By October of 2024, the world watched as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump locked into a tight race to the White House. With the United States being such a large player in many world events, the question of who would be the country’s next leader seemed to loom over everyone’s heads, regardless of nationality. In an election characterised by strong opinions and polarisation, however, one group of U.S. voters stuck out: the undecided. Ironically enough, this group defined by indecision would go on to determine the results of what was arguably one of the most globally influential decisions of 2024, which begs the question: how did the candidates structure their campaign strategies to win undecided voters?
Up until the last moments, this election was predicted to be a close race, with Harris showcasing a mere 1.2% lead on election day, according to ABC News polls. While Trump ultimately won, the results mirrored the predicted closeness, with the upcoming president receiving little more than 50% of the popular vote. Given this, it is understandable that undecided voters felt a pressure to be sure of their decision when casting their vote. With such small margins at play, and due to the US’s electoral system, the result eventually came down to the undecided voters in swing states – that is, states whose population as a whole is not heavily in favour of one party over another. In a country with a two-party system like the US, it is a sentiment shared among many voters in such states that neither choice feels like the “right” one. Therefore, while some undecided voters turned to Harris’ and Trump’s campaigns to make a decision between the “lesser of two evils”, others decided to not vote, wrote in another name, or considered voting for third parties.
When it comes to third party candidates, most prevalent among these included Jill Stein of the Green Party, Professor Cornel West, and independent-turned-Trump-ally, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, none of whom had a realistic chance of winning the presidency. Regardless of their chances of winning, however, Stein and West could have taken votes away from Harris and Kennedy Jr from Trump. Given the relevance of third party candidates in this election cycle and the threat they posed to Harris and Trump, even more pressure was put on the two candidates trying to win as many undecided voters as possible. To tackle this challenge, it was of utmost importance to address the issues that undecided voters were most concerned about: the state of the economy, immigration policy, Israel’s war in Gaza, and abortion rights.
One of the key issues in this election, important to many undecided voters, was the Biden-Harris Administration’s response to Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip. More specifically, it seemed to be a factor of dissatisfaction amongst many undecided voters who would usually vote for the Democratic Party. While Harris tried to distance herself from Biden and his politics, some voters were still dissatisfied by her middle ground stance on the conflict – calling for a ceasefire, while simultaneously vocalising her support for the right of Israel to defend itself and a refusal to call Israel’s actions genocide. This point was made even more clear as the election neared its end, where many of Harris’ rallies were interrupted by pro-Palestine activists expressing anger at her lukewarm stance on the conflict. In comparison, both Stein and West expressed significantly more critical views of Israel’s actions, which may have resulted in a loss of voters for Harris. In Michigan, for example, an “Abandon Harris” rally was organised just days before the election and endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein instead. In the end, however, third party candidates received less than 2% of the overall vote in 2024, slightly less than they received in 2020. The voter turnout in this election was also lower, estimated at 64% in comparison to 66% in 2020. So, it is a possible explanation that the Democrats lost some of their votes to the voters who in the end decided not to vote, rather than more people voting for third party candidates.

Given the tensions regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, over the course of Harris’ campaign we saw her try to walk a fine line in her campaigning tactics. An example of that is the difference in ads her campaign chose to broadcast, depending on its target audience. In Michigan, the state with the largest Arab population in the United States, a clip of Harris’ speech in which she calls for a ceasefire to end the suffering of the Palestinian people was heavily advertised. However, the clip Harris’ speech most heavily broadcast in Pennsylvania, a state with a large Jewish population, showcased strong support of Israel’s right to defend itself. Following this, somewhat unsurprisingly, this election brought a historic shift in the way Arab and Muslim citizens voted. In fact, the Council on American Islamic Relations found that Harris won only around 20% of the Muslim citizens’ votes, according to exit polls. While Harris may have hoped her approach would not alienate any group of voters, and therefore allow her to garner votes from people with differing stances on Israel’s war in Gaza, it does not seem to have been successful.
However, a conclusion cannot be confidently drawn that Harris’ stance on Gaza cost her the election, as results show that Trump gained ground over his 2020 results in nearly every part of every state and virtually every demographic group. The gap between the candidates was just too big to confidently say Harris’ stance on Gaza could have changed the outcome of the election. But it definitely can be seen as a failure of the Democratic Party to win the votes of the Arab and Muslim voters and cost Harris the win of Michigan, as the Democratic Party lost 22 000 votes in Michigan’s cities with a large population of Arab Americans and Republicans ended up winning the state.
