section_path: Media analysis/Harris' loss/Electoral environment
section_name: Electoral environment
paragraph_text: Electoral environment
  
  According to Gallup, most factors with respect to the electoral environment favored Republicans and Trump. These included low confidence in the economy, Republicans outnumbering Democrats in party affiliation (48-45%), low national satisfaction, Republicans being favored to address the economy and immigration, and Biden's low job approval rating. Harris was viewed more favorably on character and had an advantage on some issues. No incumbent party has won when a president had below a 45% approval rating, either losing reelection (Jimmy Carter in 1980, George H. W. Bush in 1992, and Trump himself in 2020) or the incumbent party lost the White House (Hubert Humphrey in 1968).
  
  According to exit polls, voters disapproved of Biden's performance 59-39%, and disapproved of how things were going in the United States 73-25%. Also, voters judged the economy negatively 68-32%, and said that inflation had caused them hardship 75-24%. A YouGov poll conducted from November 6–7, 2024 found that if Biden had been the Democratic nominee, Trump would have won the popular vote 49-42%. Nonpartisan election forecasters, including The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, stated before the election that Biden would have been almost certain to lose.
  
  Harris did improve compared to Biden among voters making over $100,000 a year. NBC News found that Trump made larger gains in counties with tougher housing markets.
  
  Almost every incumbent party worldwide facing election in 2024 lost vote share, including in South Africa, India, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Among democracies, over 80 percent saw the incumbent party lose support compared to the last election. This is the first time this has ever happened since 1905 (when data was first recorded) and the first time in the history of democracy, as universal suffrage began in 1894.
  
  All 50 states and the District of Columbia shifted rightward compared to 2020. Trump's gains in nearly all geographic areas and among nearly every demographic group provides strong evidence of anti-incumbent backlash. The shifts toward Trump were much less in the swing states where both campaigns focused compared to safe states. The two states with the largest shifts toward Trump, New York and New Jersey, were both won by Harris. Harris had very little room to fall in the swing states, given that Biden had won most of them by very small margins in 2020.
  
  Statistician and election analyst Nate Silver argued before the election that the national electoral environment was difficult for Democrats. This view was also shared by The New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn. After the election, Silver felt that Harris was a replacement-level candidate who did much better than Biden would have, but was unable to separate herself from Biden's record and was negatively perceived by swing voters due to her previous positions. Amy Walter, editor of the nonpartisan The Cook Political Report, also argued that the electoral environment was inherently difficult for Harris because the top issue for voters was inflation during the Biden-Harris administration.
  
  Ronald Brownstein of The Atlantic, who spoke with members of Harris' campaign, argued that the extent of Biden's unpopularity and public discontent with the economy proved too much for Harris to overcome. Brownstein compared the election to the 1968 presidential election (when unpopular incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew his candidacy and Vice President Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon) and the 1980 presidential election (when incumbent Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan due to stagflation and the 1970s energy crisis). Members of Harris' campaign stated after the election that their internal polling never showed Harris ahead of Trump and they did not believe that Harris was the favorite to win the election. David Plouffe, a senior campaign advisor to Harris, claimed that even making the race competitive was a win for Harris' staff.
  
  An analysis released by Democratic-leaning data firm Catalist in May 2025 found that Trump's victory rested on support from voters who were less engaged with politics, as well as weakened support and turnout for Harris from a range of Democratic-leaning groups. Nearly half of the 2024 electorate cast ballots in the previous four federal elections, representing an increase of 9 points from 2020 and 7 points from 2016, and Harris won under 50 percent of these voters, outperforming Biden's and Hillary Clinton 's respective performances. In contrast, Harris won 48 percent of voters who only voted in two or fewer of the previous four federal elections, underperforming Biden and Clinton, both of whom won at least 54 percent of those voters. Harris also won less than half of voters who did not cast a vote in 2020 but did so in 2024, compared to Biden and Clinton each winning roughly 55 percent of new voters in their respective elections; Catalist considered this Democratic underperformance to be unprecedented in their history of election analysis. Jennifer Agiesta of CNN reported that new and infrequent voters in 2024 were more likely to be from Democratic-leaning groups but also less likely to have college degrees, a trait increasingly tied to Republican support.
  
