Harris’ anticipated urban surge utterly failed to materialize. Not in Philadelphia, not in any major city spanning across various battleground states. These blue cities comprise the fundamental underpinning of the Democratic base. A mixed bag of liberal educated professionals and working class voters have traditionally been the backbone of Democratic victories. These urban areas are where, traditionally, Democrats need to clock high voting margins to even dream of an electoral win. Alas, this year was a break from tradition. The larger cities held less sway over the overall votes cast in battleground states, compared to four years ago. The political pendulum swung towards suburban and rural voters who usually tend to be more conservative.
Interestingly, the voter turnout in Philadelphia was lower, despite the statewide voter turnout in Pennsylvania surpassing the 2020 levels. POLITICAL’s analysis reveals a concerning trend— the largest drop in voter turnout across all six states was largely witnessed in low-income Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. While there was some slight drift towards Trump, the plummeting turnout in steadfastly Democratic precincts wreaked the most severely. Trump surprisingly won 3,400 more votes across the ‘predominantly Black’ precincts in the six cities. However, Harris received about 17,500 fewer votes than Biden had, thus causing significant damage to the overall margins.
Although the decline in city voter turnout doesn’t singularly explain Harris’ defeat, it does warrant scrutiny. Trump’s popularity grew universally across these battleground states— even in purple suburbs and rural red counties. However, the reduced turnout hampered Harris’ bid to rally an urban firewall— traditional Democratic strongholds. The writing on the wall is clear, the Democrats will have to refocus and address these issues before the next election circles.
The sense of disillusionment is real. One of the sources remarked, ‘We definitely dropped the ball here, no two ways about it’. There’s a growing consensus that they let a golden opportunity slip from their grasp. The drop in voter turnout amongst urban Black neighborhoods not only drove down Harris’ vote totals but also signaled a dire warning. Despite winning the precincts where at least 85 percent of the residents are Black, her numbers paled in comparison to the 2020 levels.
Around Election Day, murmurings of a potential drift in Black male voters from the Democratic party had already raised doubts about whether Harris could secure substantial margins in major urban centers like Philadelphia. Notwithstanding, she managed to garner 94.6 percent of the votes in the ‘predominantly Black’ precincts in the six cities, tallying more than 200,000 votes in contrast with less than 11,500 for Trump. But the bitter pill for the Democrats to swallow is the significant drop in her votes from the previous election.
Across the six cities, there was a precipitous decrease of 6.1 percent in total votes from 2020 to 2024 within these ‘predominantly Black’ precincts. This fall is more than double the overall 2.7 percent decline across the cities. Apart from Black neighborhoods, the vote count also declined in predominantly Hispanic precincts in these major cities. Moreover, a large swing towards the right was observed in these areas despite the decreased turnout.
According to exit polls, Trump managed to win about 46 percent of the national Hispanic votes, marking a significant increase of 14 percentage points from the last quadrennial rounds. The overall urban voter shift was 8.2 points towards Trump along with a more than 11 percent drop in turnout. Although Hispanic voters are not as represented in the urban hubs of battleground states as Black voters, they nonetheless had a notable impact on the election.
White voters, who historically have been more favourable towards Democrats than their counterparts in other areas and more conservative than Black or Latino voters in cities, experienced a slight shift to the right. Four years ago, the precincts in the six cities with at least 85 percent white residents gave 54.6 percent of their votes to Biden. However, this year, these higher-income and better-educated precincts shifted slightly towards Trump.
Cities used to be the strongholds of the Democrats, but it seems that Trump has made considerable inroads into their electorate. No matter the level of education or income, Trump was able to erode the support for the Democrats in these cities. Harris had hoped for a diverse and robust urban turnout to carry her through the elections, but it failed to come to fruition.
As an indication of her desperation, Harris made repeated appearances in Milwaukee, expecting it to serve as a bulwark against Trump’s wave of support across Wisconsin. However, despite her frantic efforts, Milwaukee took a sharp turn towards Trump, leaving Harris high and dry. Wealthy and educated urban citizens, who had generally been a reliable Democratic voter base, barely managed to match, let alone expand upon, Biden’s performance.
Harris’ failed bid for presidency can be traced back to multiple inefficiencies. She rested her hopes on a robust turnout of city dwellers, expecting them to come out in large numbers and vote for her. Yet, Trump managed to systematically peck away at her presumed coalition. Milwaukee, long known as a liberal refuge, didn’t leap to her defence, leaving her with little remaining support.
With this surprising turn of events, the Democrats might have to reevaluate their electoral strategy, especially in relation to urban, suburban, and rural voters. It’s evident that in this particular race, the stifled voter turnout in urban areas greatly affected the chances of a Democratic victory. Harris’ campaign was predicated on the presumption of unwavering loyalty from urban voters. Meanwhile, Trump made significant headway amongst demographic groups that have historically been Democratic strongholds.
Taking all these factors into account, the loss of Harris is nothing less than a bitter defeat for the Democrats, a defeat that reveals severe cracks in their electoral strategy, and a massive gap between their assumptions and the ground reality. Moreover, it is a wakeup call that the Democrats will ignore only at their peril. As voters across America continue to evolve in their choices, the Democrats will need to keep pace, or risk getting left behind.
Clear lessons have been drawn from Harris’ underwhelming performance, and the Democrats would do well to heed them. Party strategists will need to engage in a broader debate about democracy, urbanization, race, class, and identity, as they grapple with the aftermath of an election that defied their confident predictions. Most importantly, they will need to reopen their playbooks, and reconsider where they put their efforts and resources.