Shor, who is currently leading data science analysis at Blue Rose Research in New York City, recently talked about the election data he and his team collected with Vox senior correspondent Eric Levitz.
One theory from Democrats is that Harris suffered from low voter turnout. They were puzzled by how she could have won when the number of votes for the Democratic candidate decreased from around 81,000,000 to just over 75,000,000.
It was not possible. Turnout was the crucial factor. This argument enables the opposition party to keep complaining about supposed attempts by the GOP to hinder voting.
Take this lead by New York Times political correspondent Michael Bendor, for example:
Voters in liberal strongholds across the country, from city centers to suburban stretches, failed to show up to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris at the levels they had for Joseph R. Biden Jr. four years earlier, contributing significantly to her defeat by Donald J. Trump, according to a New York Times analysis of preliminary election data.
That is not the case, says Shor, after diving deeper into the data, with the benefit of added hindsight.
Shor, described by Levitz as “the most influential data scientist in the Democratic Party,” refutes the theory that voter turnout would have helped give Harris the edge.
“The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of the roughly 1.6+ points],” he explained.
“So, I think that a ‘we need to turn up the temperature and mobilize everyone’ strategy would’ve made things worse.”
Excited to join @ezraklein to talk through what happened in 2024.
There’s a turnout story this cycle, but not the one we’re used to talking about. With less-engaged and less-likely voters becoming more Republican, a larger turnout meant a more GOP electorate. pic.twitter.com/MtqDpIst93
— David Shor (@davidshor) March 18, 2025
