Who were the major candidates in the 2024 US presidential election?

1. Who the actors were — clear names, repeated across reporting

Every analysis supplied lists the same core cast: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris as the major party nominees, with their running mates named consistently as J.D. Vance for Trump and Tim Walz for Harris. Multiple entries describe Trump’s campaign messaging emphasizing criticism of prior economic stewardship, rollback of climate policies, and strict immigration measures, while Harris’s campaign is described as assembling significant fundraising and selecting Walz to broaden geographic and political appeal ^{[1] [2]}. The repetition of these specifics across independent summaries establishes them as the foundational facts of the race. Where sources differ, it is not over the principal nominees or ticket structures but over interpretation of campaign competence, narrative framing and whether third‑party candidacies materially altered the contest ^{[4] [3]}.

2. The third‑party and independent field — who mattered and why analysts flagged them

Analysts consistently mention several third‑party or independent figures—Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, and Chase Oliver—and note the Libertarian Party’s formal nomination of Chase Oliver and his running mate choices at convention events. Reporting places these candidacies in the context of potential vote‑splitting and disruption in close states, with some accounts suggesting their policy emphases ranged from progressive climate and healthcare platforms to libertarian calls for smaller government ^{[2] [6] [5]}. The sources diverge on the impact: some describe polling showing low single‑digit support typical of third parties, while others raise the theoretical possibility that even small third‑party votes could alter outcomes in swing states; both viewpoints are documented in the supplied material and anchor why journalists tracked these campaigns through the fall ^{[5] [3]}.

3. What the sources say about the election outcome and controversies

One set of analyses states that Trump ultimately won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, including wins in several swing states, and that this followed high‑profile legal developments surrounding Trump’s criminal hush‑money case ^{[4] [1]}. Other summaries stop short of declaring a winner, instead focusing on campaign battles, polling volatility, and fundraising milestones such as Harris’s reported $1 billion haul ^{[1] [2]}. The divergence here is not over the identities of nominees but over reporting scope and timing: some pieces provide post‑election narratives and legal context while others serve as pre‑ or mid‑campaign overviews. Readers should treat outcome statements as anchored to pieces that explicitly date their reporting and recognize that legal and electoral developments were part of the public record during the campaign ^[4].

4. Where accounts diverge — polling, interpretation, and timing of reports

Discrepancies among the supplied analyses arise primarily in interpretive framing, polling interpretation, and the reported magnitude of shifts, such as a contested study claiming a 23% increase rather than 20% in an unspecified measure. Several entries date to late October and early November 2024 and provide contemporaneous coverage of campaign dynamics, while others are retrospective summaries produced later and include election‑result claims ^{[7] [1] [4]}. The materials therefore present a mixed timeline: some documents read as preview profiles of candidates and campaigns, others read as post‑election summaries. This mix explains why certain assertions—like exact vote totals, who “won” specific swing states, or legal outcomes tied to candidates—appear in some analyses and not others. Readers should cross‑check the date on any claim to align it with either pre‑election reporting or post‑election adjudication ^{[1] [5]}.