  According to Gallup, most factors with respect to the electoral environment favored Republicans and Trump. These included low confidence in the economy, Republicans outnumbering Democrats in party affiliation (48-45%), low national satisfaction, Republicans being favored to address the economy and immigration, and Biden's low job approval rating. Harris was viewed more favorably on character and had an advantage on some issues. No incumbent party has won when a president had below a 45% approval rating, either losing reelection (Jimmy Carter in 1980, George H. W. Bush in 1992, and Trump himself in 2020) or the incumbent party lost the White House (Hubert Humphrey in 1968).
  
  According to exit polls, voters disapproved of Biden's performance 59-39%, and disapproved of how things were going in the United States 73-25%. Also, voters judged the economy negatively 68-32%, and said that inflation had caused them hardship 75-24%. A YouGov poll conducted from November 6–7, 2024 found that if Biden had been the Democratic nominee, Trump would have won the popular vote 49-42%. Nonpartisan election forecasters, including The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, stated before the election that Biden would have been almost certain to lose.
  
  Harris did improve compared to Biden among voters making over $100,000 a year. NBC News found that Trump made larger gains in counties with tougher housing markets.
  
  Almost every incumbent party worldwide facing election in 2024 lost vote share, including in South Africa, India, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Among democracies, over 80 percent saw the incumbent party lose support compared to the last election. This is the first time this has ever happened since 1905 (when data was first recorded) and the first time in the history of democracy, as universal suffrage began in 1894.
  
  All 50 states and the District of Columbia shifted rightward compared to 2020. Trump's gains in nearly all geographic areas and among nearly every demographic group provides strong evidence of anti-incumbent backlash. The shifts toward Trump were much less in the swing states where both campaigns focused compared to safe states. The two states with the largest shifts toward Trump, New York and New Jersey, were both won by Harris. Harris had very little room to fall in the swing states, given that Biden had won most of them by very small margins in 2020.
  
  Statistician and election analyst Nate Silver argued before the election that the national electoral environment was difficult for Democrats. This view was also shared by The New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn. After the election, Silver felt that Harris was a replacement-level candidate who did much better than Biden would have, but was unable to separate herself from Biden's record and was negatively perceived by swing voters due to her previous positions. Amy Walter, editor of the nonpartisan The Cook Political Report, also argued that the electoral environment was inherently difficult for Harris because the top issue for voters was inflation during the Biden-Harris administration.
  
  Ronald Brownstein of The Atlantic, who spoke with members of Harris' campaign, argued that the extent of Biden's unpopularity and public discontent with the economy proved too much for Harris to overcome. Brownstein compared the election to the 1968 presidential election (when unpopular incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew his candidacy and Vice President Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon) and the 1980 presidential election (when incumbent Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan due to stagflation and the 1970s energy crisis). Members of Harris' campaign stated after the election that their internal polling never showed Harris ahead of Trump and they did not believe that Harris was the favorite to win the election. David Plouffe, a senior campaign advisor to Harris, claimed that even making the race competitive was a win for Harris' staff.
  
  An analysis released by Democratic-leaning data firm Catalist in May 2025 found that Trump's victory rested on support from voters who were less engaged with politics, as well as weakened support and turnout for Harris from a range of Democratic-leaning groups. Nearly half of the 2024 electorate cast ballots in the previous four federal elections, representing an increase of 9 points from 2020 and 7 points from 2016, and Harris won under 50 percent of these voters, outperforming Biden's and Hillary Clinton 's respective performances. In contrast, Harris won 48 percent of voters who only voted in two or fewer of the previous four federal elections, underperforming Biden and Clinton, both of whom won at least 54 percent of those voters. Harris also won less than half of voters who did not cast a vote in 2020 but did so in 2024, compared to Biden and Clinton each winning roughly 55 percent of new voters in their respective elections; Catalist considered this Democratic underperformance to be unprecedented in their history of election analysis. Jennifer Agiesta of CNN reported that new and infrequent voters in 2024 were more likely to be from Democratic-leaning groups but also less likely to have college degrees, a trait increasingly tied to Republican support.