There were a number of interesting takeaways from the latest detailed 2024 election analysis, but I focused on the very big picture at New York:
Researchers are just now gaining access to complete data on what actually happened in the 2024 elections via voter files and Census materials.
The progressive data firm Catalist just issued its report on 2024, and much of what it tells us is a familiar story by now:
“Overall, we find that the Democratic Kamala Harris / Tim Walz ticket retained key parts of the Biden 2020 coalition, but at lower levels among a specific, interconnected set of subgroups, including young voters, men, voters of color, less frequent voters, urban voters, and voters living outside the major battleground states. No single demographic characteristic explains all the dynamics of the election; rather we find that the election is best explained as a combination of related factors. Importantly, an overarching connection among these groups is that they are less likely to have cast ballots in previous elections and are generally less engaged in the political process.
“While these groups tilted toward Donald Trump and JD Vance, Harris retained support among more consistent voters, particularly in battleground states. Together, these dynamics allowed the Trump / Vance ticket to secure a narrow popular vote plurality and a sweep of the major swing states.”
The details, of course, are still interesting, particularly when Catalist gets down into the demographic weeds:
“Over the past several general elections, Democratic support has continued to erode among voters of color. Drops from 2020 to 2024 were highest among Latino voters (9 points in support), lowest among Black voters (3 points), and 4 points for Asian and Pacific Islander groups (AAPI) … As with other demographic groups, support drops were concentrated among the younger cohorts of voters, particularly young men. For instance, support among young Black men dropped from 85% to 75% and support among young Latino men dropped from 63% to 47%.”
But sometimes important data points emerge only when you look at them from 30,000 feet. Given all that we know about the erosion of public trust in institutions, steadily negative perceptions of the direction of the country, a long-term trend away from partisan self-identification, and the savage and alienating tone of contemporary political discourse, you’d guess that voter participation would be sliding into a deep ditch. But it isn’t:
“The 2024 election was a continuation of incredibly high turnout following Trump’s surprising victory in 2016, particularly in the battleground states. Since the start of Trump’s first term, voters have remained highly engaged in the political process.
“According to data from the United States Election Lab compiled by University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald … voter turnout spiked from 60% in 2016 to 66% in 2020 — the highest voter turnout in over a century, higher than any election since women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights era. Turnout dropped to 64% in 2024, but this drop was concentrated in non-competitive states, with some battleground states exceeding their 2020 turnout.”
So in a country where so many citizens seem to hate politics, voting is occurring (in relative terms) at historically high levels. Catalist doesn’t go into the possible explanations, but three come to mind right away.
First, despite recent Republican efforts to go back to a system dominated by in-person voting on Election Day, convenience-voting opportunities have steadily spread with voting by mail and/or in-person early voting available nearly everywhere, increasingly without conditions. In most jurisdictions, registering to vote has gotten easier in the 21st century, though, again, recent Republican initiatives to require documentary proof of citizenship and promote frequent “purges” of voter rolls definitely threaten to reverse that trend.
Second, competitive elections tend to produce higher voter turnout, particularly at a time of partisan and ideological polarization, when the stakes associated with winning or losing are heightened. Six of the seven most recent presidential elections have been very close either in the popular vote or the Electoral College or both. Control of either the House (2006, 2010, 2018, and 2022) or Senate (2002, 2006, 2014, and 2020) has changed in every midterm election of the 21st century. This level of instability over such an extended period of time is unusual and arguably galvanizing.
Third, the amount of money going into voter mobilization and persuasion in national election cycles has been steadily rising. The campaign-finance tracking site OpenSecrets has shown that in inflation-adjusted dollars, total spending has nearly tripled between 2000 and 2024 in both presidential and midterm elections. 2020 was actually the most expensive election ever with $7.7 billion (again, in inflation-adjusted dollars) going into the Trump-Biden race and $10.6 billion devoted to congressional campaigns. The slightly lower number for 2024 may have been attributable to the incredibly intensive targeting of resources on the seven battleground states, where, overall, as Catalist showed, turnout actually went up a bit from 2020.
