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: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Published

on

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

transcript

transcript

Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”

Advertisement
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

By Meg Felling

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

HHS probes Minnesota’s use of billions in federal social service funds amid fraud concerns: report

Published

on

HHS probes Minnesota’s use of billions in federal social service funds amid fraud concerns: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched a review into how Minnesota used billions of dollars in federal social service funding, requesting detailed records from Gov. Tim Walz’s administration and other state entities after reports raised questions about whether portions of the money were misused, according to letters first obtained by the New York Post.

The letters were sent Monday by Alex Adams, assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, to Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and a nonprofit involved in administering Head Start programs, the Post reported.

According to the Post, Adams said HHS is attempting to determine whether federal safety-net funds were diverted or mismanaged and whether such misuse might have “been used to fuel illegal and mass migration” into Minnesota.

Adams told the outlet the review is focused on “accountability for American taxpayers” and on ensuring federal benefit programs were not compromised.

Advertisement

LABOR SECRETARY ANNOUNCES ‘STRIKE TEAM’ GOING TO MINNESOTA TO INVESTIGATE RAMPANT FRAUD

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said, “Minnesota is a prosperous state, a well-run state.” (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

The Post reported that Minnesota received more than $8.6 billion in ACF funding between fiscal years 2019 and 2025 through more than 1,000 federal grants. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the state received over $690 million for safety-net programs under President Biden, according to federal spending records reviewed by the Post.

In the letters, Adams requested what the Post described as a “comprehensive list” of all state entities that received ACF funding during that period, along with detailed administrative data. The information sought includes recipient names, addresses, dates of birth and, where applicable, Social Security numbers and immigration A-numbers, the Post reported.

Adams told the Post that HHS has “legitimate reason to think that they’ve been using taxpayer dollars incorrectly,” citing recent fraud investigations and allegations involving Minnesota’s Department of Human Services. According to the Post, the letters referenced public statements from hundreds of DHS employees alleging warnings of fraud were disregarded and whistleblowers faced retaliation.

Advertisement

TRUMP CABINET OFFICIAL CALLS ON WALZ TO RESIGN OVER MASSIVE FRAUD SCANDAL IN SCATHING LETTER: ‘SHAME ON YOU’

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference at City Hall following a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School on Aug. 28, 2025 in Minneapolis.  (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The review comes amid heightened scrutiny of Minnesota’s handling of federal funds following multiple high-profile fraud cases. Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of individuals in connection with the Feeding Our Future scheme, in which more than $250 million intended for child nutrition programs was diverted for luxury purchases and real estate. Many of those charged had ties to nonprofits serving Minnesota’s Somali community.

The Post also cited Pew Research Center data showing Minnesota’s unauthorized migrant population increased by roughly 40,000 people between 2019 and 2023, reaching an estimated 130,000 residents, or about 2% of the state’s population.

Men take part in a weekly Friday Jum’ah prayer session at Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center amid a reported ongoing federal immigration operation targeting the Somali community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. Dec. 5, 2025.   (Tim Evans/Reuters)

Advertisement

According to the Post, the ACF review includes several major federal programs, including the Community Services Block Grant, Social Services Block Grant, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Title IV-E Foster Care, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and Parents in Community Action, a Head Start grantee.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Trump Administration has made clear its commitment to rooting out fraud, protecting taxpayer dollars, and ensuring program integrity across all federal benefit programs,” Adams wrote in the letters, according to the Post. “This information is necessary for ACF to conduct a thorough review of program operations and to assess the extent of any irregularities that may have occurred.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Gov. Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey and HHS for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Eaton fire survivors ask Edison for emergency housing relief

Published

on

Eaton fire survivors ask Edison for emergency housing relief

A coalition of Eaton fire survivors and community groups called on Southern California Edison on Tuesday to provide immediate housing assistance to the thousands of people who lost their homes in the Jan. 7 wildfire.

The coalition says an increasing number of Altadena residents are running out of insurance coverage that had been paying for their housing since they were displaced by the fire. Thousands of other residents had no insurance.

