In a recent poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University, it was found that explicitly highlighting Kamala Harris's race and gender could have a significant impact on voter support as Election Day approaches. The study sought to determine whether priming voters with mentions of race or gender influenced their decision-making process when choosing a candidate.

During her acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, Vice President Kamala Harris notably refrained from explicitly mentioning the historic significance of her potential election. Instead, she focused on her experience as a prosecutor and her stance on reproductive rights, with limited mentions of her South Asian heritage in connection with her mother's immigration to the United States.

This cautious approach to highlighting her identity may stem from the Democratic Party's sensitivity following Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful 2016 campaign, which prominently emphasized the historic nature of her candidacy. However, the polling data released by Fairleigh Dickinson University indicates that taking a more explicit and proactive stance on her racial and gender background could prove beneficial for Harris as the election draws nearer.

The unique approach taken by the pollsters involved asking respondents to evaluate the importance of various issues to their vote. One-third of the participants were presented with policy-centered issues only, such as immigration and taxes. Another third had the option to consider the race or ethnicity of the candidate, while the remaining third focused on whether the candidate was a man or a woman.

Overall, when race and gender were not mentioned to the participants, Harris and former President Donald Trump were in a virtual tie. However, among those who were primed with the gender issue, Harris enjoyed a 10-point advantage. Moreover, when race was presented as an issue, Harris's lead extended to 14 points, resulting in an overall seven-point lead for her candidacy.

The effects of priming on gender were more pronounced among women than men. Among female respondents who were not primed on gender, Harris held a 16-point advantage. However, when gender became a focal point, her lead extended to 26 points. When it comes to race, white respondents initially preferred Trump by 11 points when not primed on race or gender. However, when primed on race, their preference shifted narrowly toward Harris. On the other hand, non-White respondents favored Harris by a significant 16 points when not primed on race. This lead expanded to a substantial 36 points after race was introduced as an issue.

The poll also examined respondents' self-identification in terms of masculinity or femininity. Around half of the male respondents identified themselves as "completely" masculine, and this group overwhelmingly supported Trump. In contrast, men who did not select the "completely masculine" descriptor preferred Harris by 20 points. The dominance of "completely masculine" men in supporting Trump resulted in an overall lead for him among male respondents, even among those who were primed with the gender issue.

These findings align with other polling data that show a connection between Trumpism and perceived masculinity. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll highlighted how younger men, particularly those belonging to Gen Z, expressed a sense of disadvantage due to societal changes. However, young men's views on the election did not differ significantly from those of older men. The key divergence among younger voters stemmed from the stronger preference for Harris among younger women.

This poll serves as a microcosm in terms of testing the impact of highlighting Harris's unique identity on voter decision-making. It suggests that when voters consider what makes Harris distinctive, she benefits significantly in terms of support. These insights could guide campaigns in shaping their messages, including television ads, mail campaigns, and speeches, to appeal to targeted voter segments.

As Election Day approaches, the potential influence of identity on voter perceptions and decisions will likely continue to be a topic of interest and strategic consideration for candidates and campaign teams.