These three factors do not, of course, take into account the much-discussed possibility that Donald Trump and his radicalized party are responsible for excited or fearful hordes of Americans going to the polls. But while voting patterns in Trump-era midterms are a bit different from those in the presidential elections when his name has been on the ballot, turnout has been elevated in the midterms, too. Indeed, the leap from a national turnout rate of 37 percent in 2014 to 50 percent in 2018 (dropping only a bit to 46 percent in 2022) remains one of the largest and most astonishing jumps in voter engagement in living memory.
Will these patterns change when (presumably) Trump leaves the scene in 2028? Nobody knows. But the anecdotal impression that Americans have grown tired of politics, and even government, during the Trump years hasn’t translated into unwillingness to vote.
> Bush and Cheney are increasingly desperate. So their
> rhetoric will be increasingly shrill and over-the-top.
> They have painted themselves in a corner with their
> scare campaign.
I think the Kerry camp needs to be careful in the final debate. They’re saying the subject (domestic issues) should favor the Dems, but a *lot* of observers are saying “Shrub” actually fared better in debate#2 than when he had to defend his failed Iraq strategy.
—
My fear is “Shrub” and the GOP will try to exploit the usual cultural wedge issues in the final debate, and Kerry will give some vague Dukakis-esque responses. Maybe they will accuse the Democrats of banning the bible and requiring men to marry other men… It’s what they do when their Iraq policy is in shambles, there are fewer jobs than four years ago and the federal government is drowning in red ink thanks to the tax cuts.
MARCU$
Mimikatz, you wrote:
I think that Bush really damaged himself with undecided women in the second debate. His demeanor in the first half was the sort of swaggering, cocksure braggart that most women detest. He was rude to many of the questioners, particularly the older man who asked about drug reimportation and the last woman, who asked about his mistakes. Women tend to be more attuned to social niceties. Third, the abortion question. Of course rabid pro-life women would go for Bush. But his refusal to understand any nuances to that issue, and his favoring the fetus at the expense of the mother’s health or even her life, had to make many women cringe. Expect to see Kerry rise a few points in the next polls because of this.
Posted by Mimikatz at October 9, 2004 05:22 PM
===========================
I absolutely agree.
All the talking heads need to pull their HEADS out of their collective ass and look around. The ONLY voters who matter are those in the middle who are undecided or persuadeable. If oozing faux machismo would have won them, they wouldn’t be persuadeable now.
Many woman respond very negatively to men to exhibit the behaviors of Bush, mainly because most have been bullied by some similiar sounding male all too often. They know it instantly as the boyfriend or husband who was always going to have things his way, and wanted to shout down opposition. Or the boss, or the co-worker, or the husband of a friend.
Bush had to have lost all women who were anywhere near the fence.
I am predicting that Kerry will gain the lead from the second debate and not lose it again.
We should begin to see evidence of it tomorrow or Tuesday.
I think that Bush really damaged himself with undecided women in the second debate. His demeanor in the first half was the sort of swaggering, cocksure braggart that most women detest. He was rude to many of the questioners, particularly the older man who asked about drug reimportation and the last woman, who asked about his mistakes. Women tend to be more attuned to social niceties. Third, the abortion question. Of course rabid pro-life women would go for Bush. But his refusal to understand any nuances to that issue, and his favoring the fetus at the expense of the mother’s health or even her life, had to make many women cringe. Expect to see Kerry rise a few points in the next polls because of this.
RE: Angry Man
Between the blatant lies and the anger Bush’s public persona is morphing from “Someone you would like to have a beer with”* to Richard Nixon.
*I am only quoting the spin, I always thought that line was a load of nonsense
Two points.
1. Bush and Cheney are increasingly desperate. So their rhetoric will be increasingly shrill and over-the-top. They have painted themselves in a corner with their scare campaign.
2. In each debate there was an initial effort in the media to prop up Bush and Cheney’s performances. They quickly abandoned the effort in the first debate in the face of Bush’s obvious stumbling. With Cheney/Edwards and last night the effort is more resilient, but has weakened after time as the consensus pointed out reality. They are the incumbents defending a sorry record. They are defensive and angry. They insist they are right and their defense consists of outright lies or distortions or browbeating. All Kerry has to do is sound reasonable and truthful.
