Donald Trump’s rise and resilience in U.S. presidential politics have been marked by his victories over two prominent female candidates, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024. These electoral outcomes reflect not only his strategic approach but also the shifting political, cultural, and social landscapes of American society. Trump’s dual victories underscore a complex interplay of gender dynamics, voter sentiment, and evolving political climates that made his success both possible and emblematic of broader trends. Here, we delve into the factors that underpinned each victory and consider the larger implications of these milestones in American politics.
In 2016, Donald Trump entered the political scene as an outsider, a real estate mogul with a penchant for provocative rhetoric, unconventional methods, and a direct appeal to disenfranchised voters. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, was a seasoned politician with experience as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. Clinton’s credentials made her one of the most prepared candidates, yet she was perceived by some as emblematic of the political establishment. For Trump, positioning himself against the “insider” allowed him to capture the frustrations of a significant portion of the American electorate.
Clinton’s campaign, however, was beset by challenges from the outset, most notably the ongoing investigation into her private email server. While many saw this as a minor issue, it symbolized concerns about trustworthiness and transparency for some voters. Trump seized upon this narrative, branding Clinton as part of a political elite that operated by a different set of rules. His slogan, “Drain the Swamp,” tapped into a broad dissatisfaction with government. His message of reclaiming power for “the people” struck a chord, especially among blue-collar voters in key swing states.
Fast forward to 2024, and Trump faced Kamala Harris, who had served as Vice President under Joe Biden. Harris entered the race with substantial experience but also with the challenge of running against an emboldened Trump, now a former president vying for a historic comeback. The Biden-Harris administration faced ongoing economic turbulence, with inflation, immigration, and other domestic challenges taking center stage in the public discourse. These issues became focal points for Trump’s campaign, which underscored his message of restoring order, revamping economic policy, and securing America’s borders.
Harris’s campaign, meanwhile, was often seen as an extension of the Biden administration. While this brought continuity, it also limited her ability to present a fresh vision or distance herself from the administration’s shortcomings. Trump capitalized on this, framing his campaign as a return to “America First” policies that resonated with both working-class and middle-class voters. His ability to create a narrative of economic rejuvenation and national security struck a powerful contrast to Harris’s struggle to mobilize key voter bases outside of the Democratic strongholds.
Trump’s relationship with the media has been instrumental in both his 2016 and 2024 victories. His unfiltered communication style and direct use of social media allowed him to control his narrative, often bypassing traditional news outlets. His willingness to challenge and antagonize the press resulted in almost constant coverage, making it difficult for his opponents’ messages to gain comparable traction. Clinton and Harris, on the other hand, faced scrutiny without benefiting from Trump’s ability to deflect or repurpose media criticism as a badge of authenticity and resistance.
In both campaigns, Trump’s narrative strategy overshadowed his opponents’. By dominating the media cycles and creating a sense of unfiltered transparency, he connected with voters who were weary of polished political discourse. In an era of 24-hour news and viral moments, Trump’s presence was inescapable, leaving less room for Clinton and Harris to shape their stories effectively.
Gender played a significant role in both races. Clinton and Harris, as female candidates, faced challenges that male candidates rarely encounter. Expectations about likability, communication style, and even attire underscored a double standard in the way female candidates are perceived. Trump’s abrasive approach to political discourse contrasted with the societal expectations placed on Clinton and Harris to maintain composure and adhere to a more restrained persona. The critiques leveled at Clinton and Harris often went beyond policy, touching on personal attributes that, for Trump, seemed secondary in the eyes of his supporters.
The “glass ceiling” remains a metaphor for the obstacles women face in attaining the highest office. While Clinton and Harris garnered significant support for their historic candidacies, their campaigns also revealed persistent biases that affect public perception of female leaders. Trump’s confrontational style, while divisive, resonated with a portion of the electorate that prioritized bluntness and an outsider ethos over traditional decorum.
A notable aspect of Trump’s victories was his ability to appeal to a broader base than anticipated. In both elections, Trump drew significant support from Latino and Black voters, particularly those in swing states. His messaging on job creation, economic stability, and crime resonated across demographics, enabling him to build a coalition that transcended typical partisan lines. Harris, while an inspiring figure for many young and minority voters, faced challenges in turning this admiration into turnout and consistent support.
In both 2016 and 2024, the suburban and rural vote emerged as critical. Clinton’s and Harris’s platforms struggled to resonate as strongly outside urban centers, while Trump’s message found a receptive audience among voters who felt alienated by mainstream politics. By appealing directly to the concerns of rural and working-class Americans, Trump effectively captured states that are often pivotal in electoral math.
In both elections, Trump benefitted from a political climate ripe for change. In 2016, dissatisfaction with the Obama administration’s policies and an appetite for something new gave him a strong foundation. In 2024, economic challenges and contentious issues like immigration under the Biden-Harris administration enabled him to position himself as the solution to ongoing national concerns. In each case, he leveraged the prevailing atmosphere of discontent, framing himself as the leader who could provide the necessary shake-up.
For Harris, inheriting the Biden administration’s legacy was both a blessing and a burden. While she carried the experience and credibility of the Vice Presidency, she also had to contend with the administration’s perceived failures and voter fatigue. Trump’s campaign effectively turned these sentiments to his advantage, emphasizing the need for a reset.