of credibility contributed heavily to their vulnerability and defeat.

Nor should one underestimate the effect of Trump’s shrewd political maneuvers by downplaying his opposition to abortion. Trump early on — and wisely — spoke out against a national abortion ban favored by many in his own party, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and his own vice president, JD Vance, on the abortion issue. As the campaign wound down, Trump evolved further, announcing his strong support for IVF and even declaring his support for Florida’s abortion rights measure (on the grounds that a 6-week ban was “too harsh”). One can dismiss these maneuvers as disingenuous — in fact, it turns out Trump voted against Florida’s measure) — but one shouldn’t underestimate their tactical utility. Trump was giving pro-abortion voters more reason not to fear his next presidency, giving them an excuse to vote for him on the core issues that mattered most to them. And that’s exactly what many of them did.

That being said, the victories the abortion rights movement won last week should not be underestimated. In 7 of the 10 states where pro-abortion measures were on the ballot, those measures passed, sending a clear signal about where the majority of voters stand on one of the most controversial “hot button” issues ” from America. Most notable was the ballot measure’s victory in Missouri, where abortion was heretofore illegal with almost no exception (except for the life of the mother). Amendment 3 was passed two years after Missouri became the first state to ban abortion following the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign supporting the measure, collected more than 380,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot — enshrining some of the language of Roie v. Wade enshrined in the state constitution — and was passed only narrowly — with 53 percent support — but in a swing state, Trump won by nearly 19 points.

The result? Trump’s victory, while disheartening for progressives, should not obscure the fact that abortion rights are still on the march virtually everywhere. Even if the People’s Republic of China will scrutinize the White House and Congress, there is no filibuster-proof majority that will be available to pass a national abortion ban or any other ban. Trump will no doubt be under pressure from pro-life forces to curtail abortion rights where he can, possibly through executive orders, but it’s not quite clear that he’ll be inclined to take aggressive action on that front given his other priorities his, his own trouble. on the issue and in light of opposition to abortion extremism within his own party. Reinstatement of Roe v. Wade? That was never going to happen given the deadlock in Congress, which is likely to persist for some time. The best way forward is continued promotion of abortion rights at the state level, including increased pressure on state and local candidates to support abortion, including, whenever possible, efforts to enshrine Roe V. Wade in state constitutions. The most immediate need, however, is to protect the 7 new state abortion laws from potential court challenges. Especially in states with a large proportion of conservative judges – the outcome of these challenges is unpredictable.

Looking ahead, Trump’s victory — and the likely consolidation of GOP power nationally — requires Democratic women to better understand how the issue of abortion — and culture war issues in general — is playing out with a wide range of voter groups. Groups like Hispanics that conservatives have long insisted would oppose abortion in mass on religious and moral grounds are actually quite open to protecting access to abortion. But they may not be as open to supporting transgender rights if those rights include measures such as equal access to women’s bathrooms or participation in sports previously designated for “biological” women. Are pro-abortion women open to reconsidering what has so far been a broad and rather uncritical alliance of disaffected sexual minorities, all in the name of fighting the amorphous specter of “patriarchy?”

It is also unclear to what extent successful messaging on these “freedom” issues fundamentally depends on the messenger and the campaign strategy the messenger chooses to adopt. Harris, for reasons known only to herself and her top advisers, chose a female-dominated mobilization strategy and a hyper-feminized messaging campaign in hopes of increasing female participation, particularly younger unmarried women, for whom the campaign he assumed they would vote for them with an overwhelming majority. Harris. Neither assumption has been confirmed in practice. In fact, by tilting so obviously—and crudely toward one gender—Harris probably alienated large amounts of otherwise sympathetic male (and female) voters, who thus became susceptible to his own gendered appeals. Trump. Harris failed to take advantage of the many venues — notably Joe Rogan’s podcast, but there were others — where she could have explained her views to a predominantly male audience and generally broadened her electoral appeal. Her rejection of those seats — with less than credible excuses — revealed a defensiveness and insecurity about herself and her campaign that was clear to voters. Future candidates, especially women, need to step up and accept these challenges or lose credibility.

Finally, progressive women need to take stock of what happened here and avoid the unyielding impulse—already evident in recent columns by longtime feminists like Joan Walsh—to blame “racism” and “misogyny ” – or even worse “female stupidity”. ” – for Trump’s breakthrough victory. This is self-serving – and counterproductive. Harris lost because she was a weak candidate who failed to think about the appeal of her candidacy and campaign beyond the 53 percent of voters who are women. Many of those same voters rejected her candidacy for not addressing the issues that mattered most to them. Harris and the Democrats should have known this from the polls and their own polls, but they set off like a lemming to march over a cliff to an ignominious defeat that left the entire party in shambles. Hoping for a 2028 sweep with a better candidate is unlikely to improve Democratic prospects. The party needs to take a good look in the mirror and decide what it really stands for – and with whom. Otherwise, this could be the first of many more defeats to come.