Expect them to now go back to the August formula – attack Kerry with lies and slander. But now people have seen and heard Kerry. That swiftboatliar won’t hunt.
It is disappointing that with such a strong performance by Kerry (better than the first debate, although the improvement in Bush was enormous), the polls wouldn’t show Kerry with a stronger win. The press will insist that it was a draw.
Kerry FINALLY introduced the point that the whole ‘wishy-washy’ (but he was talking about flipflops) issue was a mere spin. He needs to explain that more clearly.
The questions were also really favorable to Kerry. I really admired Kerry’s frankness with his “it’s not a matter of if but when” response to the question about another 9-11, but he should also have been more specific about the history (unsure when the 1993 attack and the following attack in E Africa he alluded to was? — chalk that up to tiredness). In my own mind, Kerry’s substantive forthrightness in answering that question contrasts with Bush’s “And he put a trial lawyer on the ticket” line. The irony of the latter is that trial lawyers are often resented as people who profit by demagogically appealing to juries in an emotional manipulative way — just like Bush was doing in his approach.
KERRY HAS GOT TO STOP USING THE WORD “PLAN” SO OFTEN. He needs to sharpen his attacks on Bush’s policies on health care as for the corporate interests.. He could have left Bush looking like an ogre in response to the environment question. He should take the opportunity as he lays into Bush in the last debate on either tax policy for the wealthy and/or pro-corporate health care policy to give a good NICE AND ACCURATELY HARSH picture of Bush the worst kind of stereotypical big business Republican and go into at least three or four specific environmental policies. Kyoto ISN’T winning him any points with the mainstream, although I support it. How he has made backroom deals with corporations that even the Republicans wouldn’t pass thru Congress and then name SEVERAL NEW ones: mercury policy should be specifically described, as well as one or two other horror stories like that.
On jobs, Bush keeps citing the 1.9 million figure. That is his BEST(and only) year of job growth, after massive declines, and it’s worse than the AVERAGE year of 8 years of Clinton. That punches Bush down at his main point on that issue.
It doesn’t even keep up with the growth of the potential job market.
He was a little confusing at the key point on how he had been consistent on the Patriot Act — the issue of being a flipflopper and explaining how he isn’t is probably more important than the issues of the Patriot Act as far as winning the elections. Kerry focuses on the issues — Bush on winning the election. But still, Kerry had a slightly better demeanor than Bush and was MUCH stronger on the substance. He answered the questions and devastated Bush’s arguments. The polls should (have) reflected that — though perhaps the talking heads (with the conservatives insisting it was a big win for Bush and the liberals taking a balanced approach of a narrow win for Kerry) have an impact.
Lookin’ good for K/E, but I’m still waiting for an Oct surprise(s). Read the Atlantic Monthly essay on Karl Rove if you don’t understand my anxieties.
Bush gave tired excuses for poor performances. He did not appear to have a real grasp of either Foreign Policy or Domestic issues.
Paul C. is right. Bush came off like a raving lunatic for the first 45 minutes. However, I thought Bush got the better of JK on the domestic issues, where his folksy, simple-minded stuff came across more succinctly than Kerry’s thoughtful, but long-winded responses.
Most people aren’t smart enough to follow along with complex lines of political reasoning, so I hope Kerry can sort of sharpen his domestic stuff before next Wed.
Thanks for the news on independents.
Bush did much better this time than last, but I still think that the main dynamic of the debates is to demolish the straw man that the Republicans have constructed. Kerry comes across as reasonable and presidential. Which he is. That completely undermines the Republican attacks. In contrast, there’s not a lot that Bush can do to undermine the Democratic attacks.
I am sure that Kerry beat Bush by 10 to 1 among people who only watched the first half hour of the debate. What did his people tell him –“George, if you say it loud enough, people will believe you.” My favorite line was Jeff Greenfield “Mr. Bush, two words — ‘anger management.’
way to go, kerry.
why won’t the main stream media report these internals?