Now that we have final numbers. It appears that Harris had all the white & black support she needed for an EC victory. But Trump outright flipping Latino men and making huge gains with Latino women seems to have made all the difference.
What do you think?
First image is 2024, second is 2020.
I think white men and white women bear more of the blame here purely by population size.
Agreed. Despite all the nuances (which are important, too)… Judging by this table, the biggest total blame is on white men, followed by white women and latino men, though there aren’t that many of them. But I feel i need to say this doesn’t have anything to do with ethnicity. You could also make a chart of city vs rural areas or several other factors and you’d probably also find interesting correlations and shifts in opinion.
Latines now make up 20% of the U.S. population, making them the largest minority group. Among the under-18 demographic, that number climbs to nearly 30%. If current population trends hold, Latines are poised to become the largest ethnic group in the country within about 25 years—that’s just three presidential terms away.
While Latines are a minority ethnicity, they are the largest one and the second-fastest growing, trailing only Asians. Asians, despite having one of the lowest birth rates, experience the highest proportional rate of immigration. Notably, Trump gained 12% of the Asian vote in the most recent election, a trend across these growing demographics that, if sustained, could spell significant gains for Republicans in the future.
However, let’s not overlook the broader electoral picture. Black, Asian, and Latine men and women combined make up about 29% of the voting public in presidential elections, while white women alone account for a staggering 37-38%. For context, Latino men represent just 5-6% of voters. White women are, by far, the largest voting demographic.
Interestingly, Trump increased his share of all women by 7% compared to when he ran against Biden and has increased his support from women each time he’s ran. The devastating thing, I think, is that Trump won 13% more of the 18-29-year-olds, 5% more of 30-44-year-olds, and continues to capture “Boomer Lite,” aka Gen X, a majority of whom he has won each time he’s ran, but he increased his share by 9% this time.
Edit: corrected an earlier data error.
Dude where are you getting your data? Trump won white women by 52% in 2016.
If he had lost white women like you posted, he would’ve lost the election.
Hmm. An article quoting Pew: “a majority of white women (53 percent) did vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential election, up from 44 percent in 2020 and 39 percent in 2016 per Pew.”
but I think you’re right, those numbers sound like all women. I’ll edit the post.
With how thin our election margins are, I wonder if literally just misogynists can swing the election. Would 1 in 100 Americans refuse to vote for a woman for president? I think maybe yes.
It’s hard to separate out the factors. Would a man have also struggled with a campaign starting so late (and doing so poorly in a previous primary). Would a white women? How can we separate out the influence of race, sex and the less than ideal running circumstances.
Given who she is, and running when she had to, she actually did pretty damn well.
Tbh looking for blame beyond Biden seems pointless to me. She has every sign of having been able to win over more people had she been prepped as the nominee from the start…
As another White Dude for Harris, I concur entirely. It’s definitely an issue with white dudes.
Who’s talking blame?
Don’t forget all the people who voted for Biden in 2020 and didn’t fucking vote in 2024
15 million of them. That is a staggering number.
15 million of them. That is a staggering number.
It’s also not an accurate number. The official count for Biden in 2020 was about 81.3 million (found many places online, but the official one is a good choice) and the unofficial count for Harris by AP so far is about 74.3 million. That’s about 7 million, which is less than half of what you claimed.
People have got to stop just posting straight up false information. If you don’t know, don’t post.
It would be more appropriate to say outdated. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/13/20-million-votes-election-harris-trump-fact-check/76136743007/ As of November 6th 16 million less votes than the year before had been counted.
No, if you said it a week ago it would be outdated. The fact that you’re still saying it is what makes it false. As you point it out new information is available. You’re just using old information still.
By comparison if I wrote a book in the 1600s about the medical necessity of leaching, that would be outdated today. If I wrote a book about the medical necessity of leaching in 2024 that would just be false.
But they still use leeches! Because your hypothetical example is imperfect I’m afraid I’ll have to dismiss everything you said and go with the old, inaccurate numbers. What a shame.
I didn’t write a book or claim to be an authority on the subject. I stated what I remember on a subject I had read an article about 2 weeks ago.
We both know the reasonable way to interpret your post, and the way nearly everybody would interpret it, is that that’s the current or final count. It’s also outdated to say 74 million fewer people voted for Harris, but at one point, that was in fact the count. But it’s more than outdated - it’s misleading to the point of being factually inaccurate to any observer.
I can’t believe instead of being like “oh shit, I made a mistake, my bad, I better think for a second about this in the future” you’re going to try to justify it. Whatever, that’s social media at this point I guess. Surely I’m not the problem, says everybody feeding misinformation in a giant circle. I thought Lemmy might be better, but it’s just not. Thank you for convincing me to finally give all social media up.
Man you’re arguing about something so insignificant.
I didn’t know it was outdated at the time. I don’t constantly check and double things I read in passing to see if it has been updated. I am not a professional in the field.
“Are we out of touch with our core voters?”
“No, it’s the voters who are wrong”.
This will probably be how the Democrats regroup after the loss.
Need some titles on those columns. I’m guessing red/blue are the usual party colors, but what is the 3rd?
