The stage was set for the 2024 elections, with an unprecedented focus on pet owners, particularly cat owners. However, the dog owners took a surprising swing, aiding President-elect Donald Trump to secure a slight majority from voters owning either a cat, a dog, or both, according to a survey involving over 120,000 voters. Dog owners, in contrast to cat-owners, demonstrated stronger influence for the Republicans, voting against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
While cat owners who participated in the elections showed an almost equal split in their support for the two presidential candidates, the Democrats failed to seize the pet-owner demographic advantage as a significant majority of dog-owners sided with the Republicans. Although nearly two-thirds of voters claimed pet ownership, traditionally, this demographic has not drawn much political attention or scrutiny. Perhaps this lack of focus on pet owners in the past partly explains this unexpected voting pattern.
An unanticipated issue that briefly raised the stakes in the campaign trail was Ohio Senator JD Vance’s comments. As Trump’s running mate, his derogatory remarks about ‘childless cat ladies’ invited significant controversy. However, despite this gaffe, the Republicans triumphed, leading to questions about the influence these comments had on the overall voting scenario.
Facts show that the Democrats, with Harris leading the charge, did manage to capture the support of a specific demographic – women who owned cats but did not own dogs. However, this victory appears somewhat hollow given these voters formed a rather small constituent of the overall electorate. Irrespective of accusations arising from Senator Vance’s remarks, the collective electorate of pet owners did not appear to penalize the Republicans for their running mate’s misdemeanor.
Harris’s popularity among women cat owners, whether they were childless or not, did not seem to extend to voters who owned dogs, or those who were both cat and dog owners. Approximately six out of ten women who were only cat owners swung towards the Democrats. However, such support from women cat owners did not translate to the male demographic. Trump ceded Harris’s lead among male cat owners with a slight majority voting for him.
Although it’s hard to quantify the exact impact of Vance’s controversial comments on the female cat-owner voters’ preference towards Harris, it’s important to note that the majority expressed considerable to moderate disfavor with Vance. The proportion disliking him was considerably higher among women that solely owned cats, compared to those owning only dogs or both cats and dogs. These voters also exhibited a tendency to carry a more negative perception of Trump and the Republican party.
At the risk of oversimplification, it can be suggested that female cat owners had little inclination towards voting for Trump, even before the unfavorable comments by his running mate resurfaced. Roughly four in ten female cat-owners identified as Republicans, highlighting the Democrats’ supremacy in this group.
The outcome of the 2024 election also uncovered another point of concern for the Democrats – their lack of traction amongst dog owners. The volume of voters who owned at least one dog, irrespective of whether they also owned a cat, leaned heavily towards the Republicans. These dog-owning voters also formed a larger portion of total voters, underscoring the necessity for Democrats to rethink their pet-owner strategy.
Conversely, pure cat owners, those who did not also own dogs, made for barely 15% of voters. Voters owning both cats and dogs, on the other hand, equaled about two in ten, while those who owned only a dog constituted around three in ten. Consequently, dog owners emerged as a more substantial and influential voting group, revealing the missed opportunities for Democrats.
Among male voters, six out of ten who owned only dogs backed Trump. Almost half of the female dog-owners also sided with the Republicans. While Trump’s campaign did not explicitly cater to dog owners, it’s clear that this particular demographic tilted heavily in his favor.
Trump’s peculiar stance implied that immigrants in Ohio were allegedly commandeering pets for malicious purposes. However, there’s no solid evidence that these inflammatory assertions carried any tangible impact on the voting tendencies of pet owners. In fact, it’s more plausible to attribute the dominant Republican inclination amongst dog owners to party loyalty.
Accordingly, about six in ten male dog owners, and half of the female dog owners, identified as Republicans. This reveals a daunting challenge for Democrats hoping to garner support amongst dog owners: breaking down existing party loyalties will be no small feat.
However, it’s also notable that neither of the Presidential candidates owned pets, leaving a potentially impactful emotional aspect unexplored throughout the campaign trail. The lack of furry companions affiliated with either campaign implies a missed chance to establish a more relatable image for potential voters.
It’s conceivable that future campaigns may consider involving pets more actively, in an attempt to enhance the relatability and appeal of their candidates. A ‘barking’ campaign may indeed prove advantageous in the face of increasingly divided demographics.
And so, the 2024 elections revealed the neglected role of pet owners in the larger context of the voting landscape. It offered clear signs that political strategists would do well to reassess their approach to this demographic, particularly dog owners, going forward. Yet it’s unclear if such strategic changes, particularly from the Democratic side, can alter the Republican party’s dominance among dog owners.