Connect with us

Politics

2024 Election Voter Turnout Map: See Where Trump Gained and Harris Lost

Published

on

2024 Election Voter Turnout Map: See Where Trump Gained and Harris Lost

Change in votes compared with 2020

It may seem like a clear story: Donald Trump won the election by winning the most votes. He improved on his totals, adding about 2.5 million more votes than four years ago. But just as consequential to the outcome were Kamala Harris’s losses: She earned about 7 million fewer votes compared with Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s performance in 2020.

Ms. Harris failed to find new voters in three of the seven swing states and in 80 percent of counties across the country, a New York Times analysis shows. In the places where she matched or exceeded Mr. Biden’s vote totals, she failed to match Mr. Trump’s gains.

Where each candidate got more votes
or
fewer votes in 2024, compared with 2020

Trump

Harris

We can’t yet know how many Biden voters backed Mr. Trump or did not vote at all this cycle. But the decline in support for Ms. Harris in some of the country’s most liberal areas is particularly notable. Compared with Mr. Biden, she lost hundreds of thousands of votes in major cities including Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, and overall earned about 10 percent fewer votes in counties Mr. Biden won four years ago.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, found new voters in most counties, with significant gains in red states like Texas and Florida and also in blue states like New Jersey and New York.

Change in votes by county partisanship, compared with 2020

Advertisement
Heavily Democratic

–12%

+3%

Moderately Democratic

–10%

+3%

Lean Democratic

–6%

Advertisement

+3%

Lean Republican

–6%

+4%

Moderately Republican

–5%

+3%

Advertisement
Heavily Republican

–2%

+4%

Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, acknowledged that Biden voters who swung toward Mr. Trump played a part in Ms. Harris’s loss, but pointed to low Democratic turnout as the larger factor.

“They just weren’t excited,” Mr. Sabato said of Democratic voters. “They were probably disillusioned by inflation, maybe the border. And they didn’t have the motivation to get up and go out to vote.”

The national rightward shift is a continuation of voting patterns seen in the last two elections. Even in his 2020 defeat, Mr. Trump found new voters across the country. (Both parties earned more votes in 2020 than in 2016.) And although Democrats outperformed expectations in 2022, when some had predicted a “red wave,” they lost many voters who were dissatisfied with rising prices, pandemic-era restrictions and immigration policy.

Advertisement

At the local level, three distinct patterns help illustrate the overall outcome in 2024:

1. Where both candidates gained votes, but Trump gained more.

In hard-fought Georgia, both parties found new voters, but Mr. Trump outperformed Ms. Harris. For example, in Fulton County, which contains most of Atlanta, Ms. Harris gained about 4,500 votes, but Mr. Trump gained more than 7,400.

By Eli Murray, Elena Shao, Charlie Smart and Christine Zhang

Advertisement

In addition to his gains in the Atlanta area, Mr. Trump won new voters in every other part of Georgia. He flipped the state back to Republicans after Mr. Biden’s win there in 2020. He similarly outran Ms. Harris where she made gains in Wake County, N.C., Lancaster County, Pa., and Montgomery County, Texas.

2. Where Trump gained a little and Harris lost a little.

In Milwaukee County in swing-state Wisconsin, Ms. Harris lost 1,200 voters compared with Mr. Biden’s total in 2020, while Mr. Trump gained more than 3,500.

By Eli Murray, Elena Shao, Charlie Smart and Christine Zhang

Advertisement

Ms. Harris still won the county at large, but her margins there and in other liberal enclaves of Wisconsin were not enough to hold off Mr. Trump’s victories in rural, blue-collar counties that voted Republican in 2016 and 2020.

Democrats’ inability to maintain their vote totals in battleground states was also apparent in the crucial areas around Charlotte, N.C., Flint, Mich., and Scranton, Pa.

3. Where Trump gained a little and Harris lost a lot.

Mr. Trump won Florida’s Miami-Dade County, becoming the first Republican to do so since 1988. But again, Ms. Harris’s loss was just as much of the story as his gain: Mr. Trump won about 70,000 new votes in the county, while she lost nearly 140,000.

By Eli Murray, Elena Shao, Charlie Smart and Christine Zhang

Advertisement

Other counties that Mr. Trump flipped had similar vote disparities. In 21 of these 77 counties, Mr. Trump received fewer votes in this election than in 2020, but the Democratic vote drop-off was much steeper. This happened from coast to coast, from Fresno County, Calif., to Pinellas County, Fla.

