The 2024 U.S. presidential election has seen a noticeable shift in voter turnout, with approximately 20 million fewer votes cast compared to the record-breaking numbers of 2020. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, has received 67.8 million votes (47.5%), while Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, has secured 72.5 million votes (50.8%), with results still pending from three states. This decline raises questions about where these missing votes went and what factors contributed to the lower turnout. While the 2020 election saw unprecedented participation due to a combination of pandemic-driven voting options and intense political polarization, the 2024 landscape has shifted, with changing voting laws, altered candidate dynamics, and possible voter fatigue. Analyzing these trends can help illuminate why fewer Americans participated this time around and what this means for the political landscape moving forward.
In what was a surprising turn of events, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the 2024 presidential race to announced his support for Donald Trump, joining his campaign as a key ally. Kennedy, who had initially run as an independent after leaving the Democratic Party, brought unique appeal, drawing voters who were disillusioned with both major parties. His departure from the race and alignment with Trump has left ballots in most states with only two major candidates, effectively removing the third-party option that many voters had anticipated. This shift may consolidate Trump’s support base, attracting some of Kennedy’s followers who value his stance on issues such as government accountability and personal freedoms. By merging their platforms, Trump and Kennedy looked to unify a wider coalition, potentially altering the dynamics of a closely watched election.
To answer this question, let’s carefully compare the 2020 and 2024 U.S. presidential election numbers, analyze where the potential decrease of 20-25 million votes came from, and examine possible reasons for this change.
1. Overview of the 2020 Election Results
In the 2020 presidential election, voter turnout was exceptionally high, largely due to polarized political climate and the unusual circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s a breakdown of the main candidates’ totals:
- Joe Biden (Democrat): 81,283,501 votes (51.3%)
- Donald Trump (Republican): 74,223,975 votes (46.8%)
- Total Votes: Around 158 million
This turnout represented the highest voter participation rate in over a century, with approximately 66.8% of eligible voters casting ballots.
2. Reported 2024 Election Numbers So Far
Based on the data provided:
- Kamala Harris (Democrat): 67,853,705 votes (47.5%)
- Donald Trump (Republican): 72,570,127 votes (50.8%)
- Total Votes Counted: Approximately 140 million
Assuming that the three remaining states have yet to report but will likely not add more than a few million votes to the total, the voter count for 2024 seems to be significantly lower than in 2020.
3. Potential Decline in Voter Turnout: Where Did the 20-25 Million Votes Go?
Based on these figures, it appears that there are about 18 million to 20 million fewer votes in the 2024 election compared to 2020. Several factors might contribute to this apparent decline:
3.1. Pandemic-Driven Turnout Surge in 2020
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered the voting landscape, increasing both early voting and mail-in voting options. These methods were highly utilized, leading to increased participation. With a larger portion of the population voting from home or avoiding crowded polling places, turnout saw a boost.
In 2024, however, the urgency and accessibility tied to pandemic-related measures have largely subsided. Although many states have maintained early voting and mail-in options, voter interest might not have been as high without the pandemic-driven motivation.
3.2. Voter Apathy or Fatigue
Political fatigue can set in after an intense period of social and political upheaval. With the 2020 election, the January 6 Capitol attack, subsequent investigations, and numerous highly charged midterms, some voters may feel disillusioned or fatigued by the political process. This “election fatigue” could lead to lower turnout, especially among casual voters who were unusually motivated in 2020.
3.3. Candidate Appeal and Motivation
Voter enthusiasm often varies depending on candidate appeal. In 2020, Biden and Trump presented a stark choice, with each candidate representing very different ideologies and visions for the country. In 2024, Kamala Harris, running as the Democratic candidate, may not have attracted the same level of enthusiasm as Biden, potentially affecting turnout among Democratic voters.
Conversely, Donald Trump’s base has shown strong loyalty, but the overall national mood toward his candidacy might be more polarized. While his support among Republicans remains significant, he may not be drawing the same numbers from undecided or swing voters as he did in 2020, especially if they’re weary of controversy surrounding his campaigns.
3.4. Changes in Voting Laws
Several states have revised voting laws since 2020, which could impact turnout. Some states, particularly Republican-led ones, have introduced more restrictive measures regarding voter ID, mail-in ballots, and early voting. These changes may have impacted voter access or turnout, especially among groups that had higher turnout in 2020 due to the expanded mail-in voting opportunities.
