Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did Trump's 2024 election votes compare to his 2020 election votes?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump increased both his raw vote total and his share of the national vote in 2024 compared with 2020: he won about 49.8% of the popular vote and received roughly 2.5 million more votes than in 2020, according to post-election tallies and AP analysis [1] [2]. Exit-poll and VoteCast reporting portray a coalition shift — gains among Hispanic voters, non-college-educated voters, and younger voters — while several news narratives emphasize broad county-level increases and demographic nuances in how those gains were distributed [2] [3] [4].
1. Why Trump’s raw vote count matters — the numbers that journalists point to
Multiple outlets converged on a clear numeric finding: Trump's 2024 raw vote total exceeded his 2020 total by a measurable margin, about 2.5 million additional votes, a figure reported by the Associated Press as part of their post-election analysis [1]. This increase translated into a larger share in nearly every state and D.C. relative to 2020, according to AP’s state-by-state comparison, representing not only localized shifts but also a broad-based turnout or persuasion change across jurisdictions [1]. Reuters and other outlets echoed the national popular-vote share of 49.8%, situating the raw-vote gain within the context of national percentages [2].
2. Where the gains came from — the demographic story exit polls and VoteCast tell
Exit polls and AP VoteCast indicate that Trump’s gains were concentrated in several demographic cohorts: Hispanic voters, voters without college degrees, and younger voters (under 45) saw increases in support compared with 2020, with VoteCast noting near-half support from voters under 45 and a 55% share among non-college-educated voters [3] [2]. AP reporting also highlights slight inroads with Black voters, particularly younger men, and narrow Hispanic gains driven by both genders, revealing a nuanced pattern rather than a single monolithic swing [4]. These demographic shifts help explain both the raw-vote growth and the expansion of county-level margins in many areas [2].
3. County-level and geographic patterns — more counties shifted toward Trump
News analyses describe a geographic pattern in which Trump increased his share of the vote across most U.S. counties relative to 2020, a phenomenon picked up by exit-poll and county-level comparisons [2]. This county-level movement suggests gains were not confined to one region but were dispersed across states, influencing the national popular vote and certain state vote tallies. Journalistic accounts framed this as a “historic comeback” and a redistribution of votes that combined turnout, demographic change, and persuasion in varying mixes depending on local context [5] [2].
4. How different outlets framed the comparison — a look at sourcing and emphasis
Some articles focused on the headline result — Trump’s return to the White House and vote-share improvements — while others emphasized the granular demographic shifts that enabled those totals. CNN pieces noted the comeback without always providing direct 2020-to-2024 comparisons in the same story, leaving readers to juxtapose separate reports [5]. In contrast, AP and Reuters produced explicit numeric comparisons and VoteCast analyses that quantified both raw and percentage differences, offering more direct before-and-after measures [1] [2]. The variance in emphasis reflects editorial choices about whether to foreground narrative or numeric comparison [5] [1].
5. Limitations and caveats in the available reporting — what’s uncertain or underreported
While multiple outlets report increases in raw votes and vote share, some articles lacked direct side-by-side 2020 comparisons or relied on exit polls subject to sampling caveats [5]. Exit-poll and VoteCast findings illuminate coalition shifts but can over- or understate small subgroup changes; AP’s state-level vote comparisons are stronger for raw vote tallies but still depend on final certification processes [1] [2]. These methodological differences mean conclusions about the causes of gains — turnout versus persuasion — require caution, as reporting mixes descriptive counts with interpretive polling metrics [4].
6. What the combined evidence establishes — synthesis for the reader
We can confidently state that Trump’s 2024 performance was better than his 2020 performance in both raw votes and national vote share, supported by AP’s 2.5 million vote increase and Reuters/AP reporting of a 49.8% national share [1] [2]. The most consistent explanatory pattern across outlets is that this improvement reflected gains among Hispanics, non-college-educated voters, and younger voters, with modest inroads among Black voters in specific subgroups, as shown by VoteCast and exit-poll analyses [3] [4]. That constellation of evidence points to a broader, cross‑cutting shift rather than a narrow, single‑issue swing.
7. Final context — what journalists and analysts should still probe next
Future reporting should reconcile exit-poll signals with certified state tallies to parse turnout versus persuasion, and examine how local factors produced dispersed county-level gains [2] [1]. Analysts should also compare methodologies across outlets — noting where pieces did not provide 2020 comparisons — to avoid overinterpreting single surveys or headlines [5]. The current corpus of articles collectively establishes the headline facts: more votes, higher share, and a shifted coalition, while leaving room for deeper causal analysis that blends polling, turnout data, and county-level results [2] [4].