Joel Benenson, the chief pollster for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, said he thought Democratic turnout was hurt by the party’s lack of a presidential primary. (Mr. Biden dropped out of the race in July.) That process, he said, helps energize core voters who get involved with volunteering, making phone calls and knocking on doors early in the year.

“That was a real challenge for Vice President Harris, who had a short runway and would have benefited from a real primary season,” Mr. Benenson said. “Republicans had a contested primary — even with a former president, they didn’t just hand it to him.”

Mr. Trump was clearly able to harness enthusiasm beyond his base. He made gains across almost all groups ranging in demographics, education and income, including those that traditionally made up the Democratic coalition. Ms. Harris failed to match Mr. Biden among the same groups.

Advertisement

Change in votes by county type, compared with 2020

Majority Black

–12%

–4%

Majority Hispanic

–18%

+7%

Advertisement
Urban

–12%

+3%

High income

–9%

+3%

Highly educated

–9%

Advertisement

+3%

Retirement destinations

–2%

+8%

Pre-election polls showed minority voters swinging toward Mr. Trump, and he appeared to make gains with those groups. He picked up votes in majority-Hispanic counties and in Black neighborhoods of major cities, a preliminary analysis of precinct data shows. But he lost votes, as did Ms. Harris, in majority-Black counties, especially those in the South where turnout dropped overall.

Mr. Trump found new voters in more than 30 states, including in the battleground states that were the sites of robust campaigning. His gains were modest in most other places. Ms. Harris was able to improve on Mr. Biden’s performance in only four of the seven battlegrounds and just five states overall.

Advertisement

Change in votes by state,
compared with 2020

Tap columns to sort. Swing states are in bold.

Arizona

-5%

+6%

Georgia

+3%

Advertisement

+8%

Michigan

-3%

+6%

Nevada

+0.2%

+12%

Advertisement
North Carolina

+1%

+5%

Pennsylvania

-1%

+5%

Wisconsin

+2%

Advertisement

+5%

Alabama

-9%

+1%

Alaska

-11%

-5%

Advertisement
Arkansas

-7%

-0.3%

California

-18%

-1%

Colorado

-4%

Advertisement

+1%

Connecticut

-8%

+3%

Delaware

-2%

+7%

Advertisement
Florida

-12%

+8%

Hawaii

-15%

-2%

Idaho

-4%

Advertisement

+9%

Illinois

-12%

-0.2%

Indiana

-7%

-0.9%

Advertisement
Iowa

-7%

+3%

Kansas

-7%

-4%

Kentucky

-9%

Advertisement

+1%

Louisiana

-10%

-4%

Maine

+0.1%

+4%

Advertisement
Maryland

-7%

+4%

Massachusetts

-13%

+6%

Minnesota

-4%

Advertisement

+2%

Mississippi

-20%

-6%

Missouri

-5%

+2%

Advertisement
Montana

-5%

+2%

Nebraska

-1%

+1%

New Hampshire

-2%

Advertisement

+8%

New Jersey

-15%

+4%

New Mexico

-5%

+5%

Advertisement
New York

-16%

+7%

North Dakota

-2%

+5%

Ohio

-8%

Advertisement

-1%

Oklahoma

-0.9%

+2%

Oregon

-10%

-5%

Advertisement
Rhode Island

-8%

+7%

South Carolina

-6%

+7%

South Dakota

-2%

Advertisement

+4%

Tennessee

-8%

+6%

Texas

-9%

+8%

Advertisement
Utah

+0.4%

+2%

Vermont

-3%

+6%

Virginia

-7%

Advertisement

+2%

Washington

-6%

-4%

West Virginia

-9%

-2%

Advertisement
Wyoming

-5%

-0.5%

District of Columbia

-9%

+12%

Advertisement

John McLaughlin, Mr. Trump’s campaign pollster, said the campaign was focused on finding supporters who were not reliable voters and making sure they turned out to the polls. He said that internal polling showed that voters who cast a ballot in 2024 after not voting in 2022 or 2020 supported Mr. Trump, 52 percent to 46 percent.

“The strategy was very much like 2016, to bring out casual voters who thought the country was on the wrong track,” Mr. McLaughlin said. “These voters blamed Biden and Harris and generally had positive approval for Trump.”

Notes

County election results are from the Associated Press. The county analysis is based on data for counties where counting was at least 94 percent complete as of Nov. 19. Results for Alaska are statewide.

