The Man Gap
The Democrats' Latest and Most Problematic Gender Divide
Kamala Harris’ campaign is faltering with male voters—particularly young, Black, and Hispanic men. Recent polling reveals that only 49 percent of Black men under 50 support her and 25 percent of young Black men are backing her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. One finds a significant gender gap among Black voters, as two-thirds of Black women support Harris, but her appeal to men is far weaker. Hispanic men also show lower support; in Arizona, 51 percent of Hispanic men aged 18-34 support Mr. Trump, compared to just 39 percent for Ms. Harris. Among those aged 35-49, Mr. Trump holds an even larger lead, with 57 percent backing him and only 37 percent supporting Ms. Harris. A similarly dismal trend bodes for her in Nevada, where 53 percent of younger Hispanic men plan to vote for Mr. Trump, compared to 40 percent for Ms. Harris.
Men, as a whole, seem inclined against Ms. Harris’ candidacy, per the most recent AtlasIntel poll, which found Mr. Trump leading Ms. Harris nationally 50-48; roughly 49 percent of men said they reject Ms. Harris more. A recent article by the New York Times revealed that young men back Mr. Trump 58-37 over Ms. Harris. Democrats have moved quickly to dismiss the support of men, particularly young Black and Hispanic men, for Mr. Trump to sexist attitudes. Indeed, for many Democrats, the narrative of the sinister patriarchy strikes again!
Democratic strategist Christy Setzer would have us believe that Ms.Harris faces a familiar foe: the same “misogyny” and “outdated ideas on who should hold the presidency” that supposedly thwarted Hillary Clinton. Ms. Setzer claimed that Mr. Trump exploits a “strongman” image at his rallies that is tailor-made to resonate with male voters who, in her view, are too disillusioned with Ms. Harris’ leadership to recognize a good thing when they see it. With his talent for grandstanding and belittling those of differing political opinions, even Barack Obama could not resist weighing in. Mr. Obama criticized “the brothers” for their lukewarm response to Ms. Harris—daring to suggest that perhaps their reluctance isn’t about the policy shifts or any substantive grievances with the Democratic Party but is, of course, rooted in something far more nefarious: sexism and discomfort with the notion of a female president. Naturally, the possibility that young men might have valid concerns about Kamala Harris’ leadership doesn’t even cross the Democratic mind.
Mr. Trump has made a precise play for the male vote, recently appearing on podcasts like Theo Von's, Lex Fridman's, and Andrew Schulz’s, with an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, the most listened-to podcast on Spotify, planned. His strategy? To solidify his appeal among young men by speaking their language—authentic, unapologetic, and bold. I’ve written before about how this kind of no-prisoners rhetoric screams leadership to younger men, who are starved for anything that doesn’t sound like a focus group or human resources churned it out. Contrast that with Ms. Harris’ approach—carefully scripted and predictably uninspiring. Her campaign’s solution to this problem? Deploying her running mate and the left’s idea of a “guy’s guy,” Tim Walz, on a cringe-worthy “dudes-rock tour,” where he attempts to win over male voters by pandering with clichés: coaching football, cracking jokes about football, and throwing in a few references to—what else?—football. “Hey, fellas, did you catch the game?” The left’s notion of masculinity isn’t just out of touch; it’s a caricature of itself. Because when all you’ve got is a caricature, well, caricature is what you deliver.
]I find that the Democrats’ attempt to connect with men has been nothing short of patronizing. Wearing a camo hat and barn jacket or bragging about pheasant hunting doesn't address the real concerns men have today. It’s a shallow attempt to appeal to masculinity, and I think we are smart enough to see through it.
Adding insult to injury, other pro-Harris messaging has been downright crude. Democratic content creators have launched a get-out-the-vote campaign at basketball games and bars, leaving messages like “Your vote is private. You don’t need to tell your boys you’re voting for Harris/Walz.” The implication here? Voting for Harris is something to be embarrassed about—a brilliant tactic if your goal is to win any man with a shred of self-respect. The tone-deafness peaks with another slogan: “Trump gives girls the ick. Vote Harris, Get Laid.” Yes, you read that right. It’s patronizing, lowbrow drivel that assumes men are little more than barely sentient cavemen, casting their ballots solely for the promise of carnal gratification.
How exactly do Democrats think this patronizing and demeaning rhetoric will inspire young men to vote for them? Bluntly, how do Ms. Harris and her fellow Democrats believe that men are even willing to hear what the left in the United States has to sell? What father is enthused by watching biological males compete in women's sports, effectively sidelining the very notion of fairness and merit for his daughters? What man enjoys inflation that strains budgets and makes owning a home or building wealth through property—a cornerstone of the American dream—seem increasingly out of reach? Any man trying to provide for their family or secure their future is left watching as financial instability becomes the norm.
On top of that, the influx of millions of illegal immigrants willing to work for lower wages only undercuts job security for many men, particularly those with lower educational attainment. It’s not xenophobia; it’s about economic survival, and it’s a concern felt by men of every race or creed. And while Democrats offer platitudes, men see their jobs threatened, their wages stagnant, prices going up, and little in the way of serious solutions. Safety for themselves and their families is paramount, and yet violent offenders seem to cycle in and out of the justice system. Men want to protect their families and communities, yet Democrat district attorneys seem to favor leniency over justice, releasing dangerous criminals back into the streets. So it’s not hard to see why many men are tuning out Ms. Harris’ message. It’s not just that they feel left out—they’re being alienated.