Another key issue concerning undecided voters this past election period was abortion rights. Notably, in the past, the Republican Party’s stances on abortion rights have cost Donald Trump the votes of American women, with a gender gap of 11 points in favour of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. Similarly, the polls in late October 2024 reported Harris approximately 14 points ahead of Trump in relation to women’s votes. A big factor in this lead can be explained by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, as a result of the three members appointed by Trump during his last presidency, that led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. And, although Trump has stated he would not sign a national abortion ban, he has signalled that he would support states adopting hugely restrictive policies on reproductive rights.
So, how did Trump attempt to win the votes of undecided women? Before Harris was elected as the Democratic presidential nominee, Trump primarily relied on promises of economic policy, crime prevention strategy, and his vow to keep transgender women from female sports to do this. However, after her nomination, Harris quickly gained popularity amongst female voters, which motivated Trump to change his approach through symbolic gestures like featuring female Trump supporters and a town hall on Fox News with an entirely female audience. Regardless of such initiatives, it is very possible that the lack of Trump’s appeal to the majority of women voters can come from the fact that his campaign focused on men. For example, he declined to appear on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy” that has a largely female audience, which Kamala Harris appeared on, but instead focused on appealing to male voters by associating with influencers and podcasters more popular amongst men, such as Joe Rogan.
Therefore, while some efforts were made by the Trump campaign to gain more female voters, the general sentiment of his campaign still primarily focused on appealing to men, likely to his detriment when it came to winning the vote of women. In the end, it is therefore not surprising that the general pattern continued: men leaned towards Trump and women towards Harris. Harris’ lead among women was, however, by no means a landslide – according to CNN Kamala Harris had a lead of just 10 points when it comes to female votes, which is less than the 13 point advantage Hillary Clinton had in 2016, and a 15 point advantage Joe Biden had in 2020. In relation to this, however, it is important to note that while generalising the difference between men’s versus women’s voting patterns gives a certain level of understanding, neither voting group should be viewed as a monolith, as further demographic breakdowns will show a significant difference between, for example, the way Black women have and continue to vote, in comparison to White women.
While heavy focus was given to the war in the Gaza Strip and abortion rights in the campaigns of the presidential candidates, in the end, two other issues might have proven even more crucial for Trump’s win in the 2024 presidential election: immigration policy and the economy. While Harris ran a campaign which mostly focused on preserving democracy and abortion rights, many voters ultimately decided ultra-conservative immigration policy and Trump’s economic plan were what mattered for them, costing Harris their vote. Even when Harris voiced her belief that the US immigration system needs reform and supported a border security bill that would increase security measures, this was not enough. Instead, it was Trump’s more extreme rhetoric that blamed immigrants for issues facing the American public – like rising housing prices – that appealed to many American voters in the end. Furthermore, Trump also stated plans of deporting millions of undocumented migrants by force and other extreme policies such as ending birthright citizenship of children of undocumented immigrants. In terms of Trump’s economic promises, the pledge to end inflation remained a significant focus of his campaign. Though it remains uncertain how such policies would come into fruition, and many experts also disagree with Trump’s economic analysis, it seems as though this rhetoric won him the votes of many in this election.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, despite Trump winning the election, he remains unpopular amongst many voters, which could be explained by the fact that a majority of undecided voters stated they would be unhappy with a win for either candidate. Many also stated they were not deeply informed on the candidates’ policies but rather based their decision on the impressions of the candidates. A common trend among undecided voters was that they were economically conservative but more liberal than the Republican party on social issues. So, it seems as though many such voters ended up prioritising their stance on the economy and their overall impression of Trump’s ability to run the U.S., rather than their opinion of Trump’s personality and stance on social issues.
Polarising has been the word most associated with American politics in the past couple of election circles, and it certainly also described the election of 2024. While avid supporters of one party or another may find it hard to understand uncertainty surrounding how to cast one’s ballot, it should be expected for voters to lack absolute agreement with either one of the two limited, but polarised options Americans have – especially with sensitive topics, such as abortion rights, immigration policy, and the war in Gaza taking centre stage. But in the end, this indecision had to be addressed and the way in which each respective campaign did so played a crucial role in the election’s final outcome. And in the end, Trump’s promises appealed to more undecided Americans than Harris’ campaign.
↓ Image Attributions
[1]: “Constitutiion_Ctr_Debate_Night (14)” by Michael Stokes // Licensed under CC BY 2.0 // Cropped from original
[2]: “02IMG_9500-(3)” by Becker1999 // Licensed under CC BY 2.0 // Cropped from original