Summary

The 2024 presidential election saw record-high turnout nearing 2020 levels, with over 152 million ballots cast.

Donald Trump won both the Electoral College and the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, defying conventional wisdom that high turnout benefits Democrats.

Key swing states like Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had increased turnout, with Trump outperforming Kamala Harris in battlegrounds despite her strong voter mobilization.

The GOP’s focus on early and mail voting, as well as targeting infrequent voters, proved effective, signaling a shift in Republican turnout strategies in the Trump era.

  • Kernal64
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    No he didn’t. At last count, he’s sitting at 77.4 million votes, which is a little more than 3 million more votes than he got in 2020 (74.2).

      • Kernal64
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        Where did you get that 11 million number? Vote totals so far are a little more than 5 million short of 2020. Everyone keeps talking about 11 million, 15 million, 20 million people who stayed home and I think it’s frankly a way to cope with the hard and gross truth that the country shifted right. Some people stayed home this year, but from all the sources I can see, it’s nowhere near 11 million, and the fascist candidate increasing his vote totals every year is very alarming. I get people who don’t want to face that. It’s scary as hell, especially if you’re in an out group. In my traditionally deeply blue state, the split gap between Harris and The Fanta Menace was like 55/45. That’s WAY too close for comfort and while people staying home is a problem, it’s not the main problem this time around.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          First of all, we had close to 100 million eligible non-voters. “Didn’t vote” is definitely the winner of this election. Secondly, those numbers are from projections and statistics. At least 10 million democrats who should have voted, didn’t.

          • Kernal64
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            The people that always stay home weren’t gonna come out. They never do. 2020 is said to have had historic levels of turnout and it had 2/3rds of eligible voters coming out to vote. I wouldn’t count on that last third who always sits out to suddenly realize they’re screwing themselves and everyone else. I still don’t know where the 10 million number is coming from. Who’s projections and statistics? Would it be the same people who projected that despite a close race, Harris would be the likely winner? I’m not sure they’re all that credible at the moment. I think people shifted right and I think that sucks a lot. I wish I had a solution, but I don’t. There were any number of good reasons to come out and vote for Harris, or at least against FatPutin, but here we are.

            • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Harris had 73 million votes. Biden had 81 million. The population and consequently the number of democratic voters has also increased by several million.

              If you do the very basic arithmetic, there are at least 10 million democratic voters who didn’t turn out in 2024. Hope that helps.

              • Kernal64
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                You know, I wasn’t rude to you, so there isn’t any reason for your condescending tone.

                • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  29 days ago

                  You have been rude since your first comment. You have expressed confusion at why you were wrong while simultaneously expressing large amounts of condescension towards anyone who provides you an alternate explanation.