The biggest factor really is disengagement. There where millions who where involved in 2020 that just skipped out this time.
3rd is the percentage of the vote amongst all demographics.
Why are columns 1 & 2 shifter between the two images? Makes comparison harder.
The winner is always on the left. But yeah I get it.
The 3rd column might be the relative share of citizens or registered voters.
White people are so obsessed with blaming an optgroup like what about all the white guys that voted for him
What about all the white women who voted for Trump? Benefitting from structural racism is a helluva drug
… but he’ll make my racist life better, he told me! /s
The fact that any group aside from white men voted for trumpism is the issue. The disconnect was the complicit main stream media sane washing the craziness. They put racism/homophobia/fascism on the same level as Harris’ policies.
Idk, white folks voting for Trump is an issue if you ask me, a white guy. Too many white folks sane washing his shit. Morning Joe went from “he’s a fascist” to “let’s put out differences aside”. Other whities need to realize this is a grift that will likely kill your own.
I object!
White men voting for trumpism is also the issue.
For sure, though I get the op point that at least Trump pretends to promise them something unlike every other group
As a data analyst, the way the two graphs are setup terribly. There’s really not enough information to come up with any conclusions from the charts.
Also, first, there’s not enough information from the graphs to determine the situation since it’s only by percentages and not population. Second, our system is based on the winners of each state and used by the electoral votes. So overall popular vote isn’t going to determine who got elected, even if the chart showed all blue for all demographics.
Please be careful whenever you ask these questions. It’s so easy to blame one single minority group for a widespread failure. Of course analysis of individual voting groups is legitimate, as long as you properly frame what you’re doing.
This is a serious issue both because of the connection with racism (i.e., it’s the Latinos’ fault) and abdication of responsibility (i.e., we bear no responsibility).
White people voting for the right is the problem. Like how can we go on here and blame Latinos for shifting when such a high percentage of white people voted for him? Especially when you factor in the population size and not just % left or right.
I am ashamed of my peers.
Less white people voted for trump in 24 though. The Latino bit is concerning because Democrats believed they had a demographic inevitability, and that appears to not be the case.
It shouldn’t be concerning, it should be enlightening.
But it won’t be. Not for the party leadership.
Over the past 40 years they’ve gone from being the champion of blue collar and union workers nationwide, and being able to take those votes for granted…to having the rust belt become the biggest swing region in the country (which their opponent swept this month). Did they take this as a wake up call and do more for the blue collar voters to win their loyalty back?
Nah, they just blame them and talk down to them, and tell them they’re too stupid to know what’s best for them.
In that same time frame, they were seen as abandoning the blue collar worker to court the minority vote, talking their efforts at helping factory workers and turning them toward helping minorities in race and gender. While they were actually doing this they did indeed appear to gain that loyalty at the ballot box. Of course once they had it, they felt no need to keep up the good work for these people and have slowly become a party who does nothing for anyone, and runs on a platform of essentially admitting they do nothing, but that their inaction is better than the other side, so they should still be owed votes.
Once again, this isn’t working out for them, and once again, rather than take it as a rejection of what they’re doing, no…it’s the voters who are wrong.
I despise the GOP as much as any reasonable person, and I firmly believe that many of their voters won’t like what they voted for once they start to get it…but there’s no denying that the GOP has a message, goals, and demonstrable progress toward them. And to counter that…the Democrats have…“I think things are good and I wouldn’t change anything. You should vote for me because I’m not MAGA aligned, and if you don’t, it’s your fault not mine.”
Arrogance is off-putting, and it appears it’s going to take at least a half century for the Democrats to figure that out.
Yeah, only around 2-3% of the white voters switching Dem would make up for the extra Latinos voting for Trump. On the other hand, blaming the voter instead of candidate is missing the point.
White Dude for Harris here. I am sad face
Your narrative is that Latinos “shifted right” but I think this is a false framing- it was the Biden/Harris administration that shifted hard right on its proposed immigration policies and it left many Latino voters feeling politically abandoned.
Look at the Democrats’ 2024 immigration bill- it is deportations, immigration quotas, and building the wall - while including nothing “left of center” such as amnesty. It is literally a Trump 2016 wishlist.
So the solution to not liking the democrat shift right is to join in with the side off the scale right? I’m not following the logic there…
Populist messaging is popular because it acknowledges that people are suffering and offers easy “solutions” to it.
Most folks don’t actually want to hear the details, they’re both busy and don’t fucking understand it without the benefits of a educational system that has been systemically destroyed for decades.
Trump said he’ll fix the economy and blamed Biden, Harris wanted to pretend that the lines went up so things were good because she was effectively burdened as an incumbent candidate.
Harris decentivized her base of support by chasing Lucy’s football of Republicans that aren’t fucking fascists, going after the Cheney votes of all fucking things, Trump siphoned votes from people that don’t quite know how to fix the problem but know there is a problem.
You can point to Harris’s specific policies all you want, the people you need to get to the polls and vote for you don’t know about them because they’re boring.
A lot of Latinos are fairly conservative people, a lot of them are strongly Catholic with all of the baggage that comes with it, etc.
