A Few Takeaways From the 2024 Election

It’s been a rough few weeks, and like many of you, I’ve been taking time to digest the election results.

In some ways, the outcome was unsurprising. President Biden’s approval rating has been under 40% for the past year, and two-thirds of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Dissatisfaction with the economy is pervasive, with voters overwhelmingly citing this as their top issue. Historically, it’s been hard for the incumbent party to hold the White House under such conditions. 

Still, as the election approached, I felt that Harris had a good shot at winning. Trump is a uniquely toxic figure, and a majority of Americans have viewed him and MAGA Republicans unfavorably over the past eight years, delivering the GOP a string of defeats since 2018. The strong Democratic ground game, superior financial resources, and the catalyzing effect of the abortion issue were other reasons I was cautiously optimistic. 

To win the election, Harris needed to achieve three main goals, as I saw it: 1) outperform among college-educated white women; 2) replicate Biden’s 2020 margins among non-college white voters; and 3) limit defections from non-white and young voters while boosting their turnout. 

Harris achieved none of these goals. Exit polls show no surge in Democratic support among college white women, while Harris fell short of Biden’s 2020 margins among non-college whites. Voters of color—especially Latinos—supported Trump by near-record margins, and young people backed Harris at far lower levels than their support for Biden four years earlier. Finally, voter turnout lagged in key Democratic cities across the Blue Wall states. 

Nevertheless, this was a very close presidential election. Harris lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by about 232,000 votes—or 0.15% of the 150 million votes cast nationally. If this sliver of voters in three battleground states had made different choices, or turnout among key Democratic groups had been higher, Harris would have won. 

Many races for the U.S. House—a top priority for Blue Tent this year—were also decided by slim margins. While Republicans will keep control of that chamber by just a few seats, there are still four uncalled races where the candidates are separated by under 1500 votes. My guess is that final numbers will show that Democrats fell short of recapturing the House by less than 30,000 votes across a half dozen or so districts—a near-miss that may prove supremely consequential over the next two years. On the Senate side, three races were decided by under one point, with Pennsylvania still uncalled. 

The closeness of this election underscores the importance of carefully targeting political donations to persuade and mobilize voters in key places.

It’s too early to assess the impact of the groups that Blue Tent recommended. But in the battleground states where these groups focused their efforts—fueled by donors like you—there was far less movement toward Trump than elsewhere.

Here are the top groups we recommended:

• Galvanize Action, which focused on moving white women toward Harrs.

• Working America, which focused on persuading and mobilizing non-college voters.

• Rural Victory Fund, which worked to bolster Harris and other Democrats in rural areas to cut into Trump’s huge margins.

• Center for Voter Information, which used mail and digital strategies to mobilize and persuade non-white and young voters. 

In addition to these top recommendations, Blue Tent supported a number of voter groups in battleground states and key congressional districts. These included: 

• Alliance for Youth Action, as well as several of its affiliates, including the Georgia Youth Justice Coalition, Forward Montana, New Era Colorado, and Next Up—all focused on registering and turning out young voters. 

• LUCHA, which works in Arizona, with a heavy focus on Latino voters.

• PA United, which engages working-class and rural voters in Western Pennsylvania, and One PA, which worked to boost Black turnout. 

• Down Home Carolina and Carolina Federation, two groups working to persuade and mobilize key voting groups in North Carolina. 

• Michigan United, the top progressive voter group in Michigan. 

These groups did heroic work, along with many others. But exit polls confirmed what other surveys had shown for months: many young people and voters of color didn’t trust Democrats enough on key issues, with their disaffection going well beyond the economy. For example, even large shares of Latinos trusted Trump more than Harris on immigration. Concerns about crime and disorder also badly hurt Democrats, including in urban immigrant communities, which swung heavily toward Trump. Likewise, despite an expansive Democratic push to engage rural voters and non-college whites, these voters overwhelmingly saw Trump as the better bet to address their top issues, particularly the cost of living. 

Of course, Harris was also up against deep-seated biases among voters and effective GOP efforts to amplify people’s primal fears through a torrent of misinformation. Many voters remain unwilling to support a woman for president, with Trump consistently polling ahead of Harris on issues like strength and the ability to handle a crisis—never mind that he’s so clearly an unstable, unwell person. Further, Harris’s race and gender likely had a strong mobilizing effect on the right, boosting turnout for Trump—even as her identity delivered scant mobilizing benefits on the left. 

These are just a few preliminary thoughts on why Harris lost—one takeaway among a blizzard of post-mortems. Better data and research will yield a more definitive verdict on the election in the months and years to come. In the meantime, Democrats and progressives have a lot to think about. 

One urgent question is how well progressive organizations understand the demographic groups they purport to represent. Another, and related, is how Democrats can woo back culturally conservative non-college voters (of all races) without abandoning key principles and constituencies. A third question—and the most important—is how the left can again center people’s everyday economic concerns. This election is just the latest reminder that, for most Americans, getting by and getting ahead matter more than just about anything else. 

I don’t have the answers to those questions. What I do know is that lots of smart people are sorting through the implications of this election. I’ll be closely following what emerges from this processing and shaping future Blue Tent recommendations accordingly.

For now, I’d like to say a big thank you to all the Blue Tent readers who supported our recommended groups! Your money had an impact, and you should feel good about that. While the Harris-Walz campaign has ceased to exist, all the organizations you’ve supported during this election cycle will remain in the fight going forward.

Along with other fundraising groups, Blue Tent is conducting a post-election survey of donors. Please participate by clicking here. 

One last thing: if you set up recurring donations through ActBlue and don’t want them to continue, make sure to log in to your ActBlue account and stop those donations. Before doing that, though, keep in mind that all Blue Tent’s recommended groups work year-round to organize people, build power, and change minds. They need your support as we enter a very dangerous period in our nation’s history.