A illustrious portion of unwed individuals, placing at 55% according to the ballot exit surveys, cast their vote in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris. However, when the demographics are closely examined, Harris and President-elect Donald Trump ended up in a tie with the single male population. On examining the data concerning single females, Harris received a whopping victory amassing 61% compared to Trump’s 38%. Zooming in the lens to focus specifically on youthful, unmarried women, Harris managed a somewhat unsettling near 2-to-1 win, amassing 64% to Trump’s 35%.
One cannot help but wonder why? What causes this disparity? What is it about being a young, single woman that their political views diverge so dramatically from the mainstream? According to some analysts, the answer might lie in fear. A certain survey head indicated that, ‘The political leanings and personal preferences of single young women seem to be governed significantly by a sense of fear.’
Fear appeared to be a fundamental tool capitalised upon by the Democrats in their bid to herd young women into rallying behind Harris. Their narrative seemed to suggest that a state of pregnancy equated to a life or death situation. The media swayed the narrative to portray potential abortion restrictions as utterly inhumane. It painted a dystopian world where Republicans would interfere with personal spaces, monitor menstrual cycles, and prosecute mothers unfortunate enough to face miscarriages.
Even the concept of marriage was projected as dreadfully intimidating. The ending narrative insisted by the campaign tried to convince the public that wives were terrified to vote for Harris due to the perceived consequence of their allegedly overbearing husbands discovering it. What message does that send to America’s young, single women? Marriage, it seems, is portrayed as a grim and frightening institution.
This kind of narrative has persistently run for years, leading to an increasing number of young females disinterested in the ideas of marriage and child-rearing. There appears to be a pattern here. The same group of individuals were handed similar anxiety-inducing warnings about men in general.
Shockingly, their fear narrative did not end there. ‘The apprehension of facing sexual assault increased drastically,’ declared the survey conductor. ‘In 2017, only 39% of women under 50 reported that they were occasionally worried about facing sexual assault. By 2023, over half (55%) of women under 50 reported sometimes being concerned about sexual assault.’
It is concerning how our media and political landscape, it seems, are fostering a subculture that displays a notable aversion to commitment, a general disregard towards the opposite sex, and a pervasive fear of forming meaningful connections.
On close inspection, this seems to be the base upon which Democrats have built their support structure. One can’t help but question the ethical aspects of such a strategy. While it seems effective in swaying certain demographics, the long-term effects on society’s stability and harmony are dubious at best.
In the pursuit of political victory, the fabric of personal relationships and mutual trust appears to be threatened. It seems that the Democratic campaign has steered clear of fostering unity and understanding in favor of perpetuating a sense of fear and division.
Young, single women are lured into a political narrative that paints a bleak and threatening world outside the Democratic safe space. The repercussions of this are concerning, to say the least. The political narrative that pushes individuals, especially young women, towards aversion, disdain, distrust, and fear could have lasting effects on society as a whole.
A culture that is grounded in fear and apprehension is a far cry from the ideals of freedom, trust, and unity that should be the cornerstone of politics. This approach cannot be overlooked in the pursuit of political victory. The Democrats’ campaign seems less focused on promoting a positive vision of the future for America, opting instead for tapping into existing fears and anxieties to garner support.
The Democrats’ campaign, focusing on Harris, seems to correlate the notion of fear with political allegiance. This plays on human psychology to cling to perceived safety in times of heightened fear and anxiety. The disturbing reality is that this cuts deeper than politics – it’s an issue that needs to be addressed at the societal level.
While the strategy might have won the Democrats the young, unmarried female demographic, the question remains – at what cost? Is winning the political favor of a specific demographic by any means necessary the correct path, or does it carry long-term societal repercussions?
This narrative and its potential implications beg for a reevaluation of how political parties approach their campaign strategies. Fear-based politics can only serve to divide, rather than unite, a nation.