Election day was on November 5, 2024. As millions of Americans ran to the polls to vote, the Associated Press (AP) was getting ready for what it does every election cycle– call races for a candidate. This time, there were 7 swing states–states that historically flip-flop between both parties– that most publications had their eye on: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. The AP can only call races once polls close; the first polls closed at 7 p.m. ET for Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Virginia. 

The first states to get called are always states that have a history of voting Republican or Democrat. These states are known as ‘safe states,’ and their results often get projected as soon as polls close. At 7 p.m., the AP calls began: Kentucky and Indiana were projected for Donald Trump, while Vermont was Kamala Harris’s.  

By 10:10 p.m. the calls were by no means shocking. Harris and Trump both were getting all the safe states that were expected to be in their favor. At that time, Trump was at 198 projected electoral votes, while Harris was at 109 projected electoral votes. 

The first AP call to note was North Carolina at 11:18 p.m. North Carolina went to Trump, marking his first swing state win that night, and increasing his projected electoral tally to 230, a growing lead from Harris’s 179. In North Carolina, Harris had performed worse than Biden did in 2020. Although Trump carried the state all 3 times he ran for office, Trump led by a 2.8% this time around compared to his 1% lead in 2020. Also, Republican turnout increased while Democrat turnout decreased. 

By midnight on November 6, when Hawaii was projected for Harris, the tallies were closer at 209 for Harris and still at 230 for Trump.

Trump would expand his lead, however, later that night. At 12:58 a.m., Georgia was called for Trump. Trump was doing better in red counties, while Harris was underperforming in dense population centers like Fulton County. Trump was able to slightly improve his margins in enough counties to prevent another Democratic win. This projection put Trump at 246 electoral votes, only 24 away from the coveted 270.  

The next big upset for the Democrats was the AP projection for Pennsylvania. At 2:24 a.m., Pennsylvania was projected for Trump. After Biden flipped the state blue in 2020, Trump flipped it back by expanding most of his margins in almost every county, even in deep-blue Philadelphia. A very important part of that projection came from his larger margins in suburbs and in rural areas. This projection put Trump at 267 electoral votes, while Harris was at 214.

At 5:34 a.m. came the big news of the night: Donald Trump would become the 47th president of the United States after the AP projected he would win Wisconsin, pushing him to 277 electoral votes. Harris underperformed compared to Biden’s performance in Wisconsin in 2020; she trailed behind him in every part of the state.

Trump ended up securing all the major swing states, winning Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona after the AP projected his Wisconsin win. Again, Harris was unable to match Biden’s margins in these key swing states. The final electoral tally would be 226 for Harris and 312 for Trump, handing Trump a decisive return to the White House.

Eastside wanted to interview how East students felt about the results of the 2024 presidential election. The video was shot in early December and showcases a wide variety of opinions from all grade levels at East.

In prior elections, New Jersey revealed a consistent political forecast of blue skies. However, in 2024, clouds assailed over portions of the previously familiar blue bastion, replacing it with a streak of red. 

By defeating President Donald Trump in New Jersey, former Vice President Kamala Harris seized 14 electoral votes, rendering her the eighth consecutive Democrat to win New Jersey as a presidential candidate. Along with surprising many by securing every single battleground state, Trump added to the red wave after losing by only 5.9 percentage points in New Jersey, receiving 46.1% of the state’s vote compared to Harris’s 52%. Previously, former President Bill Clinton’s 2.4-point lead over George H.W. Bush in 1992 was New Jersey’s closest race. Aside from the tight margin in 1992, New Jersey has remained a Democratic stronghold for numerous elections, most recently with former President Joe Biden defeating Trump by 16.9 percentage points in 2020 and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defeating Trump by 14.1 percentage points in 2016.

In Camden County, Harris earned 63% of the vote versus Trump’s 35.5%. Several traditionally blue counties in Central and Northern Jersey shifted more Republican than Camden County, but even the 27.5-point margin in Camden County was narrower than in previous elections. After all, Biden’s 2020 campaign won Camden County by 33.6 percentage points, and Hillary Clinton triumphed by 28.8 percentage points in 2016. 

