Yesterday, it was finally confirmed that Donald Trump had won all swing states in the 2024 US election. What has been less document is the surprising outcome that swing state voters across the United States delivered split results, electing Democratic Senators while supporting Donald Trump for President. This split-ticket phenomenon unfolded in six key states. While voters chose Democrats for Senate in five of those states, Trump managed to win all seven at the presidential level. In light of the historically fractured political landscape in the United States, it is puzzling to understand how the same voter could vote Republican for President and Democratic for Senate. This trend raises compelling questions about voter motivations, the nuances of candidate appeal, and the evolving ways in which Americans are engaging with the political process. What led voters to back Democratic senators yet align with a Republican presidential candidate?
A Need to Approach the Results Rationally
Since the election results the internet has become saturated with allegations that the ‘math isn’t adding up’ alluding to claims that Elon Musk’s Starlink internet was used to tabulate results and that the President elect with thirty-four felony convictions, charges of fraud, election subversion, and obstruction cannot be trusted. In times of grief it is understandable that Democrats are looking for answers to something that on its face appears like an almost impossible outcome. However, the reality is that Kamala Harris has conceded the election and at the time of writing any claims of 2024 election fraud have not been proven. Instead, we must approach the results rationally and focus on the facts to analyse why in the 2024 election swing state results were so unusual.
The Appeal of Balance in an Era of Political Division
The core of this election’s split-ticket results may be voters’ desire for balance. A sense that divided government could best serve the United States at a time when polarization runs high. This trend, often referred to as “hedging”, refers to voters choosing to split tickets as a way to prevent either party from holding too much power, especially during periods of strong ideological division. With Trump’s assertive, headline-grabbing style, swing-state voters may have felt more comfortable with a Democratic Senate that could counterbalance his policies and limit his authority.
In states like Wisconsin and Michigan, where both the Senate and presidential races were extremely close, this balancing act is particularly visible. Senator Tammy Baldwin won her re-election with 49.4% in Wisconsin, while Trump narrowly took the presidential vote with 49.7% over Kamala Harris. Similarly, Michigan re-elected Elissa Slotkin with 48.6% in her Senate race, while Trump garnered 49.7% in the presidential race. These small margins suggest that voters, while possibly aligned with Trump’s overall vision for the nation, were hesitant to grant full legislative control to Republicans, turning to Democratic senators as a buffer.
Localised Campaigns and the Power of State-Specific Appeal
Likely a more influential factor in these Senate outcomes was the tailored, state-centric approaches taken by the Democratic candidates. Baldwin, Slotkin, and their Democratic colleagues ran campaigns focused heavily on local issues like healthcare, education, job creation, and infrastructure, each adjusting their message to the specific needs of their states. These localised campaigns allowed Senate candidates to build strong, direct connections with their constituents that a national campaign, by nature, cannot always achieve. This contrast between localised and national messaging may explain why voters opted for Democrats in Senate races while favouring Trump for president.
For instance, Ruben Gallego’s success in Arizona, where he won 49.7% of the vote, reflects this state-focused approach. While Trump took Arizona with 52.6%, Gallego’s campaign tackled Arizona-specific issues such as immigration reform, water resource management, and veterans’ services. His ability to address these local concerns may have attracted voters who, though generally supportive of Trump’s national message, valued Gallego’s commitment to issues affecting their everyday lives.
This pattern, echoed in other states, suggests that voters may view the Senate as a place for problem-solvers who prioritize local interests. In contrast, the presidential election drew voters who were swayed by larger, often ideological narratives. The result: a seeming contradiction in ticket-splitting that, upon closer inspection, reflects different expectations for local and national roles.
Kamala Harris’s Presidential Campaign: Voter Reluctance at the Top
In contrast to the Senate races, Harris’s platform focused on inclusivity, economic reform, and unity, positioning her as a candidate with a broad vision for the country’s future. However, this national messaging may have felt distant for swing-state voters, whose concerns were more immediate and local. Trump’s campaign resonated strongly with voters in these states through a populist approach that emphasized economic nationalism, cultural identity, and a “tough on Washington” stance. Harris’s calls for unity, though popular in Democratic strongholds, may not have held the same appeal in regions facing economic pressures, cultural divides, and concerns about rapid social change.
Moreover, Trump’s campaign leaned heavily on framing Harris as out of touch with “mainstream American values,” positioning her as a candidate whose background and politics were “too liberal” for middle America. This tactic may have swayed some undecided or independent voters in states like Arizona and Michigan, who might have supported Harris’s policies but ultimately hesitated to back her for the executive office. This reluctance points to the ongoing challenges women, especially women of colour, face in running for the highest office, where factors like identity and “presidential” expectations weigh heavily on voter decisions.
Gender Dynamics in Senate Success: A Nuanced Pattern Emerges
Another significant pattern in this year’s Senate results was the gender composition of the winning Democratic candidates. In the six swing states, four Democratic Senate victories were achieved by women: Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Jacky Rosen in Nevada, Elissa Slotkin in Michigan, and Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota. This emphasis on female representation is notable, particularly as it contrasts with the national presidential outcome, where Kamala Harris was unsuccessful in winning these states.
