Voters encountered plenty of campaign messaging about transgender issues during the midterms, but two post-election surveys suggest it often failed to persuade. In polling reported by GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, more respondents said the ads made them less likely to support a candidate than more likely. The contrast with voters’ focus on living costs and healthcare raises a question about what campaigns chose to emphasise.

Essential Takeaways

  • More voters were put off: In GLAAD-commissioned polling, 37 per cent of midterm voters said transgender-focused ads made them less likely to support a candidate, compared with 18 per cent who said they were more likely.
  • Everyday pressures mattered more: The cost of living and healthcare were cited as reasons to vote far more often than transgender issues.
  • The pattern appeared in battleground states: Across nine states where conservative groups spent heavily on such ads, 46 per cent said the advertising made them less likely to support a candidate, against 15 per cent who said it made them more likely.
  • HRC found strong support among equality voters: Its survey reported that 88 per cent of voters it classified as “equality voters” backed Democrats in congressional and gubernatorial races.
  • Exposure did not equal enthusiasm: Many voters recalled hearing about the issue, yet nearly two-thirds in HRC’s poll wanted to hear less about transgender athletes and surgeries.

The ads got attention, but not necessarily votes

The clearest signal from the post-election polling is the gap between attention and persuasion. A Morning Consult survey commissioned by GLAAD found that 37 per cent of midterm voters said ads about transgender issues made them less likely to support the candidate running them. Just 18 per cent said the ads made them more likely to do so. GLAAD’s release described the ads as twice as likely to drive voters away as to attract them.

That is a striking result for a message that was widely encountered. The survey found that 70 per cent of voters had come across media coverage of transgender issues in the month before the election. But seeing a topic repeatedly is not the same as wanting it to dominate the campaign.

Cost of living outranked transgender issues

When voters were asked what motivated them to cast a ballot, practical concerns stood out. In the GLAAD poll, 59 per cent cited the cost of living and 31 per cent healthcare, while just 5 per cent named transgender issues. It’s a reminder that campaign noise and voters’ own priorities don’t always line up.

The same pattern appeared in nine states where conservative groups spent heavily on anti-transgender advertising. There, 58 per cent of midterm voters cited the cost of living as a reason they voted, compared with 6 per cent who cited transgender issues. The Associated Press has also reported on the prominence and estimated cost of transgender-themed campaign advertising, placing it in a campaign environment where economic concerns remained central.

Rural voters were especially likely to be put off

The negative response was particularly strong among rural voters: 47 per cent said the ads made them less likely to support a candidate, while 13 per cent said they were more likely. Among Southern voters, the split was 40 per cent to 17 per cent; among voters without a college degree, it was 37 per cent to 17 per cent.

In the nine battleground states, 46 per cent said such ads made them less likely to support a candidate, against 15 per cent who said they were more likely. The survey included Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Metro Weekly reported about $187 million in anti-transgender ad spending across those states, including $78 million in Texas and $26 million in Ohio. The Houston Chronicle separately examined the Texas advertising spend, while the AP reported on campaign activity in competitive races.

Voters questioned why candidates raised the issue

Asked why candidates talked about transgender issues, voters most often pointed to partisan division: 20 per cent said candidates wanted to divide voters along party lines. Another 16 per cent cited media attention, and 12 per cent said candidates wanted to avoid discussing other pressing issues. Just 12 per cent thought candidates were responding to voters’ concerns.

HRC’s separate GQR poll offered a related measure of voter appetite: 65 per cent said they wanted to hear less about transgender athletes and surgeries, while 14 per cent wanted to hear more. HRC also reported that 88 per cent of its “equality voters” backed Democrats in congressional and gubernatorial races, compared with 85 per cent of LGBTQ voters overall. HRC defines equality voters as LGBTQ people and allies who prioritise LGBTQ equality when choosing candidates.

What the polls can, and can’t, tell us

The results suggest that these ads did not have the persuasive effect their sponsors may have hoped for. But they measure voters’ stated reactions to advertising and their reported priorities; they don’t, by themselves, settle how every voter views transgender rights or particular policies. The Advocate also cautions that responses to campaign rhetoric shouldn’t be treated as a uniform verdict on policy questions.

HRC estimated that nearly $400 million was spent nationwide on anti-transgender advertising during the election cycle. Its president, Kelley Robinson, said in a statement that the strategy had backfired. That is the organisation’s interpretation of its polling, rather than an independent assessment, but the central contrast is hard to miss: the ads were widely noticed, while voters more often said they wanted less of them.

The campaign lesson may be simple: a message can fill the airwaves without becoming the reason people vote.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: