In highly competitive elections, turnout becomes the pivotal factor, often determining the winner in closely contested races. As the upcoming presidential election approaches, this truth is increasingly apparent, especially in key battleground states where even small shifts in voter demographics could play a critical role. Although much remains uncertain as the election nears, one thing is becoming clearer: the race is likely to be exceedingly close in the states that will ultimately decide the election. Against this backdrop, a bipartisan polling team conducted an experiment to explore the impact of varying turnout models on the potential outcome.
The core question driving this experiment was: how might the election results differ if turnout favored one political party over the other? The polling team, comprising Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research Associates, sought to assess how different assumptions about voter turnout could shift the balance of the race. The results are not necessarily surprising, but they provide an instructive look at how relatively small changes in the composition of the electorate can make a significant difference in a tight election.
At the center of this analysis is a new national poll, which shows Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump locked in a dead heat, with each receiving 48% support in a head-to-head matchup. However, when the polling team applied a turnout model that assumed a more favorable scenario for Republicans, Trump pulled ahead by 2 percentage points, achieving a 49%-47% lead over Harris. On the other hand, when the turnout model was adjusted to favor Democrats, Harris gained the advantage, leading Trump 49%-46%. What makes these findings particularly noteworthy is that neither scenario requires any extreme or unlikely assumptions about voter turnout.
The Democratic-favorable turnout model envisions several demographic shifts that would work in Harris’s favor. Specifically, it assumes an increase in female voters, a more racially diverse electorate, a higher proportion of college-educated voters, and greater turnout from urban and suburban areas. In contrast, the Republican-favorable turnout model anticipates a whiter electorate, a higher proportion of male voters, and increased turnout among rural voters and those without college degrees. These demographic differences align with the core constituencies of each party, but the key insight from this experiment is how minimal these shifts need to be to influence the outcome of the race.
A deeper dive into the demographic shifts shows that relatively small changes in key groups can lead to substantial differences in election results. For instance, in the Democratic-favorable turnout model, the share of female voters is only 1 percentage point higher than in the Republican-favorable model. Similarly, the white share of the electorate is just 2 points lower in the Democratic-favorable scenario. These small variations in turnout by gender, race, education level, and urbanicity illustrate how closely contested the race is and how crucial turnout will be in determining the winner.
This focus on turnout highlights the broader significance of voter engagement in elections. It is often said that “elections are won at the margins,” and this analysis underscores that point. When a race is as close as the current presidential contest appears to be, even small changes in voter participation among specific demographic groups can tip the scales in one candidate’s favor. For political campaigns, this means that efforts to mobilize key constituencies—such as women, minorities, and college-educated voters for Democrats, or rural, non-college-educated, and white voters for Republicans—could be decisive.
The experimental results also emphasize the importance of the assumptions that polls make about voter turnout. Polling organizations typically develop models that predict which groups are most likely to vote based on historical data and current trends. However, predicting turnout is inherently challenging, especially in a volatile political environment where voter enthusiasm and engagement can fluctuate. As this experiment shows, different turnout models can yield different results, even when the overall polling data remains consistent. This is one of the reasons why polls can vary in the lead-up to an election, as different pollsters may use different assumptions about voter turnout.
To better understand the potential impact of turnout on the election, it is helpful to consider some of the key demographic trends that could shape the electorate in November. One important factor is the gender gap, which has been a defining feature of American elections in recent years. Women tend to vote at higher rates than men, and they have increasingly favored Democratic candidates in national elections. If female turnout increases in 2024, it could provide a boost to Harris’s chances, especially if women continue to support Democratic candidates at the levels seen in recent elections.
Race and ethnicity are also critical factors in shaping voter turnout. The Democratic Party has traditionally relied on strong support from minority voters, particularly Black and Hispanic voters. However, turnout among these groups can vary significantly from election to election. In 2020, for example, Black voter turnout increased compared to 2016, while Hispanic voter turnout also rose, contributing to President Joe Biden’s victory in key states. If Harris can maintain or improve upon these turnout levels among minority voters, it could make a substantial difference in a close race.
