What was the margin of victory for Joe Biden in the 2020 election?

1. The headline numbers: electoral college and popular vote

The formal Electoral College outcome recorded Biden with 306 electors to Trump’s 232 — well above the 270 threshold — a result widely reported and accepted by major outlets ^[2]. On the national popular‑vote side, Biden received a majority share (reported as about 51.3% in comprehensive summaries) and led Trump by roughly four percentage points and millions of raw votes; contemporaneous coverage cited a lead of “more than 5.9 million” votes ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Where the election was actually decided: battleground state margins

Although Biden’s national margin looks comfortable, the decisive margins were extremely small in key states. Wikipedia notes that Biden’s wins in Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona were by narrow totals — together amounting to only a few tens of thousands of votes — and that his Electoral College margin relied on those tight state results ^[2]. Fact checks and state analyses at the time highlighted that some individual states’ margins were under 100,000 votes, prompting recounts and legal challenges ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Why national and state margins tell different stories

A roughly 4‑point national margin can coexist with razor‑thin state margins because the Electoral College awards whole blocks of electors per state; winning narrowly in several swing states can determine the presidency even when the nationwide lead is larger ^[2]. Analysts like Pew and Brookings have underscored that turnout shifts among demographic groups and vote‑counting patterns (mail ballots counted later in some states) amplified the importance of specific battleground counties and cohorts ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Demographics and turnout that produced the margin

Post‑election research attributes Biden’s popular‑vote edge to higher turnout and specific coalition shifts: elevated youth turnout and gains among certain racial and educational groups; Pew’s analysis framed Biden’s margin in terms of these voter blocs ^[4]. Brookings and other studies show Biden improved on certain 2016 Democratic weaknesses — for example, he recouped more male votes than Hillary Clinton had — which also contributed to his overall margin ^[5].

5. How media and fact‑checkers framed “the margin”

Contemporaneous outlets and later fact‑checks stressed two different takeaways: the national popular‑vote margin (millions of votes, ≈4 points) and the much tighter, legally consequential state margins that drove the Electoral College result ^{[1] [3] [2]}. FactCheck.org and others later examined how those raw numbers were used in political messaging; some critics highlighted that citing the large national vote gap can obscure how close the Electoral College contest was ^{[2] [6]}.

6. What isn’t fully covered in this set of sources

Available sources do not mention some granular vote totals (the exact final nationwide vote counts to the single‑vote level) in this collection, nor detailed county‑level shifts beyond the noted battlegrounds; they also do not provide every post‑2020 audit or legal decision in each state in this set of results (not found in current reporting). If you want the precise certified raw vote totals or county‑by‑county maps, consult official state certifications or primary datasets (not included here).

7. Bottom line for readers and why it matters

The arithmetic is clear: Biden’s national popular‑vote advantage was on the order of millions and about four percentage points ^{[1] [2]}. Yet the presidency turned on narrow margins in a handful of states — a reminder that in U.S. presidential contests the Electoral College can magnify small state‑level swings into decisive outcomes. Different outlets emphasize different parts of that story depending on political and editorial priorities, which is why both the national margin and the tight battleground results are routinely cited in post‑election analyses ^{[2] [4]}.