The success of these Senate candidates raises intriguing questions about voter attitudes toward gender. Historically, female candidates have faced hurdles in the presidential arena, where the role’s high visibility and executive authority may trigger certain biases, conscious or not. Research on cognitive bias suggests that voters may be more comfortable electing women to the Senate, where collaboration and constituent services play a central role, than supporting a female president. The ability of Baldwin, Rosen, Slotkin, and Klobuchar to connect with constituents on issues like healthcare, family leave, and education may reflect a perception among some voters that women in the Senate can provide a nurturing, pragmatic approach to governance.
However, it is worth noting that all the successful female Senate candidates in these states were white. The 2024 election highlighted the complexities of identity in American politics: Kamala Harris, a woman of colour, faced intense scrutiny, with her identity often becoming a focal point of attacks from Trump’s campaign. While the election of women to the Senate is an important step forward, the fact that these candidates were all white may suggest that the electorate’s comfort with diversity at the national executive level still has limits. Voters may be more receptive to white female candidates, especially in swing states where perceptions of “electability” play a significant role.
The success of Secretary Hillary Clinton dominating the popular vote in 2016 in contrast to Trump winning out over Harris in terms of popularity in 2024 raises serious questions about the role of race, not necessarily gender in this year’s Presidential election. In the Senate races it appears that voters were comfortable electing a white Democratic woman, but opted for the white Republican male instead of their party’s black female candidate for President. If one looks at the numbers from this perspective it appears race and not gender was the determining factor for many voters.
The Role of Racial Bias
The questions the 2024 election has raised are both sobering and deeply unsettling about the persistence of racial biases in American society. The outcome suggests that many voters who might otherwise align with the Democratic Party turned away from Kamala Harris, not for her policy positions or her experience but potentially because of the ingrained and often unexamined prejudices that still influence political choices.
This stark reality is especially troubling when one considers that the same voters who supported Democratic Senate candidates were unwilling to support their party’s black, female presidential candidate. This is a signal that while some progress has been made, especially in electing women and more diverse representatives in Congress, the barriers for women of colour in reaching the very highest offices remain daunting. Even as society publicly celebrates inclusivity, these election results reveal the private hesitations and implicit biases that continue to shape American democracy.
Such outcomes reflect a troubling resistance within American society to fully embrace a vision of leadership that is truly representative. At its core, this is a profound disappointment and a shock to those who have championed a more inclusive, diverse democracy. It’s a reminder of the systemic biases that have yet to be fully addressed and a call to action for advocates of equality to confront not just sexism, but racism, in every corner of political life. The election should serve as a reminder that for true equality to flourish, the focus must shift from incremental representation in lower offices to an embrace of leadership at all levels. The courage of figures like Kamala Harris, who strive to break through these barriers, must be matched by a willingness among voters to confront their own biases, supporting candidates for their abilities and vision, not allowing race or gender to cloud their judgment. This year’s election is a sobering reminder of the work still required to make that vision of equality a reality.
Looking Ahead: Implications for Future Elections
The 2024 election underscores a fundamental shift in how American voters are approaching elections, especially in swing states. The unexpected split-ticket outcome highlight a unique blend of voter motivations, driven by a desire for balance and an intricate assessment of candidates’ specific roles. Swing-state voters appear increasingly inclined to hedge their bets, countering the presidential office’s power with Senate representatives whose local appeal and pragmatic focus on state-centred issues resonate deeply.
Yet, the stark differences in support for Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate and Democratic Senate candidates bring critical questions to the forefront about the intersection of race and gender. While strides toward inclusivity in the Senate and Congress are evident, the resistance faced by women of colour in seeking the presidency reveals the enduring impact of racial and gender biases on the highest levels of leadership. For Democrats, the 2024 results present both a challenge and an opportunity to refine their strategy, ensuring that their national platform speaks to a broad coalition while addressing the distinctive concerns of diverse voter groups across the country.
Moving forward, both parties must acknowledge this nuanced approach to ticket-splitting, embracing campaigns that bridge the gap between national and local issues. For Democrats, particularly, the task is to build a message that appeals to urban and rural swing-state voters alike. The 2024 election serves as a reminder that, in a politically divided nation, successful candidates will need to balance a cohesive vision for the United States with deep, meaningful connections to the communities they aim to represent.
However, the 2024 election should be viewed not as a setback, but as a starting point in breaking new ground for inclusive leadership at the highest level. Kamala Harris, despite facing immense obstacles and having only 107 days as a nominee, came remarkably close to victory. Most swing states were won by very barrow margins. This an impressive feat given the historic barriers in her path. Her candidacy represents more than a single race, it is a critical step toward shattering the long-standing glass ceiling. To overcome the remaining barriers of race and gender bias, it’s essential that she, or others like her, continue to pursue this path.
As we look toward the 2028 election, Harris should be encouraged to run again, this time with a full campaign that builds upon her experience and the gains she has already made. Her journey serves as a powerful reminder of the work still required to ensure that the highest offices in American government are accessible to all. By supporting her next campaign, the United States not only continues a mission of inclusivity and progress, but also reaffirms its commitment to becoming a place where all Americans, regardless of race or gender, can aspire to lead.
