Democrats waste $20 million to learn why they lost men. Here's my free advice.
Let me tell you the tale of two beards. (Yes, beard, as in male facial hair.)
Both cases say a lot about what's wrong with the Democratic Party and its struggles to hold on to men – particularly young men.
It started last summer when then-candidate Donald Trump chose Ohio Sen. JD Vance for vice president. It seemed that all some people wanted to talk about … was Vance's beard.
Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media did not appreciate Vance's renegade move to sport whiskers while serving in the political realm. Take this July 2024 Politico Magazine treatise, 'Yes, JD Vance's beard matters. Here's why.'
The author talks about how for decades beards were seen as 'unprofessional and unhygienic,' before pivoting to how 'more recent research has shown that voters perceive facial hair as deeply masculine, which can come with both positive connotations (like competence) and negative ones (like aggression and less support of feminist issues).'
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
In other words, Vance's beard indicates a toxic masculinity vibe, according to progressive logic.
Fast-forward to now, when former Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg – who is a Democrat – is getting very different treatment in response to his fresh lumberjack look.
A recent piece in Slate that focuses entirely on Buttigieg's beard notes people are finding the new facial hair sexy and how beards in general are a 'particularly powerful tool' and a 'vehicle for personal transformation.'
Is Buttigieg indeed trying on the beard to better appeal to men whom Democrats are losing, as he mulls another run for president?
Therein lies the problem with both hairy tales – or at least a big part of it.
Democrats' messaging is turning off American men. Will studying male voters help?
In essence, Vance's beard received ridicule from the left because it appeared 'too manly' and must have misogynistic meaning (he is a Republican, after all).
And now it appears that Buttigieg's advisers may believe he could persuade more men to give Democrats a chance by sporting facial hair.
Is it any wonder many men are finding all this a turnoff? Can't a beard just be a beard?
Democrats' devotion to appearance, gender, race and identity in general may appeal to the party's base, but it has ostracized a wide swath of men. Trump made gains across the demographic board in 2024 with this voting bloc, and Democrats are worried.
That's why they are spending $20 million to study how best to talk to men, first reported last month by The New York Times. 'Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan' or 'SAM' will study 'the syntax' and 'language' of young male voters and prioritize a 'shift from a moralizing tone.'
Democrats could have saved themselves a lot of money if they'd just come to me for advice. There are so many examples of what they did wrong in the past election.
Men want respect. They don't want to be given 'permission' to vote for someone.
When then-Vice President Kamala Harris took Joe Biden's place on the presidential ticket in July, the campaign centered on her race and her gender – and all the 'firsts' a Harris presidency would mean. Fundraising efforts like 'White Dudes for Harris' doubled down on her identity.
In fact, just days before Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, he appeared on the 'White Dudes' call and said this of the upcoming election: 'How often in the world do you make that bastard (Trump) wake up afterwards and know that a Black woman kicked his ass and sent him on the road?'
More recently, Walz has said that the Harris campaign wanted him on board because, as a White male, he could 'code talk' with other White males and men in general and serve as the "permission structure" to vote for a woman of color.
This blatant push to give men 'permission' or cover to vote for Harris obviously backfired. One ad on behalf of Harris featured actor George Clooney narrating a message that chided tough-looking dudes to vote for Harris, underscoring they shouldn't give in to pressure to support Trump.
Data guru Nate Silver in a recent post detailed some of the reasons Democrats are struggling with men.
He noted a study that showed conservatives who report excellent mental health outnumber liberals 51% to 20%. Among Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012, the mental health gap between men and women is 17 points (38% of men report very good or excellent mental health compared with 21% of women).
It wasn't by coincidence that a New York Times/Siena College poll reported in August that among voters ages 18 to 29, there was a 24-point gender gap between male and female Trump voters.
Silver concludes that 'it's those who report relatively high mental health and see Democrats as being too neurotic and perhaps constraining their opportunity to compete and reap the rewards of their work' who are leaving liberal identity politics and the diversity-fueled victimhood mentality by the wayside. And they are more likely to be men.
The majority of men (and many conservative women) voted for Trump not because of what he looked like or what identity boxes he checked off. They liked what he promised for the economy and the security of our border.