Education is another key demographic factor that could influence the outcome. Voters with college degrees have trended toward the Democratic Party in recent years, particularly in suburban areas. This shift was a major factor in Biden’s success in 2020, as he won back many suburban voters who had previously supported Republicans. If turnout among college-educated voters remains high, it could benefit Harris, especially in suburban battleground areas.
On the other hand, Trump’s path to victory relies heavily on increasing turnout among rural voters, white voters without college degrees, and male voters—groups that have been strong supporters of the Republican Party in recent elections. In 2020, Trump performed well among these voters, particularly in rural areas, and he will likely need to replicate or exceed that performance to win in 2024. If these groups turn out in higher numbers, it could give Trump the edge in key states.
Another important factor to consider is age. Younger voters, particularly those under 30, have historically favored Democrats, but they tend to vote at lower rates than older voters. In 2020, youth turnout increased significantly, helping to propel Biden to victory. However, sustaining that level of engagement in 2024 could be a challenge for Harris, especially if younger voters are less enthusiastic about the candidates or the state of the political system. Conversely, older voters, who tend to favor Republicans, are typically more reliable voters, and increased turnout among seniors could benefit Trump.
Geography also plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of elections. Urban and suburban areas have become increasingly Democratic, while rural areas remain Republican strongholds. In 2020, Biden’s ability to win suburban voters, particularly in key battleground states, was critical to his victory. However, Trump’s strength in rural areas allowed him to keep the race competitive. In 2024, both candidates will need to focus on maximizing turnout in their respective geographic strongholds while making inroads in competitive areas.
In addition to demographic factors, there are other variables that could influence turnout in the 2024 election. One such variable is voter enthusiasm. Elections often hinge on which side is more motivated to turn out, and this can be affected by a variety of factors, including the state of the economy, the handling of major issues like healthcare or immigration, and the overall mood of the electorate. For example, if voters are particularly motivated by concerns about the economy or the direction of the country, it could drive higher turnout among certain groups.
Another factor to consider is the role of voting laws and access to the ballot. In recent years, there has been significant debate over voting rights and election integrity, with some states enacting stricter voting laws and others expanding access to mail-in voting or early voting. These changes could impact voter turnout, particularly among groups that may face more barriers to voting. For example, stricter voting laws in some states could disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters, who tend to favor Democrats, while expanded access to voting could increase turnout among these groups.
The timing of the election and the broader political context could also influence turnout. In the months leading up to the election, major events—such as economic crises, international conflicts, or high-profile political scandals—could sway voter sentiment and turnout. Additionally, the candidates’ messaging and campaign strategies will play a crucial role in shaping voter turnout. Both Harris and Trump will need to focus on mobilizing their base while also appealing to undecided and swing voters in key states.
The bottom line is that turnout is likely to be the key factor in determining the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. As the experiment conducted by the bipartisan polling team demonstrates, relatively small shifts in the demographic makeup of the electorate could have a significant impact in a close race. Whether it is an uptick in female voters, an increase in rural turnout, or a shift in support among college-educated voters, these changes could tip the scales in favor of one candidate or the other.
For both campaigns, the focus in the coming months will be on maximizing turnout among their core constituencies while also targeting key swing groups. The outcome of the election will likely depend on which candidate is better able to mobilize their supporters and persuade undecided voters to show up at the polls. With the race expected to be extremely close in many battleground states, even the smallest changes in voter turnout could determine who becomes the next president.
the 2024 presidential election will likely come down to turnout, particularly in key battleground states where the race is expected to be close. The experiment conducted by the bipartisan polling team shows that small shifts in the demographic composition of the electorate can have a significant impact on the election results. Whether it is a more diverse electorate, higher female turnout, or increased rural voting, these factors will play a crucial role in determining the outcome. As both campaigns work to mobilize their supporters and appeal to undecided voters, the importance of turnout cannot be overstated in what is shaping up to be one of the most closely contested elections in recent history.