3.5. Third-Party Candidates and Alternative Options
Another factor potentially accounting for some of the “missing votes” is the presence of third-party or independent candidates. In elections where third-party candidates receive a noticeable share of votes, they can draw from both major parties’ totals. If 2024 saw an increase in viable third-party candidates, this could lead to a slight drop in votes for both major party candidates, though likely not enough to account for the entire shortfall.
3.6. Demographic and Population Changes
Demographics in the U.S. have changed slightly since 2020, with shifts in population growth, migration, and even aging. Some regions have seen declines in population due to migration, lower birth rates, or other demographic trends, potentially resulting in fewer voters in certain areas. Although these changes are relatively minor, they can contribute to a slight decline in overall turnout.
4. Analyzing the Potential Impact on the 2024 Election Outcome
If the voter turnout decrease largely affects one candidate’s base, it could have a significant impact on the election outcome. From the numbers provided:
- Republican Base Stability: Trump’s count appears relatively stable compared to 2020, indicating strong retention of his base despite lower overall turnout.
- Democratic Base Drop: Kamala Harris’s vote total is notably lower than Biden’s in 2020, suggesting that Democrats may have experienced a decline in turnout. This could be due to less enthusiasm or accessibility compared to the 2020 surge, which saw record numbers.
The 20 million vote decline from 2020 to 2024 appears to stem from a variety of factors, including the end of pandemic-era voting dynamics, changes in voter enthusiasm and candidate appeal, legislative changes impacting voter access, and potential election fatigue among voters. The significant reduction in turnout seems to disproportionately impact the Democratic vote based on the numbers available, potentially impacting the election outcome if this trend holds in the remaining states.
Looking at the Numbers
Comparing Barack Obama’s two terms with Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory reveals shifts in voter demographics, turnout, geographic support, and political context. Obama’s elections in 2008 and 2012 marked historic voter turnout levels and a coalition that mobilized young voters, African Americans, and other minority groups. Biden’s 2020 victory, meanwhile, was marked by a surge in turnout not seen since Obama’s 2008 campaign but reflected a different political landscape, including a sharp increase in mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Let’s delve into the data and context for each election.
1. Voter Turnout and Popular Vote Numbers
- 2008 (Obama’s First Term):
- Popular Vote: 69.5 million votes (52.9%)
- Opponent (John McCain): 59.9 million votes (45.7%)
- Total Votes Cast: Around 131 million
- Voter Turnout: Approximately 61.6% of eligible voters
- 2012 (Obama’s Second Term):
- Popular Vote: 65.9 million votes (51.1%)
- Opponent (Mitt Romney): 60.9 million votes (47.2%)
- Total Votes Cast: Around 129 million
- Voter Turnout: Approximately 58.6% of eligible voters
- 2020 (Biden’s Victory):
- Popular Vote: 81.3 million votes (51.3%)
- Opponent (Donald Trump): 74.2 million votes (46.8%)
- Total Votes Cast: Around 158 million
- Voter Turnout: Approximately 66.8% of eligible voters
Key Observations on Voter Turnout and Vote Totals
- Historic Highs: Biden’s 2020 election had the highest number of votes ever cast for a U.S. presidential candidate, with 81.3 million votes. Obama’s 2008 numbers, though lower, still marked a historic high for that era.
- Turnout Trends: Voter turnout was high in both Obama’s 2008 election and Biden’s 2020 election. The significant difference in 2020 was the mail-in voting surge due to the pandemic, which allowed more voters to participate and drove turnout to 66.8%, the highest in a century.
2. Electoral College Comparison
- 2008 (Obama): 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173
- 2012 (Obama): 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206
- 2020 (Biden): 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232
Observations on Electoral Map Shifts
- Obama’s Coalition: Obama won states like Indiana and North Carolina in 2008, traditionally leaning Republican, due to high turnout among young and minority voters, but lost Indiana and narrowly held North Carolina in 2012.
- Biden’s Map: Biden managed to flip back states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which had gone to Trump in 2016. He also won Georgia and Arizona, signaling shifts in traditionally Republican-leaning states, largely due to increased voter mobilization efforts in urban and suburban areas.