Such shifts reflect broader changes across New Jersey, primarily driven by economic pressures that have increasingly defined the state’s political landscape. Even in 1980, economic factors played a significant role in influencing voters’ decisions, as former President Ronald Reagan’s decisive victory in the presidential election was rooted largely in widespread frustration with the nation’s economic turmoil under the late and former President Jimmy Carter. Despite Carter’s later recognition as a compassionate leader who stewarded environmental causes and human rights, his presidency was ultimately derailed by persistent economic challenges and the prolonged humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis. The decision to not reelect an incumbent administration grappling with inflation resurfaced in 2024. Facing a spiraling economy and concerns over their financial stability, many voters turned to Trump, whose campaign promised a return to the economic prosperity many believed existed during his first term. In particular, these economic constraints played a substantial role in tightening New Jersey’s ordinary blue landslide. After all, according to RentCafe, living in New Jersey costs 11% more than the national average. Similarly, housing and utilities are 30% and 10% higher than their respective national averages. Inflation has only added to these economic concerns. From 2019 to 2024, grocery prices and gas prices increased by 28% and 27.5%, respectively. Therefore, given national economic circumstances and its impact in New Jersey, it may not be much of a surprise that the typical “safe state,” generally guaranteed to vote for Democrat candidates by an overwhelming margin, closed in on that gap this time around. 

Of course, the narrowing voter margins between Democrats and Republicans may not be rooted entirely in voters’ support for Republican candidates; rather, it may stem from their lack of support for the Democratic nominees. Approximately 7% fewer New Jersey residents participated in the 2024 presidential election compared to 2020, with an estimated 63% turnout of registered voters. Additionally, the 2024 election saw an increase in votes for third-party candidates, with around 26,000 more votes cast for such candidates relative to 2020. Perhaps this election was an anomaly, but the decreased voter turnout and support over third-party candidates suggests that New Jersey’s status as a Democratic guarantee may no longer be as assured as it once was.

As the 2024 election comes to a close, New Jersey’s status in elections remains unsettled. Was this a temporary disruption in a long-standing blue streak, or was it a sign of drastic shifts within the state’s electorate? Are we witnessing a momentary change brought on by economic strain or a broader reflection of dissatisfaction with the political system? Regardless, one thing is clear: the once-steadfast Democratic stronghold of New Jersey is now facing critical questions about its future direction.

Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes were a crucial part of the 2024 U.S. presidential election between Democratic candidate former Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican opponent President Donald Trump. In the 2020 election, Pennsylvania was a key state to set 46th President Joe Biden ahead after having flipped the previously Republican state in the 2016 election. In this year’s election, the outcome from Pennsylvania was particularly significant, with the two major parties putting substantial effort into securing different parts of the state for their support. 

The largest city in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia contributed greatly to how the outcome of the state would go. The African American population and growing Latino communities in Philadelphia were pivotal for the Democrats in this election, both having long-lasting support of Democratic candidates. However, according to a report from WHYY, voting complicated itself further, with working-class and Latino voters showing increased support for Trump. Despite this shift, Philadelphia remained predominantly Democratic.

The city of Philadelphia is divided into multiple divisions that spread across the city. These divisions are further divided into 66 wards across the large city, covering every neighborhood in the area. Out of the 66 wards, Trump won five with a total of 144,311 votes (20%), and the rest going to Harris, who ultimately pulled out a win in the area with 568,571 votes (78.8%), 424,260 more than Trump, a margin of over 58%. 

The suburban counties in Philadelphia– such as Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester– had noticeable political shifts. Once considered to be strongly and reliably Republican, the counties have trended more Democratic, in part due to the growing number of college-educated workers and women’s concerns regarding healthcare and education. In general, the suburbs in Pennsylvania have become a notable battleground. Both parties courted the votes from the suburbs, and suburban voters decided whether the state stayed in the hands of the Democratic Party or flipped to the Republicans in 2024. 

For us in Cherry Hill, New Jersey– just over the Delaware River from Philadelphia– Pennsylvanian politics influence us in many ways. Historically, Cherry Hill leaned Democratic, but it shared the political changes that took place in Philadelphia, as many other close suburban areas did. The proximity of Cherry Hill to Philadelphia meant the political dynamics in both areas ran parallel to each other.  

In the 2024 election, Donald Trump won 50.4% of the Pennsylvania vote, totaling 3,543,308 votes, while Kamala Harris secured 48.6% of Pennsylvania with 3,423,042 votes, putting Trump ahead by 120,266 votes in the state. This outcome in Pennsylvania, combined with victories in all of the other battleground states, secured Trump’s reelection win. 

In the end, Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes were an important deciding factor in the presidential election of 2024, leading to the victory of President Donald Trump. Pennsylvania also kept its status as a bellwether state, a state that votes for the candidate that ends up winning. The final tally in the race to 270 electoral votes showed Trump securing 312 electoral votes, while Harris received 226, ultimately declaring the 2024 presidential election in favor of the Republican Party and naming Trump the 47th President of the United States. 

A successful presidential campaign requires a team behind the scenes to facilitate different activities that help candidates gain momentum. Election campaign workers appointed by political parties are assets in this matter, aiding their respective political parties by fundraising, working at voting centers, conversing with voters, and more. 

A longtime Cherry Hill resident, Avittathur Sangameswaran is one such campaign worker for the Democratic party. He began working for the party in 2008 for Former President Barack Obama, traveling door-to-door in Philadelphia to talk to people about the election. 16 years later, he transitioned to electronic communication with voters via texts, emails, and phone calls in support of 2024 Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris.

Sangameswaran attributes the shift of communicating through technology to convenience and a greater generational online presence following COVID-19. Utilizing technology also allowed for a greater reach and therefore increased the potentiality of more conversation. 

Reflecting on his experience talking with voters, Sangameswaran notes that disinformation—the intentional spreading of false or exaggerated information that causes voters to be swayed through illegitimate data—was rampant and hindered open communication. 

Disinformation can have numerous consequences for elections including manipulating many voters. Social media does not help with this problem due to the ease with which false news can be spread on platforms and its lack of adequate regulation. 

“I have been seeing social media [has] a tremendous influence on elections…youngsters are not looking for any more information than what is available on a two [by] four inch phone. And the fake news somehow attracts more attention than real news,” Sangameswaran said. 

An important trend in the 2024 election was the growing role of media targeted towards younger populations. Many celebrities have already utilized social media to advocate the importance of voting to their followers in past elections. This election, however, many celebrities and influencers alike openly expressed their political stance on their respective platforms. This has its positives and negatives, with more followers likely to express interest in politics but also more likely to risk encountering disinformation.

Therefore, Sangameswaran believes political education during youth is important for voters to develop their own opinions separate from the ideologies they are exposed to in their environments. He encourages younger generations to become politically aware by seeking information from different news platforms to avoid bias and learning more about the political history of our country. Furthermore, participating in enrichment activities like Model UN, an opportunity for students to roleplay as delegates to the United Nations, allows students to learn more about civics. 

“[Model UN] exposes them to the world, to the various political systems,” he said. 

According to Sangameswaran, another significant characteristic of the 2024 election was the polarization of voters. Sangameswaran recalls how many voters he contacted refused to learn more or seek clarification on a given political subject. 

“A stage [had] come [when] voters have [made] up their minds,” said Sangeameswaran. 

Sangameswaran found that the voters he talked to were unwilling to have respectful discourse. Specifically, Sangamamweran notes that many voters he reached out to were verbally disrespectful. The stakes of this election were high for both the Democratic and Republican parties, but basic respect for campaign workers who seek to inform should go without saying. 

“They abuse you as if you are [the] enemy,” said Sangameswaran.

The next four years of America will inevitably be a time for change and adjustment throughout the country. Although political disagreement may seem intimidating, it is important to always show respect regardless of the circumstance. America’s founding principles of liberty and free will still hold relevance and should serve as a foundation for embracing political discussion while continuing to show regard for others’ beliefs.  

“I hope the system protects democracy [with] checks and balances,” Sangameswaran said, contemplating the next four years of our country.

Campaign work is just as important for the Republican party as it is for the Democratic party. No matter what side of the political spectrum, campaign workers are the often-forgotten key to a successful campaign. 

I talked to a Republican campaign worker and a Republican candidate in our community, Jeffrey Land (‘75), and Judi Giacoboni-Russo. 