I hate to break it to Democrats, but it will take a lot more than 'code talk' and beards to win back men.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jessica Ramos endorsing Andrew Cuomo for NYC mayor weeks after questioning his ‘mental acuity'
NEW YORK — In an extraordinary about-face, back-of-the-pack mayoral candidate Jessica Ramos is endorsing her front-running rival Andrew Cuomo — just weeks after questioning his 'mental acuity' and comparing his mental state to former President Joe Biden's. Ramos, a Queens state senator who was also among scores of lawmakers to call for Cuomo's 2021 resignation as governor over sexual misconduct accusations, is expected to formally throw her political weight behind his mayoral bid at a press conference in Manhattan on Friday morning, sources confirmed to the Daily News. Ramos and her campaign didn't immediately return multiple calls. But she told the New York Times, which first reported her surprising decision, that she's going with Cuomo because 'he's the one best positioned right now to protect this city.' Cuomo, who's polling as the favorite to win the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary, 'knows how to hold the line and deliver under pressure,' she added, citing uncertainty caused by President Donald Trump. Ramos, who identifies as a progressive Democrat, said she's not dropping out and her name will still appear on the primary ballot. But her endorsement of the centrist Cuomo is an effective acknowledgement she has no path to victory. Most polls of the mayoral race have shown Ramos pulling 1% or less in support. On the fundraising side, she hasn't taken in enough cash to qualify for matching funds and her latest filing from last month showed she had just about $9,000 in her war chest. The Cuomo nod marks a drastic flip-flop for Ramos, who said in April she believes Cuomo's 'mental acuity is in decline.' 'I don't think the City of New York can afford a Joe Biden moment,' she said at the time, referring to the former president who ended his reelection bid last year after serious concerns emerged about his mental fitness. 'I think that there are real reasons why [Cuomo is] not answering questions.' In response to her mental fitness broadsides against Cuomo, his spokesman Rich Azzopardi shot back in April: 'Was she sober when she said it?' Azzopardi didn't immediately return a request for comment Friday. Ramos has been a harsh critic of the centrist Cuomo on a number of other fronts, too. 'People may want to be courteous to Cuomo's face but they don't forget the people he sent to die, the women he touched or the people he left in our streets needing mental health care and housing,' Ramos wrote on X in March, referring to accusations that Cuomo mismanaged the COVID pandemic, sexually harassed more than 10 women and shuttered psychiatric institutions statewide as governor. Cuomo has denied the sexual harassment and pandemic mismanagement claims. Ramos' change of heart comes just days after the progressive Working Families Party ranked her its No. 5 candidate as part of an anti-Cuomo mayoral endorsement slate. On Friday, the party, which has had a rocky relationship with Ramos over the years, said it's 'sad and disappointed' by Ramos' announcement, but vowed to not 'be distracted by this desperate move.' Party leaders declined to immediately say whether they will formally remove Ramos from the slate. Ramos, the chair of the State Senate's Labor Committee, was the first woman to enter the 2025 mayoral race and had hoped to build a coalition rooted in union and Latino communities. But she never gained momentum on the campaign trail, as other progressives in the race, like runner-up candidate Zohran Mamdani, capitalized on a surge in enthusiasm for left-wing politics among young voters. During the first mayoral debate this week, Ramos lobbed a barb at Mamdani, Cuomo's top rival in the race, saying she wished she had run for mayor in 2021. 'I thought I needed more experience, but turns out you just need to make good videos,' she said, a reference to Mamdani's social media strategy. -----------
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump wants a manufacturing boom. The industry is buckling.
President Donald Trump is vowing to spark a manufacturing boom with tariffs to protect American workers and industry. So far, it's manufacturers that have borne the brunt of the pain. The president's surprise decision to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50 percent will hit domestic manufacturing just as a new report shows the industry is already contracting. Uncertainty about where tariff rates will ultimately land — or where they'll be applied — has forced businesses to make hard decisions that could cut into both profits and hiring. And a leading trade group on Thursday called on Trump to give the companies a break on the tariffs. 'For a president who is intent on building U.S. manufacturing, the tariff strategy he's laid out is remarkably short-sighted,' said Gordon Hanson, a Harvard Kennedy School professor whose groundbreaking 2016 research work, 'The China Shock,' was among the first to sound the alarm about the threat to American industry. 'It fails to recognize what modern supply chains look like.' 'Even if you're intent on reshoring parts of manufacturing, you can't do it all,' he said. 'Steel and aluminum are part of that.' If Trump's tariffs fail to result in a manufacturing renaissance — a central focus of his presidential campaign — it could weaken the prospects of a GOP coalition that's increasingly reliant on working-class voters who supported his protectionist trade policies. But as unanticipated tariffs continue to drive up input costs for companies that need steel and aluminum for production, the warning signs emanating from manufacturers are getting louder. An index published this week by the Institute for Supply Management, which tracks manufacturing, slipped for the third straight month in May as companies made plans to scale back production. