Since Donald Trump’s presidency, young men have increasingly shifted toward conservatism, with the share of male voters aged 18 to 29 identifying as Democratic dropping sharply from 51% in 2016 to 39% today. This phenomenon, known as “barstool conservatism,” presents a unique challenge for the Harris campaign as it prepares for the upcoming election.

The journey of young men towards this new form of conservatism has been marked by several key factors, chief among them a growing sense of cultural alienation. Many young men feel increasingly disconnected from mainstream liberal narratives. This alienation has driven them to seek out alternative spaces where they can express themselves freely, without fear of censure or backlash.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

These online communities, particularly those centered around platforms like Barstool Sports — a popular sports and pop culture website — have become digital havens for these young men seeking to express themselves without the constraints of mainstream media.

However, these spaces are often breeding grounds for harmful and bigoted ideologies cloaked in a veneer of “rebellious” or “edgy” humor. What begins as a rejection of political correctness often devolves into open hostility under the guise of free speech. The rise of influences beaming right-wing, Andrew Tate-style content has played a pivotal role in indoctrinating these young men, turning legitimate grievances into a gateway for extremism.

These spaces have served as incubators for a new brand of conservatism, one that doesn’t fit neatly into traditional political categories. Barstool conservatives often hold views that span the ideological spectrum, embracing social liberalism on issues like drug legalization while simultaneously pushing back against what they see as excessive political correctness and women’s rights.

The presidency of Donald Trump was not just a catalyst for the rise of barstool conservatism but also a driving force behind the normalization of harmful and divisive rhetoric. Trump’s lack of political experience, combative style and disregard for democratic norms resonated with young men who felt sidelined by mainstream politics. 

However, his language often crossed into outright hostility, while undermining the very foundations of civil discourse and democratic governance. This aggressive, often hateful rhetoric offered a blueprint for discontented young men to channel their frustrations in destructive ways, fostering a culture where intolerance and bigotry could thrive under the guise of “free speech.”

Barstool conservatism has rapidly embedded itself into the fabric of American culture, extending its reach far beyond niche online communities and permeating everyday conversations, workplaces, schools and social circles. Its prevalence is a testament to how deeply these divisive and often regressive ideas have taken root among young men.

While many see this group as resistant to change and dismissive of mainstream political messages, this election presents a crucial turning point — especially for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

To effectively engage this demographic, the Harris campaign must rethink its messaging and outreach strategies. A major concern for these young men is the state of the economy — one of the few areas where the Democratic party has demonstrated success through its policy achievements. Addressing economic issues that resonate with these votes and all Americans will be crucial to winning their support.

The rise of barstool conservatism among young men represents a significant shift in the political landscape that the Harris campaign cannot afford to ignore. By understanding the factors that have driven young men towards this new form of conservatism and adapting their approach accordingly, the campaign has the opportunity to build a broader, more diverse coalition. 

Culturally, winning over barstool conservatives could be a pivotal moment in fostering a more progressive future. Engaging this demographic is not merely about shifting electoral outcomes; it’s about addressing the underlying issues that drive their alienation and redirecting their energy toward constructive dialogue and positive change. If the Harris campaign can tap into the frustrations and aspirations of these young men, it could realign the men’s perspectives towards a more inclusive and progressive vision of society and steer them away from the fringes of extremist conservatism.

By addressing younger generations’ grievances and offering viable, forward-thinking solutions, the Harris campaign could transform a traditionally conservative stronghold demographic into a progressive one. Such a shift would not only impact current electoral dynamics but could also lay the groundwork for a future where extremism is increasingly marginalized.