Basically the only major policy reason they ever leaned towards the democrats is immigration, so with the Dems going further right on immigration it makes a lot of sense for some of them to be jumping ship
Why go with republican-light if the real thing exists? Catering to the center and right wing as Democrats is off-putting to basically everyone except libs
I’m not proposing a “solution” here, but the logic is obvious: as the Democratic Party moves to the right, their traditional base becomes more alienated and less incentivized to vote.
I didn’t mean that you where, but if the Latino population shifted their votes more R this year it seems an odd explanation that they where offended by the democrats shifting right on policies. If that was the case then why would they go in with people who are even more to the right?
I think this whole question needs another field to it for the turnout difference. It may be (not to keep picking on Latinos but) they made up 5% in 2020 and 6% in 2024, but is that of all eligible voters, or of those that actually showed up? If 1/2 showed up last time and 1/3 did this time, but the ones who showed up where the more conservative portion then it would look like they ‘shifted’ right, but it wouldn’t be real.
deleted by creator
wow, you answer one question about abortion by saying immigrants are rapists and suddenly people feel abandoned. tsk tsk.
? Porque no los dos?
This literally makes no sense. That immigration bill was bipartisan. And if Latinos felt Dems shifted to far right (which is laughable if you actually look at the policies), why would they vote even further right? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
I think you’re trying to force a narrative on to this that doesn’t exist. You’re assuming that many of these Latino voters are against harder immigration policy. Polls are telling us the opposite. Poles are telling us that a lot of these Latinos that voted for Trump want this. They didn’t think Biden was too strong on immigration they thought he was too weak.
Kamala lost because the Dems didn’t show up. Again. Look at the number of votes for 2020 vs 2024. All those “undecided” and “obstainers” that didn’t just stay home. They didn’t bother doing a mail in.
Second highest voter turnout in the US. A difference of only 2,624,285 as per University of Florida estimates so far (the number is likely to go down).
This excuse is getting old.
One, you are assuming people who did not vote would vote dems.
Two, you are pushing blame to the voters who did not show up (and based on the lack of choice it is wild so many showed up)
Three, by pushing that blame on to voters you are almost asking for this to happen again. (By letting the dems keep being crap, pissing off voters, and getting people angry at their neighbours helps the republicans)
First, an explanation isn’t an excuse. It’s a reason. It doesn’t make it okay, it doesn’t place or shift blame, it just correctly points something out.
In this case, Trump broadly received the same number of votes as he did 4 years ago, while the Democrats got millions fewer.
There’s no assumption there, it’s just an observation.
It’s not pushing or assigning blame. Maybe they didn’t vote because they were lazy. Maybe they didn’t vote because they didn’t like Harris. Maybe they didn’t vote because they didn’t like the process by which she became the nominee. Maybe they didn’t vote because they’ve lost faith in the entire system.
Regardless of reason, and regardless of how any observer decides to interpret it or assign blame, the facts speak for themselves.
Your explanation ignores the root cause of the issue. People stayed home because the Democrats and Kamala failed to motivate them to go.
Yes, we are comparing the numbers to the highest voter turn out (which was last election). Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.
Voters have to take some responsibility here. Trump’s base are all being con’d because they are ignorant on how most of the world works beyond their own backyard. Its possible that this is partly true for the 6-7 million people who didn’t vote this election cycle.
The issue isn’t so much that they didn’t vote for Kamala, but rather they did not have the ability to recognize Trump as the con that he is. Me being of average intelligence feels like this should have been easy to decipher.
Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.
Trump got more votes then Kamala, that is how elections work. There was not 6-7 million people not voting (2.6 million delta from 2020), but more people showed up for the orange man and this blaming non-voters is just lame.
Democrats failed to solve people’s issues. That’s just it.
But Americans are in for a hard awakening if they think that in general Latin American population is progressive or left leaning. And that democrats have their guaranteed vote.
Each person is different, of course. And the average doesn’t change any person individual values.
But on average Latin American countries tend to have overwhelming conservative cultures when compared with USA/Europe.
This doesn’t negate any Latin American person who is progressive, of course. Just talking about averages and the reality that was shown by the polls.
In general Democrats, and any left leaning party, think that because they defend immigrants, immigrants will support them by default. This has been shown far from the truth. If someone have conservative values they will probably vote for a conservative party. That’s just it. One person won’t become progressive (as in stopping being sexist or transphobic) just because they moved from one country to another. An immigrant is a whole person with their own sets of values, both before and after they migrate, and won’t be reduced to “being an immigrant” when voting, specially once they are legally settled in a place and their residence won’t be at risk, they will just vote for their values. If they have conservative values they’ll vote conservative if they have progressive values they’ll vote progressive.
Many legal immigrants get pissed if you conflate them with illegal immigrants. They try very hard distance themselves from those people. Couple that with pervasive machismo and Catholic ignorance and this is what you get.
Actually beautiful comment. Thank you.
To actually answer the post title you’d have to go state by state in the swing states to see if she could flip enough of them to make a difference. I suspect the bigger problem is still lack of turnout rather than any specific demographic.