Thus, in courting the votes of and appealing to men, young men in particular, both the Harris and Trump campaigns have their appropriate surrogates. For Mr. Trump, it is Elon Musk, who, with all his flaws and occasional lack of decorum, stands as a counterpoint to the apathy and disdain many men feel toward the Democrats. Mr. Musk resonates with men who feel disenfranchised by policies they believe undermine their identity or diminish their place in society. While the left busies itself with demonizing masculinity, Mr. Musk embraces his own version unapologetically.
Whether it’s taking on entrenched interests or dreaming up audacious goals like colonizing Mars, Mr. Musk presents an image of ambition, strength, and the kind of leadership that resonates with men who feel that today’s wokeness and yesterday’s political correctness is undermining their identity. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, Mr. Musk has carefully curated a public persona that embraces “tough-guy masculinity,” speaking directly to those who feel hemmed in by a culture that stifles ambition and strength. Case in point: at a recent Trump rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, Mr. Musk drew a crowd of enthusiastic supporters—many of whom had shown up specifically for him. There, Mr. Musk made a case for Trump’s re-election, framing it not just as another political contest but as part of a grander mission: the preservation of Western civilization itself.
In interviewing two men who happened to be graduates of Ridley High School, where the event was held, Tim Higgins, for the Wall Street Journal, reported on how Mr. Musk symbolizes hope to them. “The American dream, I want to attain that goal,” Luke Bencrowsky explained. “Just to have a good life, brother.” These young men see him as someone who has made it through sheer willpower, taking risks, and pursuing big dreams. As Bencrowsky said, Mr. Musk is a hero—“just a guy, at the same time, doing what’s right.” His friend, Giovanni Harness, agreed, describing Musk as a “down-to-earth guy” who doesn’t sugarcoat their harsh realities.
In his efforts to combat climate change—a challenge often described as both an existential threat and a crisis multiplier—Mr. Musk has not just pioneered the electric car with Tesla but also redefined space exploration with SpaceX, perfecting reusable rockets that have drastically reduced the cost of space travel. As if that weren’t enough, Mr. Musk has set his sights on the frontiers of health with Neuralink, aiming to conquer physical disabilities. Without SpaceX, it’s fair to say civilization’s gaze wouldn’t be fixed so optimistically on the stars. I still remember, as a child, when the Space Shuttle Atlantis completed its final mission. Even at the age of six, I felt deeply disappointed, as though humanity’s ambition to explore space had stalled (what young boy didn’t want to be an astronaut, after all?). Fast forward to 2020, when Mr. Musk’s SpaceX and Crew Dragon became the first privately owned spacecraft operator to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, restoring America’s pride in space exploration and breaking our reliance on Russian rockets.
Now, contrast Musk’s visionary appeal to the young male vote with the Democrats’ offering: Kamala Harris’ surrogate, Tim Walz. Mr. Walz, by contrast, comes across as goofy, clownish, and not exceptionally bright—a self-described “knucklehead.” His forced persona is more like Homer Simpson than a serious leader: bumbling and perpetually out of his depth. And his attempts to court male voters? Superficial and, as mentioned earlier, downright demeaning.
It just seems like the left doesn’t understand men. At all. Mark Schipper, in a post on X, said, “If you’re wondering how the progressive left ends up picking Tim Walz to attract male voters with normative testosterone levels, this is the manner of media they take their cues from,” and shared a clip from a token member of the liberal “resistance,” Aaron Rupar, seemingly mocking Mr. Trump for his old age and being out of touch for “telling stories about Wally Pipp, who was born in 1893, and Lou Gehrig, who was born in 1903,” with Mr. Rupar commenting on what a failure it would be in “appealing to Barstool's young male audience.”
Mr. Schipper found it hysterical how Mr. Rupar “has convinced himself, preposterously, that men aren’t interested in sports history,” adding that “Being that out of touch with reality is how you lose.” It’s anecdotal, but I feel obligated to add that should one wonder whether men are, in fact, interested in sports history, I would point the said curious inquirer to my friend Sam’s Ultimate Team (a multiplayer game mode on FIFA, where players build and play matches with their created football clubs by collecting virtual cards of real-life players). Sam’s team is, as he says, a “Manchester United past and present” with former and current red devils such as David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Marcus Rashford.
So, maybe “Coach Walz” and his fellows on the left could learn that from what should be an obvious playbook—sports history draws more interest to men than an over-the-top persona of a goofy, self-deprecating “knucklehead.” While Mr. Walz jokes and belittles Republicans as weird, allegedly “defining masculinity” according to our all-knowing press, Mr.Musk is out there building rockets, tackling massive engineering challenges, and making the impossible seem possible. Young men like Mr. Bencrowsky and Mr. Harness aren’t looking for the character Mr. Walz; they’re looking for someone like Mr. Musk—someone who can stand as a beacon of what’s possible when you refuse to settle for mediocrity.
In conclusion, the Harris campaign’s struggle with male voters highlights a broader disconnect between the Democratic Party, as an extension of the left, and men. Polling consistently shows that Mr. Trump is outperforming or overperforming Ms. Harris among men of all races and ages, and it is likely that, given his broader lead in the election as a whole, should he emerge victorious—it will be due to the Harris campaign’s pitiful performance with male voters. In viewing some of the prevailing discourse on social media, however, I conclude that the left will fail to understand this male disillusionment, with tweets that dismiss young men as being “lost to Tate, Rogan, Musk, and Peterson” or blast them as “wanting to be coddled”—which comes off as nothing but contemptuous toward them, with the same poster asserting the notion that men are driven by misogyny, and disinterested in democracy, rather than the acknowledgment that the left is failing to address their concerns. And with messaging like this, the problem will only exacerbate, all but ensuring that more young men will continue to tune out the Democratic Party's message altogether.