Donald Trump Wanted A Gender Election — And It Could Cost Him

This article is part of HuffPost’s biweekly politics newsletter. Click here to subscribe.

Election Day is Tuesday. And while plenty of politicos and pundits are out there predicting what will happen, the reality is that … nobody knows. The polls are super close, nationally and in the swing states. Forecasting models see the race as a coin flip.

But you can spot some clear storylines that say a lot about how the two presidential campaigns have unfolded so far, and that might even help explain the outcome after the fact. One of those storylines is the determination and enthusiasm of women who back Democrat Kamala Harris, including women who might be afraid to say so publicly because their husbands support Republican Donald Trump.

I first heard about this last week, in Michigan, while covering a campaign event for Democratic Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin. Slotkin said canvassers were reporting stops at houses with large Trump signs, where women would answer and ― when asked which candidate they were supporting ― would quietly point to a photo of Harris on the canvassers’ campaign literature.

Slotkin went on to say she’d been hearing of an organic campaign to put notes in bathroom stalls, reminding women that their votes are confidential and that they should vote like their daughters’ lives depend on it.

It all sounded a little apocryphal. But it turns out that there really is a sticker and sticky note campaign, and it has been underway for at least several weeks, as Ms. Magazine and then NBC News reported in September.

And though the movement appears to have started on its own and spread over social media, lately the underlying sentiment has been getting high-profile support from figures like former first lady Michelle Obama, who in a recent Harris campaign appearance said, “If you are a woman who lives in a household of men that don’t listen to you or value your opinion, just remember that your vote is a private matter.”

Are there enough hidden votes to change who wins a state? Probably not. But the emotional fuel for it, the determination of so many women to elect Harris over Trump, absolutely could prove decisive.

If that happens, it would be one of the more ironic twists in modern political history ― and one of the more fitting ones, too ― because a campaign pitting men against women is exactly the campaign Trump and his advisers wanted.

It’s no secret that this year’s gender gap is shaping up to be the largest in memory, with polls showing men favoring Trump by double digits, and women favoring Harris by a similar margin. In many ways, that gap was preordained not because of who’s on the ballot, but what’s at stake ― the future of reproductive freedom, and one side that’s actively pushing to regress back toward restrictive gender roles and limited rights.

But instead of trying to counter that, Trump has leaned in.

On the eve of this summer’s Republican National Convention, even before President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid and Harris became their party’s nominee, Trump campaign officials boasted about how they were hoping to create what Axios called a “boys vs. girls election,” with ”Donald Trump’s chest-beating macho appeals vs. Joe Biden’s softer, reproductive-rights-dominated, all-gender inclusivity.”

So powerful was this appeal, Trump’s campaign managers told The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta, that Trump would manage to peel off some of the Black and Hispanic men who would traditionally vote Democratic, enough to offset losses among women. “For every Karen we lose, we’re going to win a Jamal and an Enrique,” one Trump ally had previously told Alberta.

The Trump campaign has unfolded just as his team promised ― which helps explain why, for example, Trump has spent the final weeks before the election appearing alongside former Fox News host Tucker Carlson (who recently suggested that the country needed Trump to be a “dad” who would deliver a “spanking”) while sidelining former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (who has been popular with independent female voters).

And the strategy may very well work. Polls have shown Harris struggling to hit the margins among Black and (especially) Hispanic men that previous Democrats have.

But the Trump gambit depends on winning over more men faster than he alienates women. And that’s hardly a safe bet. In just the last few years, the gender gap has been increasing at a faster pace than before, as my colleague Lilli Petersen explained recently.

Part of the reason for this shift is the Republican Party’s assault on reproductive freedom, culminating in the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling striking down its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the enactment of abortion bans in multiple states. Trump has bragged about appointing the justices who made that ruling possible.

Trump, by all accounts, has come to understand that abortion is a political liability. That’s why over the past year he has, on occasion, suggested that some of the state bans go too far — or promised to protect access to in vitro fertilization, something at risk under abortion bans because it can involve the destruction of embryos. But with Trump being Trump, he’s been inconsistent and vague about what he would or wouldn’t support when it comes to reproductive rights.

And that’s not to mention the message his campaign has been sending about forcing adherence to traditional gender roles, in part with Trump’s selection of Ohio Sen. JD Vance as his running mate. Vance’s past includes statements that women without children are “childless cat ladies” who have too much influence in politics, as well as suggestions that the sexual revolution made it too easy for women to leave bad marriages. After these comments came to light, Vance doubled down — essentially apologizing to cats, but not women.

A campaign determined to win over more women would have made a serious effort to walk back these statements, starting with an apology. Vance never offered one, and neither did Trump.

How is this all shaking out?

Overall, according to a recent Politico analysis, women are accounting for 55% of the early vote across battleground states. And in Pennsylvania, a state that many strategists consider the most important for each candidate, data suggests that early voting includes a relatively high proportion of Democratic women who did not vote there in 2020.

Early voting is a notoriously unreliable predictor of outcomes, for the simple reason that the data about who is voting doesn’t say that much about how they are voting, especially in an environment without solid baselines for comparison. Early voting did not become particularly widespread until 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and with Trump advising his supporters not to vote by mail. (This year, he’s generally encouraged them to vote early if they can.)

But women are a larger proportion of the population and, historically, they have voted at higher rates too. Last month, political scientist and Brookings senior fellow Elaine Kamarck ran the numbers on different scenarios to see what would happen if women came out to vote in the same proportion as in 2020, given the latest polling numbers available. She found Harris would win Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — enough to win the election.

The underlying polling numbers are now a month old, plus there’s no way to know how accurate they were. And a significant increase in turnout among men could easily elect Trump, Kamarck went out of her way to note. But, she concluded, “if women’s turnout stays the same as in 2020, it could be a good year for Harris; if it increases, it could be a very good year for her.”

That’s why the intensity of Harris’ support among women is so important, and why I reached out to Nikki Sapiro Vinckier, a Democratic activist in the northern Detroit suburbs.

Sapiro Vinckier, 36, is an OB-GYN physician’s assistant and abortion-rights advocate. She’d volunteered for Democratic campaigns before, but after watching Trump’s 2024 campaign unfold ― and then seeing Harris become the Democratic nominee ― she started making her own lawn signs and, more recently, stickers that she’s distributing locally and through social media.

The stickers say: “Ladies, no one will know who you vote for. Vote for your daughters, your sisters, yourself. Vote Kamala.” Sapiro Vinckier told me she has already ordered more than 30,000 stickers and is on her way to distributing all of them.

Sapiro Vinckier said she knows she’s not the only one getting so involved. “You have women who are coming out in tremendous numbers to vote, but you also have women coming out in incredible numbers to organize,” she said.

There’s no way to know if Harris will end up prevailing. But if she does, stories like Sapiro Vinckier’s will probably be a big reason why.