Donald Trump, the previous president, nearly secured half of the voter turnout during the most recent election. However, his claim of an ‘unmatched and potent mandate’ during his victory speech raised eyebrows, as such an assertion seemed far from the reality. The results depicted a country split right down the middle, with a meagre tilt towards right-wing politics. The projected GOP dominance of the House was likely to either remain stagnant or slightly reduce, reflecting that Trump’s popularity did not necessarily translate to a unanimous support for other Republican candidates.
The tally provided by the Associated Press revealed a close race, with Trump securing 49.97% of the votes and Vice President Kamala Harris lagging behind at 48.36%. This translates to approximately 76.9 million votes for Trump and 74.4 million for Harris. With slightly different stats but a similar outcome, the U.S. Election Atlas also showed Trump with ahead, albeit slightly, reinforcing the tightrope walk this electoral race had turned into.
Trump recorded the highest percentage of votes in comparison to his previous two attempts at presidency. What is surprising is that despite him receiving less than 46% and 47% votes in 2016 and 2020, respectively, counting for the current election is still ongoing. The thereby, the potential for an even higher vote count for Trump still exists. Provisional and overseas ballots are yet to be factored into the total, indicating the final margin could be more tightly wound.
The flashbacks of the 2000 election came to mind where a 0.51 percentage point difference decided the fate of the Oval Office. Despite Al Gore bagging more popular votes, the electoral college favored George W. Bush. Harris, akin to Al Gore, is likely to benefit from provisional votes, which are primarily from Democrat-dominant states such as California, Oregon, and New York.
Nevertheless, the presidency isn’t determined by popular vote but by the Electoral College. In this aspect too, Trump showed his dominance, securing a prominent 312 seats against Harris’ 226, the largest margin since 2012. Trump’s win on the Electoral College yet again conveys the peculiar functioning of the U.S. democracy, mirroring Trump’s 2016 result against Hillary Clinton.
Despite his loss in the popular vote back in 2016, Trump managed to secure the electoral college, and history repeated itself in this election. One essential factor contributing to Trump’s popular vote hike this time was Harris’ performance in traditionally Democrat areas. Kamala Harris failed to replicate Joe Biden’s 2020 vote count in the critical states of New York and California.
Considering both New York and California, Harris fell approximately 3 million votes short of Biden’s 2020 tallies. This wide gap isn’t just showcasing a switch in votes but also indicating an outright loss of support for the Democrats. In New York, Harris was off by about 900,000 votes, with Trump netting an increase of merely 200,000 votes from his 2020 total.
In California, Biden’s strongholds, Harris garnered fewer votes than Biden, falling short by around 1.9 million. However, this did not necessarily benefit Trump, who only gained about 60,000 more votes. It seems that many of these former Biden supporters didn’t cross over to Trump but might have abstained or supported another candidate.
Turnout is often seen to be lower in areas where less political attention is garnered. The most recent election saw an influx of political advertising finances primarily in select states. However, this targeted campaigning appears to have had minimal effects on overall voter turnout.
Despite the surge in political investments in key states, the overall voter turnout dropped a minuscule percentage from 2020, settling in at approximately 63.8%. This figure, surprisingly, marks as the second highest over the past century. This statistic just goes to show that despite their numerous failings, the Democrats still have some sway over the populace.
It’s worth noting that Mexico, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, formerly reliable Democrat-supporting states, saw the strongest voter turnout. Other states, such as Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire, closely followed, lying within a five-point difference and maintaining their potential competitive status.
In contrast, the states with demonstrably low voter turnout were Hawaii, Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, New York, Indiana, and Alabama. It’s notable that these states were non-competitive, falling solidly into either the Republican or Democrat camp. This suggests that the voters there may be less motivated to turn out when the results in their state seem like a foregone conclusion.
Such a phenomenon is indicative of voter passion weakening in areas where either party has a stronghold, a criticism that both Harris and her Democrat peers should consider seriously. However, the likelihood of such introspection seems minor given the myopic strategies employed by the Democrats.
This disparity in voter turnout prompts some serious questions around the relevance of the archaic electoral system, and whether its existence serves to disenfranchise voters, or at least dull their motivation. Furthermore, it sheds light on the Democrats’ inability to rally their traditional base and permeate beyond their strongholds.
In conclusion, the electoral outcome reinforces a more contentious and divided political landscape. While Trump seemingly capitalized on some of these divisions for his gain, Harris, and by extension, the Democrats have glaring weakness they need to address. Analyzing the shifting voter demographics and varied turnout statistics could significantly inform future campaign strategies and potentially tip the scales in the coming elections.