The 2024 elections interestingly pinpointed the preferences of pet owners. What emerged was a picture of canine-admirers siding with the president-elect Donald Trump, while feline-owners had no clear allegiances. An extensive survey of over 120,000 voters revealed more than half were pet owners, the majority favoring Trump. In particular, dog-owners showed an overwhelming inclination towards the Republican candidate, leaving Democratic runner Kamala Harris far behind.
In contrast, the feline-loving voters were divided between the two candidates. Remarkably, politicians that typically wave off pet owners had to reconsider their voter outreach strategy this election cycle. A past remark made by Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, about ‘childless cat ladies,’ unexpectedly bubbled up as a campaign discussion point.
Nevertheless, the political grip of Harris rested precariously with a niche demographic – women who solely owned cats. Despite their support, this group contributed only a small fraction of the voter base. Evidently, pet owners had no inclination to hold Vance’s past comments against him or the Republican party.
When examined closely, it was observed that women, who only owned cats, were more likely to side with Harris than dog-owners or voters with both pets. However, this significant support from a segment of female voters didn’t extend to their male counterparts. Men that exclusively owned felines favored Trump, a fact that highlights the incongruent voting tendencies of pet-owning demographics.
Knowing the extent of Vance’s influence on Harris’ popularity among female, cat-owning voters is difficult to determine. However, it is clear that these women held a noticeable sense of disenchantment for both Vance and Trump. This particular group of voters was more likely to cast overall disapproval for the Republican party compared to other pet owners.
Looking for explanations for this pet-owner voting split, many suggest that female cat-owners were never likely to vote for Trump, even before Vance’s remarks gained attention. For example, less than half of the female voters, who exclusively owned a cat, identified as Republicans. This lack of support again emphasizes how pet-owner dynamics played out against Harris.
Coming to the results of the 2024 election, it arguably indicated a certain apathy of dog owners towards the Democrat party. Dog-owning voters, even those with cats, were more likely to back Trump, making up a sizeable chunk of the electorate. On the other hand, cat-only homeowners constituted barely 15% of the voters.
The demographics further show that dual pet-owners and dog-only owners amounted to roughly 20% and 30% of voters respectively. Thus, dog owners were a more influential voter group in this election. Female dog owners, however, were not totally swayed by Trump, who could garner around half of their votes.
Men who owned dogs but no cats, were another significant group who threw their support behind Trump. In spite of the Harris campaign’s attempts to woo cat owners, Trump’s victory showcased the power of the dog-owner demographic.
Admittedly, Trump’s campaign deterred from specifically soliciting dog owners, unlike Harris, who targeted cat owners. Trump, however, propagated unverified stories about immigrants in Ohio mistreating pets. There is no concrete evidence suggesting these statements had any impact on pet owners’ voting decisions.
Instead, party allegiance turned out to be a key driving force. A substantial proportion of male dog-owning voters self-proclaimed their Republican identity, mirroring about half of the female dog-owners’ sentiment. The Democrat party, therefore, appears to have a steep path ahead in appealing to dog lovers.
Neither Trump nor Harris owned pets during their campaign trail, leaving an unexploited opportunity for connecting with pet-owning constituents. Who knows? Future election campaigns might take up a different tone – perhaps, one with more barks than before.