The 2024 precinct results are from the Georgia Secretary of State, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections and the Milwaukee County Clerk. The 2024 precinct boundary files are from state and local officials. The 2020 precinct results for Atlanta and Miami-Dade are from the Voting and Election Science Team. For Milwaukee’s 2020 precincts, The Times used a data set by John D. Johnson of Marquette Law School based on the county clerk and the Wisconsin Legislative Technology Services Bureau.

Advertisement

In Atlanta and Miami, The Times used data from the 2020 decennial census to create a population-weighted estimate of the 2020 vote within 2024 precinct boundaries. These estimates were used to calculate the change in the number of votes for each candidate in 2024, compared with 2020.

Politics

Video: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

Published

on

Video: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

new video loaded: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

transcript

transcript

Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that would limit individual states in regulating the artificial intelligence industry.

“It’s a big part of the economy. There’s only going to be one winner here, and that’s probably going to be the U.S. or China. You have to have a central source of approval. When they need approvals on things, they have to come to one source. They can’t go to California, New York.” “We’re not going to push back on all of them. For example, kids’ safety — we’re going to protect. We’re not pushing back on that. But we’re going to push back on the most onerous examples of state regulations.”

Advertisement
Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that would limit individual states in regulating the artificial intelligence industry.

By Shawn Paik

December 11, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seen for first time since release, pledges to ‘continue to fight’ Trump admin

Published

on

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seen for first time since release, pledges to ‘continue to fight’ Trump admin

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Salvadorean migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia vowed Friday to “continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” in his first appearance since being released from federal immigration custody.

Garcia spoke as he appeared for a check-in at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Baltimore, Maryland, as part of the terms of his release.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, right, listens with is brother Cesar Abrego Garcia during a rally ahead of a mandatory check at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore, on Friday, Dec. 12, 2025, after he was released from detention on Thursday under a judge’s order. (Stephanie Scarbrough/AP)

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia released from the ICE Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pa., on Thursday on the grounds that the Trump administration had not obtained the final notice of removal order that is needed to deport him to a third country, including a list of African nations they had previously identified for his removal.

Advertisement

“Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority,” Xinis said in her order on Thursday.

The Justice Department is expected to challenge the order.

“This is naked judicial activism by an Obama appointed judge,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a social media post. “This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration would “absolutely” be appealing Xinis’ order, which she described as another instance of “activism” from a federal judge.

Abrego Garcia had been living in Maryland with his wife and children when he was initially arrested.

Advertisement

Abrego Garcia’s case epitomized the political firestorm that has ensued since March, when he was deported to El Salvador and housed in the country’s CECOT mega-prison, in violation of a 2019 court order and in what Trump officials acknowledge was an “administrative error.” Xinis ordered then that Abrego Garcia be “immediately” returned to the U.S.

Upon his return to the United Sates, Abrego Garcia was immediately taken into federal custody and detained on human smuggling charges that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop.

The Trump administration has claimed he is a member of MS-13, which Abrego Garcia denies.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration previously tried and failed to deport him to the African nations of Liberia, Eswatini, Uganda and Ghana.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Homeland Security says it doesn’t detain citizens. These brave Californians prove it has

Published

on

Commentary: Homeland Security says it doesn’t detain citizens. These brave Californians prove it has

Call it an accident, call it the plan. But don’t stoop to the reprehensible gaslighting of calling it a lie: It is fact that federal agents have detained and arrested dozens, if not hundreds, of United States citizens as part of immigration sweeps, regardless of what Kristi Noem would like us to believe.

During a congressional hearing Thursday, Noem, our secretary of Homeland Security and self-appointed Cruelty Barbie, reiterated her oft-used and patently false line that only the worst of the worst are being targeted by immigration authorities. That comes after weeks of her department posting online, on its ever-more far-right social media accounts, that claims of American citizens being rounded up and held incommunicado are “fake news” or a “hoax.”

“Stop fear-mongering. ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens,” Homeland Security recently posted on the former Twitter.

Tuesday, at a different congressional hearing, a handful of citizens — including two Californians — told their stories of being grabbed by faceless masked men and being whisked away to holding cells where they were denied access to phones, lawyers, medications and a variety of other legal rights.

Advertisement

Their testimony accompanied the release of a congressional report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in which 22 American citizens, including a dozen from the Golden State, told their own shocking, terrifying tales of manhandling and detentions by what can only be described as secret police — armed agents who wouldn’t identify themselves and often seemed to lack basic training required for safe urban policing.