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers reported the steepest drop in optimism since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, with trade uncertainty and raw material costs cited as top concerns. Federal Reserve data this month reported weaker manufacturing output. The manufacturers' association on Thursday urged Trump to develop a 'speed pass' that would allow companies to avoid costly new duties on imported raw materials and components that are essential to U.S. producers. 'The steel and aluminum tariffs are almost custom-made to hurt American manufacturing,' said Ernie Tedeschi, a former top Biden administration economist who's now with the Yale Budget Lab. Trump and top administration officials argue that tariffs will encourage investment in domestic manufacturers, which should lead to better-paying jobs, a more resilient economy and more secure supply chains. Exports climbed in April as the president's tariffs took hold, which contributed to an eye-popping decline in the U.S. trade deficit. Indeed, the overall economy remains solid, and businesses are continuing to hire, according to Friday's jobs report for May. Despite the trade headwinds, employment in the manufacturing sector has remained steady since Trump took office. 'As the president says, if you don't make steel, you can't fight a war. He's protecting that industry and bringing it back,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Senate lawmakers this week. 'You're going to see more steel and aluminum furnaces and mills in the history of this country get built over the next three years.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump welcomed the monthly jobs report, posting on Truth Social: 'AMERICA IS HOT! SIX MONTHS AGO IT WAS COLD AS ICE! BORDER IS CLOSED, PRICES ARE DOWN. WAGES ARE UP!' Still, domestic manufacturers who rely on international supply chains for critical steel and aluminum inputs will face tough choices if they want to maintain their profits while keeping output steady. 'Higher costs are expected. Higher input prices. The question is, what do you do with those costs? How much can you pass along to the consumer? How much can you negotiate with your suppliers?' said Andrew Siciliano, a partner at KPMG who leads the consulting firm's trade and customs practice. The challenges posed by the increase in steel and aluminum tariffs are particularly acute because it's far from clear whether domestic suppliers will be able to meet the demands of domestic manufacturers. Almost half the aluminum used in the U.S. last year came from foreign sources, according to federal data, and roughly a quarter of all steel is imported. Either way, 'input costs are going to be higher,' Siciliano said. 'If they pass it on, it could affect demand. If they don't pass it on, it could affect profitability.' That isn't to say manufacturers won't benefit from tariffs in the long term. To the extent that Trump's overall tariff regime limits imports, U.S.-based industrial production could expand to address unmet demand. The Budget Lab's analysis of Trump's tariff regime — which includes the 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum — projects that manufacturing output could grow by 1.3 percent over the next five years if existing import duties are left in place. But Tedeschi cautioned that growth may exclude segments like electronic and semiconductor production — which tend to generate higher incomes for workers. Meanwhile, output in other sectors like construction or agriculture would likely contract. Julia Coronado, founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives, also said the flurry of new import duties may prompt some manufacturers to actually move their manufacturing facilities offshore rather than subject their supply chains and production processes to multiple tariffs. 'If I have to assemble a bunch of parts and inputs, why don't I just don't do that on the Canadian or Mexican side of the border and then pay the tariff on the final good?' she said. An even bigger challenge may involve finding and training workers who can staff up any facilities that reshore. Most Americans work in the service sector and, to the extent tariffs lead to reshoring, those facilities will likely rely heavily on automation, according to economists at the Bank of America Institute. Finding qualified workers in the U.S. is either too difficult or too expensive. 'Whatever manufacturing production comes back to the U.S. will require far fewer jobs than 30 or 40 years ago,' Hanson said. 'It's just the way the world has gone.'
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who are the United States Supreme Court Justices?
Politics in the United States in recent years have surrounded the position of the president. But that has not changed the American political system. It's still all about checks and balances in the United States, which includes the judicial branch and Supreme Court. That arm of the U.S. government has nine justices seated on the bench, all of which were appointment by presidents at one point or another. Their jobs are for life and the group of nine is led by one chief justice. As of 2025, here is the full list of the nine justices in the United States Supreme Court. Date appointed: Sept. 29, 2005. Appointed by: President George W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 23 1991. Appointed by: President George H. W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Jan. 31, 2006. Appointed by: President George W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Aug. 8, 2009. Appointed by: President Barack Obama. Political affiliation: Democrat. Date appointed: Aug. 7, 2010. Appointed by: President Barack Obama. Political affiliation: Democrat. Date appointed: April 10, 2017. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 6, 2018. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 27, 2020. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: June 30, 2022. Appointed by: President Joe Biden. Political affiliation: Democrat. This article originally appeared on The List Wire: List of United States Supreme Court Justices
