politics
/
December 20, 2024
The Electoral College vote count on Tuesday confirmed that Trump was far from receiving a “massive mandate.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump comes out to address the crowd after being declared the winner during an election night party at the Palm Beach County Convention Center on November 6, 2024 in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
No institution in American politics deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history more than the Electoral College. The organization’s founders feared the will of the people, who rejected not just suffrage but the most basic measure of equal citizenship for women, people of color, the poor and, in many cases, religious dissidents – a political issue every four years. The gathering of insiders was understood as a check on the popular vote and a promise of true democracy. It has functioned this way for most of the past 235 years. But in rare cases, the Electoral College does serve a useful function in clarifying the meaning of election results.
In the rush from Election Day to Inauguration Day, gatherings of electors across the country in mid-December offer a brief respite to reflect on the actual mood of the American people. The insights gained come not just from the counting of electoral votes, but from the study of how the transfer of a handful of votes in a handful of states can produce completely different results: in this particular case, Kamala Harris is an easy favorite.
Knowing that the presidential election was close does not change the final outcome. But it could change our understanding of that outcome, just as it could provide significant insights into the credibility of “empowerment” claims — especially overreaching claims like the ones Trump and his supporters continue to tout.
Such is the case in the 2024 election, which officially comes to a close on Tuesday as voters cast their ceremonial ballots in statehouses across the country. The Electoral College rally itself brought no surprises. Republican electors (including at least 13 people involved in the party’s 2020 fake elector conspiracy) voted for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Democratic electors voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Trump received more votes – Harris was elected 312 to 226 – and will be inaugurated as president on January 20, 2025.
However, Trump failed to deliver what he claimed on the morning after the election on November 5: “an unprecedentedly powerful mandate” – either in the popular vote or the Electoral College vote. And, the final tallies from key states give us a clear picture of how close he came to losing his Electoral College majority.
Trump’s claims of “authorization” have always been exaggerated. Serious observers of the political process know that the slow counting of popular votes, which always takes weeks to complete, would suggest the outcome is much closer than early election results suggest. Some even doubt that Trump’s approval rating will fall below the 50% threshold that allows the winner to gain the majority support of the American people.
As it turns out, this is indeed the case. As state votes are counted ahead of Tuesday’s Electoral College gathering, it’s clear that the majority of Americans voting in the 2024 election chose someone other than Trump. The Republican candidate fell more than 300,000 votes below the popular vote threshold, accounting for just 49.8% of the total. That’s a much lower share of the popular vote than President Joe Biden received in 2020, a much lower share of the popular vote than Barack Obama received in 2012 and 2008, and a much lower share of the popular vote than George W. Bush received in 2004 is much lower than the majority of U.S. presidents receive when they win the White House. In fact, when we compare the popular vote numbers of the two major party candidates, the 2024 election is one of the closest presidential races in U.S. history.
The same goes for the Electoral College vote. In 43 of the 60 presidential elections since the founding of the country, Trump’s victory was more decisive than Trump’s. The Republican vote share in the 2024 Electoral College vote is lower than Obama’s two campaigns, lower than Bill Clinton in 1996 or 1992, lower than George Bush, Ronald Reagan or President most other postwar presidents.
But the disparity in the 2024 election results, and the true extent of Trump’s near defeat, can be found in the narrow pattern of results for Trump’s Electoral College lead. It’s no secret that both candidates are focusing their 2024 campaigns on seven battleground states, a situation that will undoubtedly lead to lower turnout in more populous states like California and New York, where Harris is likely to have amassed the confidence to secure her bid. Desired Advantages.
current problem
Trump did win all the battleground states. But in the Great Lakes states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — states that voted for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020 and Trump again in 2024 — there are few candidates for the Republican nominee this year. can succeed. As Cook Political Report’s highly regarded data analyst Dave Wasserman points out, “The 2024 election is decided by 229,766 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There were approximately 155.2 million votes cast nationwide.
Had the Harris campaign mobilized more of their base in these states, rather than wasting precious time on Republican outreach with Liz Cheney, they likely would have made up that gap. Or if they can strategize to switch 114,884 working-class voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania from Trump to Harris, then Democrats will win.
That’s roughly the same number of people Taylor Swift drew at her two shows in Philadelphia this year. In Wisconsin, historically the most competitive battleground state, a shift of less than 15,000 votes would put the state in Harris’ hands.
Why is crunching numbers important? Because politics is about ideas. Many people – including much of the media – believe Trump has won a “huge mandate.”
It’s not uncommon for presidents to brag about having more approval ratings than they actually have, and this is certainly not the first time Trump has done so. Countless presidents have peddled a popular fantasy to gain an advantage in debates over cabinet picks and policy initiatives.
But voters did not give Trump a massive mandate.
Instead, their results were so close that a slight change in votes would have resulted in the Electoral College electing a Democrat to become the 47th President of the United States.
With a hostile incoming administration, a vast infrastructure of courts and judges waiting to turn “free speech” into a nostalgic memory, and traditional newsrooms quickly abdicating their responsibility to provide accurate, fact-based reporting, the work of independent media Already done.
exist nationwe are fighting to preserve truth, transparency, and intellectual freedom, bracing ourselves for an uphill battle that we cannot do alone.
This month, every gift nation As of Dec. 31, the amount received will double to $75,000. If we play a full game, starting in 2025, we’ll have $150,000 in the bank to fund political commentary and analysis, in-depth reporting, trenchant media criticism, and the team that makes it all possible.
When other news organizations suppress their dissent or soften their stance, nation Still committed to speaking truth to power, engaging in patriotic dissent, and empowering our readers to fight for justice and equality. As an independent publication, we are not influenced by interested parties, corporate investors or governments. We are committed to facts and transparency, to our abolitionist roots, to principles of justice and equality, and to you, our readers.
In the coming weeks and months, the work of free and independent journalists will be more important than ever. People need access to accurate reporting, critical analysis, and a deeper understanding of the issues they care about, from climate change and immigration to reproductive justice and political authoritarianism.
by standing together nation Nowyou are investing not only in independent journalism based on truth, but in the possibilities that truth will create.
Possibility of stimulating public interest. A more just society. Meaningful change, and a more radical, liberating tomorrow.
In unity and action,
Editors, nation