These stories and the courageous Americans who are stepping forward to tell them are history in the making — a history I hope we regret but not forget.

Immigration enforcement, boosted by unprecedented amounts of funding, is about to ramp up even more. Noem and her agents are reveling in impunity, attempting to erase and rewrite reality as they go — while our Supreme Court crushes precedent and common sense to further empower this presidency. Until the midterms, there is little hope of any check on power.

Under those circumstances, for these folks to put their stories on the record is both an act of bravery and patriotism, because they now know better than most what it means to have the chaotic brutality of this administration focused on them. It’s incumbent upon the rest of us to hear them, and protest peacefully not only rights being trampled, but our government demanding we believe lies.

“I’ve always said that immigrants who are given the great privilege of becoming citizens are also some of the most patriotic people in this country. I know you all love your country. I love our country, and this is not the America that we believe in or that we fought so hard for. Every person, every U.S. citizen, has rights,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said as the hearing began.

Advertisement

L.A. native Andrea Velez, whose detention was reported on by my colleagues when it happened, was one of those putting herself on the line to testify.

Less than 5 feet tall, Velez is a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona who was working in the garment district in June when ICE began its raids. Her mom and teenage sister had just dropped her off when masked men swarmed out of unmarked cars and began chasing brown people. Velez didn’t know what was happening, but when one man charged her, she held up her work bag in defense. The bag did not protect her. Neither did her telling the agents she is a U.S. citizen.

“He handcuffed me without checking my ID. They ignored me as I repeated it again and again that I am a U.S. citizen,” she told committee members. “They did not care.”

Velez, still unsure who the man was who forced her into an SUV, managed to open the door and run to an LAPD officer, begging for help. But when the masked man noticed she was loose, he “ran up screaming, ‘She’s mine’” the congressional report says.

The police officer sent her back to the unmarked car, beginning a 48-hour ordeal that ended with her being charged with assault of a federal officer — charges eventually dropped after her lawyer demanded body camera footage and alleged witness statements. (The minority staff report was released by Rep. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)

Advertisement

“I never imagined this would be occurring, here, in America,” Velez told lawmakers. “DHS likes … to brand us as criminals, stripping us of our dignity. They want to paint us as the worst of the worst, but the truth is, we are human beings with no criminal record.”

This if-you’re-brown-you’re-going-down tactic is likely to become more common because it is now legal.

In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a September court decision, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it was reasonable for officers to stop people who looked foreign and were engaged in activities associated with undocumented people — such as soliciting work at a Home Depot or attending a Spanish-language event, as long as authorities “promptly” let the person go if they prove citizenship. These are now known as “Kavanaugh stops.”

Disregarding how racist and problematic that policy is, “promptly” seems to be up for debate.

Javier Ramirez, born in San Bernardino, testified as “a proud American citizen who has never known the weight of a criminal record.”

Advertisement

He’s a father of three who was working at his car lot in June when he noticed a strange SUV idling on his private property with a bunch of men inside. When he approached, they jumped out, armed with assault weapons, and grabbed him.

“This was a terrifying situation,” Ramirez said. But then it got worse.

One of the men yelled, “Get him. He’s Mexican!”

On video shot by a bystander, Javier can be heard shouting, “I have my passport!” according to the congressional report, but the agents didn’t care. When Ramirez asked why they were holding him, an agent told him, “We’re trying to figure that out.”

Like Velez, Ramirez was put in detention. A severe diabetic, he was denied medication until he became seriously ill, he told investigators. Though he asked for a lawyer, he was not allowed to contact one — but the interrogation continued.

Advertisement

After his release, five days later, he had to seek further medical treatment. He, too, was charged with assault of a federal agent, along with obstruction and resisting arrest. The bogus charges were also later dropped.

“I should not have to live in fear of being targeted simply for the color of my skin or the other language I speak,” he told the committee. “I share my story not just for myself, but for everyone who has been unjustly treated, for those whose voice has been silenced.”

You know the poem, folks. It starts when “they came” for the vulnerable. Thankfully, though people such as Ramirez and Velez may be vulnerable due to their pigmentation, they are not meek and they won’t be silenced. Our democracy, our safety as a nation of laws, depends on not just hearing their stories, but also standing peacefully against such abuses of power.

Because these abuses only end when the people decide they’ve had enough — not just of the lawlessness, but of the lies that empower it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending