Fact check: What were the key issues that influenced voter decisions in the 2024 presidential election?

1. Why the Economy Mattered—and For Whom It Was Decisive

Exit‑poll summaries show the economy remained a top concern for many voters, influencing decisions across demographic groups but in different ways: inflation and cost‑of‑living pressures driven choices among swing and low‑income voters, while long‑term issues such as wages and jobs shaped suburban voting patterns ^[1]. Economic anxiety intersected with candidate messaging about growth and regulation; voters who prioritized pocketbook issues tended to support the candidate they perceived as strongest on economic management according to post‑vote analyses ^[1]. This made economic framing a central battleground, with campaign claims about performance and plans acting as decisive cues for persuadable electorates ^[6].

2. Democracy Concerns Drove Turnout and Choices

Concerns about the state of democracy and election integrity emerged as a top motive in exit polling, boosting turnout among voters motivated to defend or restore democratic norms and institutions ^[1]. Parallel investigative reporting documented the rise of election‑denialists into local election posts and the active implementation of conspiratorial ideas, a development that undermined public confidence and became a voting issue for those prioritizing institutional resilience ^[3]. These dynamics polarized voters: some were mobilized by fears of democratic erosion, while others responded to messaging about election security and fraud—each framing influencing turnout and candidate preference ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Abortion and Reproductive Rights: A Persistent Mobilizer

Exit‑poll evidence indicates abortion rights remained a salient issue, particularly among Democratic-leaning voters and younger cohorts, shaping candidate choice where reproductive freedom was presented as a referendum on policy and judicial direction ^[1]. Where ballot measures and local races emphasized reproductive access, those contests amplified turnout and influenced presidential votes through down‑ballot linkages ^[2]. Campaigns and interest groups on both sides deployed targeted messaging; the intensity of those efforts translated into higher engagement among constituencies for whom reproductive rights were nonnegotiable, shaping margins in competitive jurisdictions ^[1].

4. Barriers to Voting: Students, Overseas Voters, and Administration Changes

Reports indicate procedural changes and new identification requirements affected certain voter groups, notably students at institutions that adopted campus-specific voting ID measures, which likely depressed participation or complicated ballots in locales with close margins ^[4]. Separate reporting documented ongoing efforts by officials to restrict overseas voting, including proposals affecting citizens who have never lived in the U.S., raising concerns about disenfranchisement and the political consequences for future cycles ^[5]. These administrative shifts—both local and legislative—introduced variance in access and may have influenced turnout differentially across regions and demographics ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Election Administration and Conspiracy Influence: A Structural Threat

Investigations exposed a significant number of election officials who embraced conspiracist views, with concrete instances of those views translating into policy or operational changes at local levels ^[3]. Where election administrators acted on denialist beliefs, that created not only credibility problems but also operational risks—policy changes, challenges to standard procedures, and legal contestation—that affected perceptions of legitimacy and voter confidence ^[3]. This structural shift in local administration introduced an additional political variable: voters who prioritized stability of institutions weighed candidates’ stances on election integrity more heavily ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Turnout Patterns: High Engagement but Uneven Participation

Data show that overall turnout remained high in key states—with records in places like Michigan—while national share metrics varied, reflecting uneven engagement and stronger down‑ballot participation in some jurisdictions ^{[2] [7]}. High turnout in competitive states magnified the impact of local issues and administration controversies, while lower participation elsewhere changed the electoral map’s sensitivity to mobilized constituencies ^[2]. These turnout patterns indicate that targeted mobilization on issues such as abortion, democracy, and the economy had outsized effects where margins were narrow ^{[1] [2]}.

7. What This Mix Means Going Forward

The 2024 electorate responded to a confluence of policy concerns and institutional anxieties, making elections simultaneously about tangible economic circumstances and abstract questions about democratic norms. The combination of issue salience, administrative barriers, and changes in local election governance created heterogenous effects across states and groups, suggesting future campaigns will further weaponize both substantive policy debates and procedural rules to mobilize voters ^{[8] [3] [5]}. Voters and policymakers seeking to understand outcomes must consider both what candidates promised and how voting was made easier or harder in specific communities ^{[1] [4]}.