Land is an East alumnus from the graduating class of 1975 and has worked with many candidates on both the local level in Cherry Hill and on the national level. Notably, he was the campaign coordinator of former Cherry Hill mayor John Rocco and consequently the chief legislative aide for Rocco once he became an assemblyman of the New Jersey General Assembly. Rocco served for 18 years from January 1980 through January 1998; Land continued working with Rocco for his first 10 years. Currently, Land is in his third tenure as chairman of the recently re-established Cherry Hill Republicans.

“I remember looking up telephone numbers for Richard Nixon,” said Land, recounting some of his first experiences as a campaign worker. 

Giacoboni-Russo ran for town council twice in the last year and a half. Her first time running in 2023 included a half-year campaign while her second time running in this past election in 2024 included a full-year campaign. While she did lose both bids, her 2024 bid made more of a mark on the community: she was able to meet with many Cherry Hill residents and establish her platform. Now, she plans to volunteer more, starting with an organization dedicated to funding cancer treatment research called Pennies in Action. 

“We met a tremendous amount of people, and we had the same values as they did: we want to make Cherry Hill great again,” said Giacoboni-Russo.   

  The importance of getting involved in the community was a point that both Land and Giacoboni-Russo brought up in our discussions– something that is unfortunately being taken away through the use of social media and technology. 

“You’re not really, as you say, ‘pressing the flesh’ as much anymore,” said Land. “I think you learn more from looking a person in the eye and seeing how hard they shake their hand.”

“You have got to get out there and meet the people; you can’t just do emails, you can’t just do Facebook posts and things like that,” said Giacoboni-Russo. 

While social media is certainly beneficial, and often required these days for an effective candidacy, meeting people live evokes a more personal connection. Giacoboni-Russo emphasized the need for people to know who they live in proximity with, whether it be people living in their own household or neighbors.

This deficit in personal connections can be made up through activities like volunteering and participating in local events and fundraisers to be more engaged in the community, especially by the younger generations just acquiring their right to vote. Plus, volunteering with local political groups like the Young Republicans can flourish into an even larger career in politics.

“Even if it’s not with the Republican party, start to volunteer with things that are going to make New Jersey and the US better,” said Giacoboni-Russo. 

Both of these campaign workers have lived either their entire lives or most of their lives in Cherry Hill. Cherry Hill has a long, diverse history, originating from when the township was first called Waterford Township in 1695, then Delaware Township in 1844, and finally Cherry Hill. The political scene in Cherry Hill has changed greatly during these long time periods. When Land moved into town in the 60s, John Gilmour was mayor– a Republican who also owned the iconic Holly Ravine Farm. 

“Things have changed in Cherry Hill to the extent that it kind of mirrors what’s going on nationally. Right now, nationally, inner-ring suburbs, like Cherry Hill that are closer to a large city like Philadelphia, are trending more blue,” said Land. 

Cherry Hill is now markedly Democratic; we have a Democratic mayor, David Fleisher, currently in office, and the last time a Republican won council seat was in 1991. 

“We’re polling somewhere between 30 and 45% of the vote…whereas we used to poll 55 and 60% back in the 60s,” said Land. 

As politics shifts over time in Cherry Hill, so does New Jersey as a whole. 2024 election analysis of voting data clearly shows that the Republican party performed better than in the 2020 election. In New Jersey, that holds true. Some strong Democrat municipalities are switching sides and voting Republican. When asked about their thoughts on the possibility of New Jersey potentially becoming a future swing state, both workers said they think it could happen. 

“I believe we will turn red, I really do,” said Giacoboni-Russo, “because I think people are waking up.”

“I think you might even see a very close governor race coming up in 2025…both parties have got a strong slate of people that are running,” said Land, adding that New Jersey does not stay with one party for their governor for more than 8 to 12 years. 

Generally, politics in America have gotten much more polarized than in previous years, and that naturally extends to New Jersey and Cherry Hill. The importance of the party itself sometimes takes precedence over the actual ideas that candidates may be campaigning for. People often come to assumptions about a candidate just based on what party they are campaigning under. 

“When I was campaigning…one of the first questions they’d ask me [was], ‘Well are you a Republican or a Democrat?’ and I would say, ‘Why does that make a difference?’ I am here for Cherry Hill,” said Giacoboni-Russo. 