“When a company’s fire destroys or contaminates homes, that company has a responsibility to keep families housed until they can get back home,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, one of the coalition members asking Edison for emergency assistance of up to $200,000 for each family.

At the coalition’s press conference, Altadena residents spoke of trying to find a place to live after the Jan. 7 fire that killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, apartments and other structures. Thousands of other homes were damaged by smoke and ash.

Gabriel Gonzalez, center, an Eaton fire survivor, speaks at a news conference in Altadena on Tuesday. He and others urged Southern California Edison to provide urgent housing relief to Eaton fire families.

Advertisement

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Gabriel Gonzalez said he had been living in his car for most of the last year.

Before the fire, Gonzalez had a successful plumbing company with six employees, he said. He had moved into an apartment in Altadena just a month before the fire and lost $80,000 worth of tools when the building was destroyed.

His insurance did not cover the loss, Gonzalez said, and he lost his business.

Advertisement

Edison is now offering to directly pay fire victims for their losses if they give up their right to file a lawsuit against the utility.

But members of the coalition say Edison’s program is forcing victims who are most desperate for financial support to give up their legal right to fair compensation.

A man speaks holding a folder.

Andrew Wessels, Strategy Director for the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, speaks about Edison’s Wildfire Recovery Compensation Plan (WRCP).

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

“If families are pushed to give up what they are owed just to survive, the recovery will never have the funds required to rebuild homes, restore livelihoods or stabilize the community,” said Andrew Wessels. He said he and his family had lived in 12 different places since the fire left ash contaminated with lead on and in their home.

Advertisement

In an interview Tuesday, Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said the company would not provide money to victims without them agreeing to drop any litigation against the company for the fire.

“I can’t even pretend to understand the challenges victims are going through,” Pizarro said.

He said the company created its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program to get money to victims much faster than if they filed a lawsuit and waited for a settlement.

“We want to help the community rebuild as quickly as possible,” he said.

Pizarro said Edison made its first payment to a victim within 45 days of the compensation program launching on Oct. 29. So far, he said, the company has received more than 1,500 claims.

Advertisement

Edison created the compensation program even though the official investigation into the cause of the fire hasn’t been released.

The company has said a leading theory is that its century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it last used in 1971, briefly became energized from the live lines running parallel to it, sparking the fire.

The program offers to reimburse victims for their losses and provides additional sums for pain and suffering. It also gives victims a bonus for agreeing to settle their claim outside of court.

Pizarro said the program is voluntary and if victims don’t like the offer they receive from Edison, they can continue their claims in court.

Edison has told its investors that it believes it will be reimbursed for all of its payments to victims and lawsuit settlements by $1 billion in customer-paid insurance and a $21 billion state wildfire fund.

Advertisement
Zaire Calvin, of Altadena, a survivor who has lost his home and other properties, speaks.

Zaire Calvin, of Altadena, a survivor who has lost his home and other properties, speaks.

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy if their electric wires cause a disastrous wildfire.

State officials say the fund could be wiped out by Eaton fire damages. While the first $21 billion was contributed half by customers of the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities and half by the companies’ shareholders, any additional damage claims from the Jan. 7 fire will be paid by Edison customers, according to legislation passed in September.

Some Altadena residents say Edison’s compensation program doesn’t pay them fully for their losses.

Advertisement

Damon Blount said that he and his wife had just renovated their home before it was destroyed in the fire. They don’t believe Edison’s offer would be enough to cover that work.

Blount said he “felt betrayed” by the utility.

“They literally took everything away from us,” Blount said. “Do the right thing, Edison. We want to be home.”

At the press conference, fire victims pointed out that Edison reported nearly $1.3 billion in profits last year, up from $1.2 billion in 2023.

Last week, Edison International said it was increasing the dividend it pays to its shareholders by 6% because of its strong financial performance.

Advertisement

“Their stock is rising,” said Zaire Calvin, one of the Altadena residents calling on Edison for emergency relief. Calvin lost his home and his sister died in the fire. “They will not pay a penny when this is over.”

Continue Reading

Trending