3. Demographic Support Comparison
Both Obama and Biden built coalitions across various demographic groups, but they each had unique strengths:
- Youth Vote:
- Obama had particularly strong support among young voters (ages 18-29), with 66% support in 2008 and 60% in 2012. Biden also had strong support from young voters in 2020, but it was somewhat lower, at around 61% according to exit polls.
- African American Voters:
- Obama mobilized African American voters in unprecedented numbers, with around 95% support in both elections. Biden maintained strong African American support, around 87%, especially in urban areas and states like Georgia, although it was slightly lower than Obama’s due to demographic shifts and new issues affecting voter priorities.
- Hispanic and Latino Voters:
- Obama’s support among Hispanic voters was approximately 67% in 2008 and slightly lower in 2012. Biden saw about 65% support among Hispanic voters in 2020, but with notable regional differences; for instance, Trump made inroads with Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas.
- White Working-Class Voters:
- Obama held significant support among white working-class voters, particularly in the Midwest, in both 2008 and 2012. Biden, however, struggled with this group, which largely shifted to Trump in 2016 and 2020. Biden’s strategy was to focus on recovering support in key Midwest areas like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where he saw moderate success.
4. Key Issues and Political Context
The context of each election significantly influenced voter priorities and turnout:
- 2008: Obama’s campaign promised “Hope and Change” during a time of economic recession, widespread disillusionment with the Iraq War, and frustration with the Bush administration. His candidacy inspired high enthusiasm, particularly among younger and minority voters.
- 2012: Obama ran on his record, defending policies like the Affordable Care Act and the economic recovery measures post-recession. While turnout was lower than in 2008, his coalition largely held together, even though some enthusiasm had waned.
- 2020: Biden’s campaign emphasized unity and healing, focusing on managing the COVID-19 pandemic and addressing social and racial justice issues. Many voters were motivated by opposition to Trump rather than high enthusiasm for Biden, making this a more polarized election environment. The context of COVID-19 and the contentious Trump administration drove unprecedented turnout and a strong vote-by-mail presence.
5. Political Strategies
- Obama’s Strategy: Obama’s campaigns leveraged digital outreach, grassroots organizing, and appealed strongly to ideals of hope and progress. His focus on social media engagement and online fundraising set a new standard for modern campaigns.
- Biden’s Strategy: Biden focused on rebuilding the “blue wall” in the Midwest, emphasizing COVID-19 response and stability. His campaign relied heavily on early and mail-in voting strategies, which turned out to be a key factor in 2020’s high turnout. Biden’s campaign also benefitted from coalitions in urban and suburban areas, where organizing efforts in places like Atlanta and Phoenix played crucial roles in flipping key states.
6. Final Observations and Implications
- Voter Base Evolution: While Biden drew from Obama’s coalition, there were shifts in key demographics. White working-class voters continued moving toward the Republican Party, while minority and young voters remained more aligned with the Democrats, though with some decline in enthusiasm for Biden compared to Obama.
- Political Landscape: Biden’s coalition in 2020 reflects a different political landscape than Obama’s. His base was not necessarily driven by the same optimism but rather by a strong reaction to the Trump presidency. Obama’s coalition was built on hope and progress, while Biden’s was largely about unity and opposition to a controversial incumbent.
Obama’s two terms and Biden’s 2020 campaign share the ability to mobilize large coalitions, though Biden’s win required broader use of vote-by-mail and was less centered around idealism. These elections reveal shifts within the Democratic base, demographic changes, and different strategies that Democrats used to adapt to evolving political dynamics.
2016
The 2016 U.S. presidential election was one of the most contentious and closely watched in American history, culminating in the unexpected victory of Republican candidate Donald Trump over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The election was marked by sharp divides, high levels of media coverage, and an outcome that defied many early polling predictions. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the 2016 race, with key numbers, demographics, and contextual insights.
1. Overview of Results
- Donald Trump (Republican): 62,984,828 votes (46.1%), 304 electoral votes (after faithless electors)
- Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 65,853,514 votes (48.2%), 227 electoral votes (after faithless electors)
- Total Popular Vote: Approximately 128.8 million
- Voter Turnout: About 55.7% of eligible voters
2. Electoral College Breakdown
The Electoral College vote diverged from the popular vote, as Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes nationwide but lost in the Electoral College due to key state losses. Trump’s win was secured by narrow victories in several battleground states:
- Key Swing States:
- Pennsylvania: Trump won by 44,292 votes (0.7% margin)
- Michigan: Trump won by 10,704 votes (0.3% margin)
- Wisconsin: Trump won by 22,748 votes (0.8% margin)
- Florida: Trump won by 112,911 votes (1.2% margin)
These slim margins in the “Rust Belt” states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) were crucial, as they shifted from Democratic wins in previous elections to narrow Republican victories in 2016, delivering Trump the Electoral College edge he needed.
3. Voter Demographics and Key Groups
The 2016 election highlighted significant demographic and regional divides, with Trump and Clinton drawing distinct coalitions.
- White Voters:
- Trump won 57% of white voters, a demographic he performed strongly with across both men and women. This included 67% of white voters without a college degree, a group that proved especially pivotal in the Midwest and Rust Belt states.
- African American Voters:
- Clinton won 88% of the African American vote, though turnout among Black voters was lower than in 2008 and 2012 when Barack Obama was the Democratic candidate. Declines in African American turnout, particularly in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, were considered one factor in Clinton’s narrow losses in these regions.
- Hispanic and Latino Voters:
- Clinton captured 65% of Hispanic and Latino voters, while Trump won 29%. Although this was still a significant margin for Clinton, Trump’s support was higher than anticipated, particularly in states like Florida, where he won a larger share of Cuban American voters.
- Young Voters (Ages 18-29):
- Clinton won 55% of voters aged 18-29, but this was a lower share than Obama received in his elections. Trump garnered 36% of this group, while a notable portion of younger voters turned to third-party candidates, reflecting dissatisfaction with both major candidates.
- Gender:
- Clinton won among women by 13 points (54% to Trump’s 41%), continuing the historical Democratic advantage among female voters. Trump, however, won among men, with 52% compared to Clinton’s 41%.
4. Third-Party Influence
Third-party candidates had a stronger showing in 2016 compared to previous elections, partially due to widespread dissatisfaction with both Trump and Clinton.
- Gary Johnson (Libertarian): 4,489,341 votes (3.3%)
- Jill Stein (Green Party): 1,457,216 votes (1.1%)
The third-party vote share of approximately 4.4% was higher than in recent elections. In close battleground states, third-party votes arguably affected the margins. For instance, Johnson and Stein received enough votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to have potentially altered the final outcome had those voters chosen one of the major candidates.
5. Key Issues and Political Context
The 2016 election was shaped by a range of issues and a distinct political climate:
- Anti-Establishment Sentiment: Trump’s campaign successfully tapped into widespread frustration with Washington elites and the political establishment, especially among working-class voters. His promises to “drain the swamp” and disrupt the status quo resonated with voters feeling left behind by economic globalization and rapid social changes.
- Jobs and the Economy: Economic concerns, particularly in industrial and manufacturing regions, were a central theme. Trump emphasized bringing back jobs and criticized trade deals like NAFTA, which he argued had harmed American workers. This message particularly resonated with white working-class voters in the Rust Belt.
- Immigration: Trump’s stance on immigration, including promises to build a border wall and to implement stricter immigration controls, was a defining feature of his campaign. It appealed to voters concerned about national security and economic competition with immigrants.
- “Email Scandal” and Trustworthiness: Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State became a major controversy, with Trump using it to question her trustworthiness. The issue was amplified by the FBI’s reopening of the investigation shortly before Election Day, which many analysts believe negatively impacted Clinton’s momentum.
6. Political Strategies
- Trump’s Campaign Strategy:
- Trump’s campaign focused heavily on rallies, direct voter engagement, and social media, where he maintained an unfiltered and often provocative presence. He relied on a populist message that criticized the political establishment and appealed to nationalism and economic protectionism.
- His team focused efforts on the Rust Belt and Midwest, targeting working-class, rural, and suburban voters disillusioned with traditional politicians. His decision to campaign intensively in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the final stretch proved strategic.
- Clinton’s Campaign Strategy:
- Clinton’s campaign took a more traditional approach, with a well-funded, data-driven ground game. The campaign heavily targeted urban centers and suburban areas where Democrats traditionally performed well.
- Clinton emphasized her experience, contrasting it with Trump’s lack of political background, and appealed to unity, progressive social policies, and continuity with Obama’s agenda.
- A key criticism of her campaign was that it underestimated the importance of Rust Belt states, focusing resources on states like Arizona and Georgia while spending less time in Michigan and Wisconsin.
7. Post-Election Analysis and Impact
The 2016 election’s outcome had immediate and long-term impacts:
- Electoral Realignment: Trump’s victory suggested a potential realignment, with the Republican Party increasingly appealing to white working-class voters and performing better in the Midwest, while Democrats continued to make gains in the Sun Belt and among urban and suburban voters.
- Polarization and Division: The election exposed deep political and cultural divides within the U.S., particularly along lines of class, education, and urban-rural residency. Trump’s style and approach, combined with Clinton’s status as an establishment candidate, intensified these divides.
- Digital Influence and Social Media: The role of social media, “fake news,” and foreign interference, particularly Russian-linked influence campaigns, became a significant focus after the election. Investigations revealed attempts to exploit social divisions, influencing voter perceptions and contributing to misinformation spread.
The 2016 election was characterized by a highly polarized electorate, a strong anti-establishment wave, and a breakdown of traditional voting patterns. Trump’s narrow wins in key battleground states ultimately allowed him to secure the presidency despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million. The election underscored the importance of the Electoral College in U.S. politics and revealed changing dynamics within both major parties that would continue to shape elections in the years to come.
Analyzing the 2020 election numbers for Joe Biden does reveal notable, even historic, trends that have led some to view his victory as an outlier in modern American political history. Biden received over 81 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama’s record-setting 69.5 million in 2008, and achieving the highest vote total for any presidential candidate in U.S. history. However, this substantial increase—particularly for a candidate who did not exhibit the same charisma or popularity as figures like Obama—has prompted discussions about how these numbers stand out compared to previous elections, especially given the unique conditions and factors surrounding the 2020 race.
1. Record-Breaking Turnout in a Pandemic Year
The 2020 election saw an exceptionally high voter turnout of around 158 million, or 66.8% of eligible voters, a level unseen since 1900. There were several factors at play that likely contributed to this surge:
- Mail-In Voting Expansion: The COVID-19 pandemic led many states to adopt expanded mail-in voting options to ensure safer voting conditions. This likely increased turnout by making it easier for people to vote, particularly those who may not have otherwise participated.
- Polarized Political Climate: The strong polarization surrounding Donald Trump’s presidency led to a highly mobilized electorate on both sides. Many voters were motivated primarily by a desire to remove Trump from office, rather than a strong personal enthusiasm for Biden. This “anti-Trump” vote was crucial in the turnout surge, particularly in Democratic and suburban areas.
While these factors contribute to an understanding of why the 2020 numbers were so high, they don’t fully explain the record numbers Biden achieved, given that he didn’t generate the same personal enthusiasm or historical symbolism that Obama did. Obama’s elections drew large numbers due to his widespread popularity and historical significance as the first Black president, factors Biden did not have.
2. Outperforming Obama in Key Areas
Biden’s ability to surpass Obama’s numbers in several key areas raises questions about the unique conditions of 2020. In traditionally Democratic strongholds like Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee, Biden performed strongly, but some see it as unusual given that Obama had struggled to reach comparable turnout levels in these areas in 2012.
- Urban Voter Turnout: Biden’s turnout was particularly high in large urban centers that are typically crucial to Democratic victories. These urban areas, which had shown voter drop-offs in 2016, rebounded strongly in 2020, with voter numbers that surprised many analysts. Critics argue that these gains seem irregular, as Biden did not generate the same levels of excitement as Obama.
- Suburban Swing: Biden saw large gains in suburban counties, particularly in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, where suburban voters shifted away from Trump. While Trump’s polarizing style played a role in driving these shifts, the size of the swing was still surprising to some, especially given Biden’s lack of comparable popularity to Obama.
3. Historic Vote Totals for a Less Charismatic Candidate
Biden’s candidacy was defined by themes of unity and normalcy, and his campaign strategy was centered on appealing to moderate voters who had grown disillusioned with Trump. While this strategy aligned with the electorate’s desire for stability, Biden did not have a particularly energized base, especially in comparison to other Democrats like Obama or Bernie Sanders, whose supporters showed more consistent enthusiasm.
- Less Enthusiasm Compared to Previous Democrats: Biden did not inspire the same “movement” energy as Obama or even Sanders, which raises the question of how he attracted record-breaking numbers. Exit polls consistently showed that many of Biden’s voters were primarily motivated by opposition to Trump rather than deep support for Biden himself. Yet, despite this, Biden’s final vote count far exceeded that of any Democratic candidate in history.
4. Strong Performance in Key Swing States
Biden’s narrow victories in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia were essential to his Electoral College win. However, the numbers in these states were very close, often within fractions of a percentage point.
- Close Margins in Key States: In states like Georgia and Arizona, where Democrats had not won in decades, Biden narrowly prevailed, in part due to strong get-out-the-vote efforts in urban and suburban areas. The slim margins, combined with unprecedented turnout, were highly unusual in states that had traditionally leaned Republican.
- Unprecedented Levels of Early Voting: Mail-in and early voting contributed significantly to Biden’s victory, especially in swing states where many Democratic voters opted for early voting due to pandemic concerns. Critics have pointed out that the surge of early votes disproportionately favored Biden, which, while explainable by party strategies, also looked different from typical voting patterns.
5. The Impact of Election Changes and Voting Laws
The 2020 election was conducted under unique circumstances, with significant adjustments to election rules and procedures due to COVID-19. Mail-in ballots, early voting, and extended voting deadlines varied widely across states, and this adaptation likely impacted the overall outcome in a way that defied traditional patterns.
- Mail-In Voting and Late Ballots: Biden won a majority of mail-in ballots in several swing states, a factor that proved crucial to his victory. Some see this as an outlier because it deviates from historical norms, where in-person voting typically had a stronger impact on election night.
- Voter Mobilization Efforts: Extensive get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats, combined with organizational support from groups focused on voter turnout, drove participation to record levels. Critics argue that while these efforts are legitimate, they could suggest an anomaly due to the unprecedented level of organization and resources that went into mail-in voting in particular.
- An Outlier Election with Unique Conditions
The 2020 election is, in many ways, an outlier in terms of voter turnout, methods of voting, and electoral context. Biden’s ability to surpass Obama’s 2008 vote totals, despite lacking the same personal popularity, is unusual. However, many of these discrepancies can be attributed to the unique conditions of 2020: a polarized electorate, expanded mail-in voting, and intense anti-Trump sentiment.
While some view the 2020 numbers as evidence that “something was up,” it’s important to consider that the election took place under extraordinary circumstances that changed voter behavior. The expanded access to voting options, high voter engagement, and strategic mobilization by Democrats are likely contributors to the record-breaking numbers rather than evidence of irregularities. Nonetheless, the 2020 numbers undeniably stand out against historical trends, making it a singular election in American history.
A detailed comparison of Donald Trump’s vote counts across the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections reveals relatively stable trends, unlike the sharp increases observed in the Democratic vote count, particularly with Joe Biden in 2020. Trump’s numbers show more consistent patterns of growth, aligning with typical incremental gains associated with an incumbent and then candidate in subsequent elections. In contrast, Biden’s vote count in 2020, as well as Kamala Harris’s projected 2024 numbers, reflect a notable anomaly that sparks questions about unusual jumps in Democratic support. Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s vote counts across the three election cycles compared to the Democratic numbers.
1. Donald Trump’s Vote Totals: 2016, 2020, and 2024
- 2016: Trump won the presidency with approximately 62,984,828 votes, accounting for 46.1% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by an appeal to working-class, rural, and suburban voters, especially in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where he won narrow victories.
- 2020: In his bid for re-election, Trump’s vote total grew to 74,216,154, representing 46.8% of the popular vote. This marked an increase of over 11 million votes compared to 2016, reflecting a strong turnout among his base and increased Republican enthusiasm. His loss was attributed primarily to the Democratic surge in urban and suburban areas, partly driven by expanded mail-in voting.
- 2024: Assuming Trump’s 2024 numbers (as of 7th of November 72,520,127) maintain consistency with typical Republican growth rates and demographic trends, we might expect a slight increase over 2020. For instance, a projection around 78-80 million would align with a modest increase in turnout from his 2020 numbers, reflecting the typical stability seen in Republican voting patterns.
Consistency in Trump’s Numbers
Trump’s numbers exhibit steady growth, which aligns with general expectations for a presidential candidate who retains a committed base. His increases from 2016 to 2020 were consistent with trends observed in past incumbents, who often see turnout gains due to both heightened voter loyalty and the general trend of increasing voter participation over time.
- Moderate Increases: Trump’s growth of around 11 million votes from 2016 to 2020 was driven by loyalty among his base, as well as shifts among key demographics such as rural voters and some Hispanic communities, particularly in Florida and Texas.
- Absence of Large Jumps: Trump’s numbers do not show the kind of unprecedented, outlier jumps that Biden’s numbers did in 2020. Instead, they exhibit incremental growth consistent with factors like population increase and voter mobilization efforts.
Comparing Joe Biden’s Outlier Numbers in 2020
Joe Biden’s 2020 vote count stands out sharply against the backdrop of typical voting patterns. Biden received over 81 million votes (51.3% of the popular vote), the highest in U.S. history, which was a notable increase over the 65.9 million votes Hillary Clinton received in 2016. This jump is unusual because Biden was widely considered a more moderate and less energizing candidate compared to figures like Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders. Several factors, however, contributed to this record-setting number:
- Pandemic-Era Mail-In Voting: Expanded mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in turnout among Democratic-leaning voters who may have otherwise not participated. Some critics argue that this expansion contributed to an uncharacteristic spike that favored Biden, leading to an unprecedented outcome in key battleground states.
- Anti-Trump Sentiment: Many Biden voters cited their primary motivation as opposition to Trump rather than strong enthusiasm for Biden. This “negative partisanship” was a major factor in the high Democratic turnout, with many voters casting ballots simply to remove Trump from office.
Kamala Harris’s 2024 Vote Totals and Signs of Anomaly
Kamala Harris’s vote count in 2024, based on the figures, is at around 67,853,705 votes, or 47.5% of the popular vote. This total would represent a drop of about 13.5 million votes compared to Biden’s 2020 numbers, which could raise questions about the sustainability of the Democratic coalition.
- Drop in Democratic Turnout: A drop from 81 million (Biden 2020) to approximately 67.8 million (Harris 2024) might suggest that the coalition of voters who turned out in 2020 did not remain consistent or that enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket decreased. Harris’s hypothetical 2024 numbers show a decline that could indicate either less mobilization or a lack of strong support for her candidacy.
- Anomalous 2020 Democratic Numbers: This drop would highlight 2020 as a unique spike that Harris could not replicate, which might support the argument that Biden’s 2020 numbers were an outlier. It may indicate that the conditions in 2020 were unusual and driven by specific circumstances rather than by lasting shifts in the Democratic base.
Critical Observations on the Disparity
The disparity between Trump’s stable growth and the large, fluctuating jumps in Democratic numbers invites analysis of several underlying factors:
- Stability in Republican Voter Base: Trump’s numbers show that his base remained steady and grew within expected margins. The consistency suggests that his support has a reliable foundation, regardless of external factors, reflecting strong party loyalty.
- Volatility in Democratic Turnout: Biden’s 2020 numbers appear inflated due to the pandemic, expanded mail-in voting, and high anti-Trump sentiment. Harris’s inability to maintain this surge in 2024 might suggest that Biden’s 2020 turnout was indeed an anomaly.
- Potential Issues with 2020 Democratic Surge: Critics argue that the 2020 Democratic surge points to a scenario where voting patterns were heavily influenced by temporary conditions. The lack of comparable enthusiasm for Harris could reinforce the view that Biden’s numbers were not fully reflective of a stable, organic shift in Democratic support.
Trump’s voting numbers from 2016 to 2024 display a pattern of stable, incremental growth that aligns with historical trends, contrasting sharply with Biden’s large 2020 turnout spike. If Harris’s 2024 numbers do show a decline, it would further support the idea that Biden’s record-breaking 2020 numbers were an outlier. The differences between these patterns suggest that while Republican support for Trump remained consistent, the Democratic coalition may have reached its peak under extraordinary conditions in 2020, conditions that are proving difficult to sustain.
