Dr. Michael Bossetta
Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Lund University. His research interests revolve around the intersection of social media and politics. He hosts the podcast Social Media and Politics, freely available on any podcast app.
X: @MichaelBossetta
Email: michael.bossetta@kom.lu.se
U.S. Election 2024
25. Seeing past the herd: Polls and the 2024 election (Dr Benjamin Toff)
26. On polls and social media (Dr Dorian Hunter Davis)
27. How did gender matter in 2024? (Prof Regina Lawrence)
28. The keys to the White House: Why Allan Lichtman is wrong this time (Tom Fisher)
29. Beyond the rural vote: Economic anxiety and the 2024 presidential election (Dr Amanda Weinstein, Dr Adam Dewbury)
30. Black and independent voters: Which way forward? (Prof Omar Ali)
31. Latino voters in the 2024 election (Dr Arthur D. Soto-Vásquez)
32. Kamala’s key to the polls: The Asian American connection (Nadya Hayasi)
33. The vulnerability of naturalized immigrants and the hero who “will fix” America (Dr Alina E. Dolea)
34. Did Gen Z shape the election? No, because Gen Z doesn’t exist (Dr Michael Bossetta)
35. Cartographic perspectives of the 2024 U.S. election (Prof Benjamin Hennig)
Age played a prominent role in this election. The original match-up between Trump and Biden, both the oldest candidates to run for office, ignited incessant discussions of the candidates’ age, physical health, and mental acuity. When Biden passed the torch to Harris, who was not a particularly young candidate at 59, the historically unpopular Vice President suddenly radiated “vibes” and was hailed as “brat”: a pop culture reference to a woman who is a bit messy, likes to party, and “says dumb things sometimes.”
These aren’t traditionally the traits that Americans look for in a president, but the frenzy around Harris—fueled by social media—drove an incredible turnaround in her favorability that can largely be explained by the fact that she wasn’t as old as Biden. It certainly wasn’t a strong policy plan or clearly articulated vision for America that made Harris viable. It was vibes, and these vibes emerged from the alternative scenario of an election where voters had to consider which candidate would actually live through their mandate.
The ever-present role of age in this election sent discussions of generations into overdrive. While some outlets focused on Boomers’ political dominance, the media reporting on Gen Z was particularly obsessive. As with the European Elections a few months prior, the same question was asked over and over: How will Gen Z shape the election?
Gen Z did not—and possibly could not—shape this election. The reason is that generations like Gen Z, Millennials, and Boomers don’t really exist in the way they are portrayed in the media. There is little scientific evidence that generations are real identities, and major academic societies and think tanks are advocating to stop using these labels.
A simple example is enough to show how silly generational labels really are: where do we draw the line between one generation and the next? Picking the year where one generation stops and the next one starts is almost entirely arbitrary, as the boundaries between generations can’t be measured, tested, or proven by science. For McKinsey & Company, Gen Z is born between 1996-2010, but for Pew Research Center, the years are 1997-2012.
But does it really matter if we use the term “Gen Z” instead of “young voters”? I argue that it does, because using generational labels assumes differences between falsely constructed social groups. This means that when we use generational labels, we overlook key similarities in the electorate.
Let’s look at some examples. Gen Z is widely presumed to be distinctive group that is: 1) progressive, 2) deeply concerned about the environment, and 3) special in their use of social media. Each of these is partly true, but not enough to warrant Gen Z’s distinctiveness as a social category.
First, the progressive leaning of Gen Z should clearly show a strong break for Harris among younger voters. According to CIRCLE’s analysis of AP VoteCast data, 52% of Gen Z-aged voters went for Harris, which is 1% higher than Millennials and between 4-6% higher than Gen X and Boomers.
This is hardly a blue wave and importantly, painting Gen Z as broadly progressive overlooks gender differences between younger voters. 56% of young men broke for Trump, which hardly aligns with the Gen Z narrative as progressive.
Second, the Gen Z narrative presumes that climate change is a particularly important issue that is distinct for this generation. This is partly true, but it overshadows the similarity that young voters share with every other “generation.” The economy, not climate, was the most important issue for most voters, irrespective of age. The same CIRCLE analysis shows virtually no distinction between Gen Z and the wider population for top issues, with the exception that younger voters seem to prioritize immigration less.
The third and most convincing part of the Gen Z narrative is that they are distinct in their media habits, particularly their use of social media. Again, partially true—while there are certainly more younger users of platforms like TikTok and Instagram, there are still about one-in-four older Americans using these platforms, and the gap in platform use between the young and old is closing. Thus, Gen Z is not unique in their use of platforms, and “Gen Z-ness” does not explain when, why, or how young Americans use social media or engage in politics more broadly.
Certainly, there are important differences between younger and older voters, and we need to research them in order to better understand how America is changing. However, the core problem with generations is that they imbue a massively diverse block of voters with some distinct attributes that, upon closer inspection, aren’t really that distinct.
My point in highlighting similarities between generations is to show how they can lead to false perceptions of voter differences. Generations are catchy and cool, but they do little to improve our understanding of the electorate and overshadow more important factors like race, partisanship, and gender.
So, did Gen Z shape the election? No, because Gen Z doesn’t exist.