While there may be less Republican representation in political jobs in town, Cherry Hill never stopped having right-leaning people, and it is important to consider their concerns when addressing issues within the community. Cooperating with our neighbors and coming to terms is a fundamental part of keeping the township in good condition for everyone, no matter what their political beliefs are. 

“Your participation in politics helps make…change, even [if] you don’t win the election,” said Land.

Election polling has a history of inconsistent accuracy, especially in recent presidential elections. 

The 2016 results shocked the nation, the 2020 results had the most inaccurate polling in four decades, many recent midterm polls have been misleading, and the 2024 election was not the extremely close race pollsters predicted it was. 

Despite predictions of a “dead heat” and “neck-to-neck” race, Donald J. Trump secured a comfortable victory with 312 electoral votes to Kamala Harris’s 226. The President also earned 2.3 million more votes than Harris, narrowly missing the 50% mark in popular vote. Trump’s success was largely attributed to unexpected surges in voter turnout in swing states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, which had been considered toss-ups in pre-election polling but ultimately swung in his favor. 

This outcome highlights the complexities of polling, which go beyond simply sending surveys to a random group of people and compiling responses. Professional pollsters working for campaigns often create multimodal polls–surveys that gather information through various methods like phone interviews, online surveys, and in-person interviews–to ensure a more representative sample. On the other hand, the media outlets producing many of the public polls seen online often lack the funding to conduct the same level of research that reflects public opinion. 

A high-quality poll relies on a sample that accurately represents the demographics of the entire population, with factors such as age, race, gender, education, and region carefully weighted to mirror the overall population’s composition. Still, creating such sophisticated polls is both costly and logistically challenging. To overcome these obstacles, pollsters utilize techniques such as quotas and statistical weighting to better align poll results with the population they aim to represent. By using quotas, pollsters ensure demographic groups are adequately represented in samples, while statistical weighting further adjusts the responses to reflect their actual proportion in the population. 

Even with these measures, polling inaccuracy remains a persistent issue. 

Several factors contribute to the inaccuracy of polls. One major factor is the declining response rate. To collect representative data, the people from the sample need to respond to polls. In the late 20th century, there was around a 60% response rate from randomly dialed landlines. However, with recent technological changes—such as caller ID, texting and the increase in spam calls—people are more reluctant to answer the phone or text messages from unfamiliar numbers.

Today, response rates have plummeted to alarmingly low levels. For instance, even the well-known New York Times/Siena College poll now garners only about a 1% response rate. Such low participation rates cause the randomness of the sample to no longer be representative of the total population. Without sufficient diversity and randomness in responses, poll results are prone to significant bias and inaccuracy. 

Moreover, the polling errors in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections may be partly due to nonresponse bias, where certain demographics are less likely to participate in surveys. Historically, Democrats have been more likely to respond to polling than Republicans or Trump supporters, which has led to an underestimation of Republican support. 

Yet, polling challenges extend beyond just limited participation. Unexpected shifts in voter turnout or behavior, such as late-deciding voters or the “shy voter effect”—where individuals avoid revealing their true political preferences—can also skew results. For example, in 2016, 88% of national polls overestimated Hillary Clinton’s support, and in 2020, 93% did the same for Joe Biden. 

The Pew Research Center points out another significant issue: the true margin of error is twice as large as what pollsters report, leading people to overestimate the accuracy of polls. Although pollsters report margins of error typically ranging from 3% to 4%, the actual margin is closer to around 6% or 7%, according to a 2016 study from The New York Times. 

Unsurprisingly, pollsters faced backlash after incorrectly predicting an extremely close race that ultimately did not pan out. Their projections, which had suggested narrow margins, turned out to be incorrect as the actual results revealed a more decisive outcome. Following major polling errors in the 2016 and 2020 elections, public confidence in the credibility of polls had already declined significantly.

Since their emergence in the 1930s, public opinion polls have continually changed to keep up with technological and societal shifts. While pollsters have continued to make adjustments to navigate new challenges, the true effectiveness of these adjustments often becomes clear only after election results come in. Historically, polling errors have varied in both magnitude and direction, sometimes overestimating support for Democrats and other times for Republicans. Ultimately, polling cannot predict the future with certainty, but it can help provide a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of public sentiment in the present.