
New research shows Trump's 2024 support became more ethnically and racially diverse
President Donald Trump's 2024 victory over former Vice President Kamala Harris was fueled by 'a voter coalition that was more racially and ethnically diverse than in 2020 or 2016,' as well by an advantage among voters who didn't turn out for the previous election, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
Pew's analysis, which combines survey data from its in-house panel of poll-takers with information from voter records, contributes to a more clearly emerging picture of the 2024 electorate.
It finds that about three-quarters of eligible voters in the U.S. made the same decision in 2024 that they did in 2020, whether that was voting for the Republican or the Democrat, choosing a third-party candidate or sitting out the election altogether. But one-quarter made a different choice – enough to return Trump to the White House.
Trump held onto 85% of his 2020 voters, the report finds, while Harris retained a smaller 79% of former President Joe Biden's supporters. Compared to 2020, Trump won a higher share of the vote among Hispanic voters (48%, up from 36%), Asian voters (40%, up from 30%) and Black voters (15%, up from 8%).
'These shifts were largely the result of differences in which voters turned out in the 2020 and 2024 elections,' the authors of the Pew report conclude. 'As in the past, a relatively small share of voters switched which party's candidate they supported.'
Fifteen percent of 2020 Biden supporters and 11% of 2020 Trump supporters didn't vote four years later, their analysis finds. Trump also won about 5% of Biden's 2020 supporters, while Harris took about 3% of voters who supported Trump in the previous election.
And while most eligible voters who didn't cast a vote in 2020 stayed home again last year, those who did decide to vote in 2024 broke for Trump over Harris, 54% to 42%. Adding in people who were too young to vote in the last election, the margin is slightly narrower.
Pew's analysis is based on the results of a survey conducted just after November's presidential election. Like all surveys, its results offer an estimate of voter behavior rather than an attempt at pinpoint precision. That's why different post-election analyses may diverge in some findings about the electorate, even when they converge around a general consensus.
The new analysis, like a report last month from the Democratic-aligned data firm Catalist, incorporates fresh sources of data: information from commercial voters files that aggregate official state turnout records. Pew's analysis matches that voter file data with responses to their survey – and because its polls are conducted using a panel of respondents who answer multiple surveys over time, researchers there can often track specific individuals' voting patterns.
Catalist's report similarly found that voters who turn out irregularly played a key role in Trump's victory. Since non-presidential elections typically see lower turnout, that could also have potential implications as the parties begin gearing up for the upcoming midterms.
'There's definitely some evidence that this shift in Democrats doing better among more consistent voters may have some downstream impacts,' said Hannah Hartig, a senior researcher at Pew Research – although she noted that, with a long way still to go until the next election, it's too early to know how that may play out.
A few more takeaways from the Pew report:
Trump also improved his numbers among male voters, who split for Trump by a 12-point margin in 2024 after dividing closely between the candidates in 2020. There was especially sharp movement among male voters younger than 50 – while they were about evenly split last year, that marked a swing from a 10-point preference for Biden in 2020. Both Pew and Catalist show Democrats losing more ground among male voters than female voters, while exit polling and post-election data from Votecast found that erosion across gender lines.
Education remains a major fault line in American politics. College graduates who voted in 2024 broke for Harris by a 16-point margin in Pew's data, while those without degrees broke for Trump by 14 points – although both those findings represent an improvement for Trump from his 2020 numbers. That education gap persisted among both White and Hispanic voters, while Black voters didn't divide significantly along educational lines. Catalist's report found similar educational trends, but charted somewhat less of a divide among Latino voters, while exit polling and VoteCast had showed college graduates' preferences remaining more stable.
Naturalized citizens of the U.S. made up about 9% of last year's electorate, according to Pew. And in 2024, they were closely divided, with 51% backing Harris and 47% backing Trump. By contrast, in 2020, this group broke heavily for Biden.
The design of Pew's study also allowed them to check in with nonvoters: adults who were eligible to vote, but weren't a part of the 64% who actually turned out. In the past, this group typically leaned Democratic: asked whom they would have preferred if they had voted, 2020 nonvoters favored Biden over Trump by an 11-point margin. But in 2024, nonvoters were closely split, with 44% preferring Trump and 40% Harris.
'If somehow something magic had happened and everybody who's eligible to vote had actually showed up, not only would it not have helped the Democrats and Harris, it might have actually pushed Trump's margin up slightly,' said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at Pew.