The 2020 U.S. presidential election was subject to extensive debate regarding election security and the legitimacy of certain ballots, leading to numerous claims, investigations, and lawsuits. Some allegations raised included votes supposedly cast in the names of deceased individuals, irregularities in voter rolls, and issues related to expanded mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a breakdown of these issues, the findings from investigations, and how they impacted public discourse.
1. Claims of Votes Cast by Deceased Individuals
One of the allegations widely circulated was that votes were cast on behalf of deceased people. These claims generally asserted that fraudulent actors exploited outdated voter rolls to vote in the names of people who had passed away. However, investigations by election officials and independent fact-checking organizations found very few confirmed cases of such instances:
- Evidence of Deceased Voters: In the course of legal investigations and reviews by various states, most claims about dead individuals voting were unsubstantiated. For instance, after a thorough examination, officials in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania confirmed only a handful of cases where ballots had been cast erroneously, but these were often attributed to clerical errors or unique circumstances involving family members.
- Disproportionate Media Coverage: Although individual examples circulated widely on social media, investigations largely dismissed these as errors rather than systemic fraud. In most states, suspected cases of “dead voter” ballots were reviewed and either corrected or found to be baseless. Election security measures, including signature verification and voter roll maintenance, prevented this from being a widespread issue.
2. Issues Related to Voter Roll Maintenance
Voter rolls are updated regularly to remove individuals who have passed away or relocated, but due to high turnout and the expanded use of mail-in voting, the accuracy of these rolls became a prominent focus in 2020:
- Inactive and Outdated Voter Registrations: Some states had challenges with removing outdated registrations quickly, which led to accusations of inactive voters potentially being manipulated for fraudulent voting. However, election officials noted that inactive registrations do not automatically mean fraudulent ballots were cast, as these registrations require activation, often through voter verification steps.
- Court Cases and Audits: Multiple audits, including in Arizona and Georgia, looked into the accuracy of voter rolls. Most concluded that, while voter roll maintenance could be improved, the instances where incorrect ballots were cast were negligible and not indicative of widespread fraud.
3. Impact of Expanded Mail-In Voting
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 saw an unprecedented expansion in mail-in voting, which led to logistical challenges and allegations around ballot handling, delivery, and verification:
- Claims of Fraudulent Mail-In Ballots: Critics argued that expanded mail-in voting increased opportunities for fraud, particularly due to alleged lax standards in signature verification and ballot tracking in certain states. However, investigations by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and state election boards indicated that mail-in voting was secure. They found that safeguards like unique ballot tracking and bipartisan oversight prevented widespread issues.
- Processing Delays and Perceptions of Irregularities: Due to the high volume of mail-in ballots and legal constraints on early processing in some states, results were delayed, which fueled suspicions. The “Red Mirage” effect (where initial in-person votes favored Trump, with mail-in ballots favoring Biden) was largely due to these procedural differences rather than malfeasance.
4. Claims and Lawsuits Regarding Voter Irregularities
Following the election, numerous lawsuits were filed by various parties challenging the results, citing alleged irregularities in ballot counting, processing, and security.
- Lawsuits and Court Rulings: Of the many lawsuits filed in key battleground states, the vast majority were dismissed by the courts due to lack of evidence. Judges across multiple jurisdictions, including some appointed by both political parties, found no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the election outcome.
- Recounts and Audits: Some states conducted recounts and audits, including Georgia, which completed multiple hand recounts. These processes reaffirmed the initial vote counts, with only minor discrepancies that are common in elections and did not indicate fraudulent activity.
5. Conclusion and Impact on Public Perception
In summary, while the 2020 election did experience claims of irregularities, extensive investigations and audits revealed minimal instances of actual voter fraud. The scale of any issues found was small and statistically insignificant relative to the final outcome. Claims about deceased voters, outdated voter rolls, and mail-in ballot fraud were largely disproven by official investigations, although they contributed significantly to public skepticism and political discourse surrounding election integrity.
The extensive scrutiny of the 2020 election highlighted areas for improvement, such as clearer communication about mail-in voting procedures and timely updates to voter rolls, to reinforce public trust in future elections.
About the Author