The Pew Research Center surveyed 8,942 US adults in November 2024, using the nationally representative American Trends Panel, including 7,100 voters who were able to be matched against a voter file. Results among the full sample of validated voters have a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. More details on the survey methodology are available here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Cal Poly Pomona graduate released after immigration arrest in downtown L.A.
Federal authorities on Thursday released the Cal Poly Pomona graduate who was arrested during an immigration enforcement operation downtown Los Angeles earlier this week. Andrea Guadalupe Velez, who is a U.S. citizen, expressed her relief after spending the past two days in a federal detention facility. "It's been hard," Velez said. "I didn't know all this media coverage was happening and I'm just relieved that I'm outside." Velez's mother and sister recorded federal agents carrying Velez away during an immigration enforcement operation. Her family had just dropped her off at the shoe store and had barely even driven a block before the arrest began. Velez said she remembered masked men suddenly surrounding her. "It was just a day of work and everything happened so fast," Velez said. "They didn't identify themselves, so I was kind of scared. I was like 'what's going on?' ... I wasn't doing anything crazy. I was just going to follow orders, and they decided to pick me up, and that was kind of shocking." On Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Velez "was arrested for assaulting an ICE enforcement officer." In the criminal complaint against Velez, a federal agent said, "he saw a woman (later identified as Velez) step into his path and extend one of her arms in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing." Velez denied the claim. She added that she did not know the man and believes she was profiled. "When I was already in the car, arrested, they asked for my ID, and they were kind of questioning whether I was a U.S. citizen or not," she said. "I'm Latina, so I'm pretty sure I was probably racially profiled." CBS News Los Angeles contacted DHS for a comment on Velez's claims. They did not respond as of Thursday night.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants
The Trump administration on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland over an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals, ratcheting up a fight with the federal judiciary over President Donald Trump's executive powers. The remarkable action lays bare the administration's determination to exert its will over immigration enforcement as well as a growing exasperation with federal judges who have time and again turned aside executive branch actions they see as lawless and without legal merit. 'It's extraordinary," Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of the Justice Department's lawsuit. 'And it's escalating DOJ's effort to challenge federal judges.' At issue is an order signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and filed in May blocking the administration from immediately removing from the U.S. any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the habeas corpus petition is filed. The administration says the automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president's authority to enforce immigration laws. The Republican administration has been locked for weeks in a growing showdown with the federal judiciary amid a barrage of legal challenges to the president's efforts to carry out key priorities around immigration and other matters. The Justice Department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking the president's agenda, accusing judges of improperly impeding the president's powers. "President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. 'The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.' A spokesman for the Maryland district court declined to comment. Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. That led to an extraordinary statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said 'impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who has called the administration's deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador illegal. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that it ignored court orders for weeks to return him to the U.S. The order signed by Russell says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government 'fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.' In an amended order, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that "resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.' The Trump administration has asked the Maryland judges to recuse themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state hear it. James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, described the lawsuit as further part of the erosion of legal norms by the administration. Normally when parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order — not sue the court or judges, he said. On one hand, he said, the Justice Department has a point that injunctions should be considered extraordinary relief; it's unusual for them to be granted automatically in an entire class of cases. But, he added, it's the administration's own actions in repeatedly moving detainees to prevent them from obtaining writs of habeas corpus that prompted the court to issue the order. 'The judges here didn't ask to be put in this unenviable position,' Sample said. 'Faced with imperfect options, they have made an entirely reasonable, cautious choice to modestly check an executive branch that is determined to circumvent any semblance of impartial process.' ___ Associated Press reporters Gene Johnson in Seattle and Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Kimmel' Guest Host Diego Luna Hits Trump With Frank Reminder Of 1 Huge Failure
Actor Diego Luna wrapped up his week as guest host of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' with a reminder of how important comedy is in an era that's seen a rise in authoritarian leaders such as President Donald Trump. 'There are many ways to push back, and one way is by making fun of them every night, like Jimmy does,' the 'Andor' star said. 'Using comedy to defend freedom. They don't like that shit.' Luna said the media has been focusing on the differences between the United States and his home country, Mexico, but that he wanted to focus on what connects the two nations. 'We shouldn't let our cultural exchange be divided by borders, by ignorance, by fear, or a wall built by your president,' he said, then couldn't help but add: 'That he paid for, by the way.' Trump not only made a border wall a key promise of his first presidential campaign, but insisted repeatedly and for years that Mexico would pay for it. Mexico did not pay for the wall. U.S. taxpayers did, ponying up a reported $15 billion for it during Trump's first term ― including sections so poorly built they blew over in heavy winds, and some that could be bypassed with a $5 makeshift ladder. See more of Luna's monologue below: