TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Voter data for 2024 election indicates Trump did not win the election and the results were fixed.

Fact Check: Voter data for 2024 election indicates Trump did not win the election and the results were fixed.

May 29, 2025•by TruthOrFake AI
✗
VERDICT
False

# The Claim: "Voter data for 2024 election indicates Trump did not win the election and the results were fixed." ## Introduction The claim in questio...

The Claim: "Voter data for 2024 election indicates Trump did not win the election and the results were fixed."

Introduction

The claim in question suggests that voter data from the 2024 election indicates that Donald Trump did not win and that the results were manipulated. This assertion raises significant questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the validity of the reported outcomes. To evaluate this claim, we will examine the available data and analyses regarding the 2024 presidential election results, as well as the sources from which this information is derived.

What We Know

  1. Voter Turnout and Registration: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 73.6% of the citizen voting-age population was registered to vote in the 2024 election, with a turnout of 65.3% 1. This data provides a baseline understanding of voter engagement in the election.

  2. Official Election Results: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) released official results indicating that Donald Trump received a significant number of electoral votes, leading to his victory in the election 3. This document lists the electoral votes cast for Trump and his opponent, Kamala Harris.

  3. Comparative Analysis: Reports from various media outlets, including the Washington Post and CNN, provide analyses comparing the 2020 and 2024 election results. These analyses focus on voter demographics, turnout, and shifts in support between the two elections 58.

  4. Voter Data Analysis: Catalist, a data analytics firm, published a report analyzing the 2024 election results, noting that Trump garnered support from less engaged voters, which contributed to his victory 68. This analysis is based on publicly available voter-file data and precinct-level election results.

  5. Fact-Checking Reports: A fact-check by Reuters addressed claims regarding the manipulation of Google search results related to voting, asserting that there was no evidence to support the idea that the search engine favored one candidate over another 4.

Analysis

The sources available present a mixed picture regarding the claim that Trump did not win and that the results were fixed.

  • Credibility of Sources: The U.S. Census Bureau and the FEC are considered reliable sources of official data, as they are government agencies tasked with collecting and reporting electoral statistics. Their data is typically subject to rigorous methodologies and standards. However, the interpretation of these results can vary based on the political leanings of the analysts involved.

  • Media Reports: Outlets like the Washington Post and CNN are reputable news organizations, but they may have editorial biases that influence how they present information. For instance, while they provide valuable analyses, their framing of the results could reflect a particular narrative that aligns with their audience's expectations.

  • Catalist's Report: While Catalist is known for its data-driven analyses, it is essential to consider their potential biases. As a firm that often works with Democratic clients, their interpretations may lean towards highlighting factors that favor Democratic narratives.

  • Fact-Checking: The Reuters fact-check serves as a counterpoint to claims of manipulation, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing such assertions. However, the effectiveness of fact-checking can depend on the transparency of the methodologies used and the potential for bias in the interpretation of data.

  • Methodological Concerns: The claim that results were "fixed" lacks specific evidence and relies on assertions rather than documented proof. To substantiate such a claim, one would need access to detailed data, including voting irregularities, discrepancies in reported results, or evidence of coordinated efforts to manipulate outcomes.

What Additional Information Would Be Helpful

To further evaluate the claim, additional information that could be beneficial includes:

  • Detailed analyses from independent electoral observers or organizations that specialize in election integrity.
  • Access to precinct-level voting data to identify any anomalies or patterns that could suggest manipulation.
  • Comparative studies of voter behavior and turnout across different demographics and regions to understand shifts in support.
  • Transparency regarding the methodologies used by organizations like Catalist to ensure their analyses are robust and unbiased.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that voter data from the 2024 election indicates that Donald Trump did not win and that the results were fixed is unsupported by credible evidence. Official results from the Federal Election Commission confirm Trump's victory, and analyses from reputable sources indicate that he garnered significant support from voters. While there are concerns about potential biases in the interpretation of data, the assertion of a fixed election lacks specific evidence and relies on unsubstantiated claims.

It is important to note that while the available evidence does not support the claim, the political landscape can be complex, and interpretations of data may vary. The limitations of the current evidence include the absence of detailed investigations into alleged irregularities and the need for independent verification of claims regarding election integrity.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider multiple perspectives when assessing claims related to electoral outcomes.

Sources

  1. U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). 2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available. Link
  2. The American Presidency Project. (2024). Link
  3. Federal Election Commission. (2024). PDF Official 2024 Presidential General Election Results. Link
  4. Reuters. (2024). Fact Check: Google results on voting for Harris and Trump fixed. Link
  5. Washington Post. (2024). Analysis | How the 2020 Trump-Biden election results compare with 2024. Link
  6. Catalist. (2024). WHAT HAPPENED IN 2024. Link
  7. Vox. (2024). How Donald Trump won the 2024 election. Link
  8. CNN. (2025). Less engaged voters were key to Trump's 2024 victory, new analysis finds. Link
  9. Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). The 2024 Election by the Numbers. Link
  10. CBS News. (2024). See data for key 2024 election results across the U.S. Link

Got your own claim to verify? It's 100% Free!

Join thousands who trust our AI-powered fact-checking. Completely free with no registration required. Your claim could be the next important truth we uncover.

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Voter data indicates Trump's victory at election was fixed.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Voter data indicates Trump's victory at election was fixed.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Voter data indicates Trump's victory at election was fixed.

May 29, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Was the 2020 U.S. presidential election stolen from Donald Trump through widespread voter fraud?
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Was the 2020 U.S. presidential election stolen from Donald Trump through widespread voter fraud?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Was the 2020 U.S. presidential election stolen from Donald Trump through widespread voter fraud?...

Apr 30, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Mostly False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Conservatives Announce Plan to Protect Canada’s Fisheries After the Lost Liberal Decade, Conservatives will stop the chaos and put Canadian fishers first - for a change. April 16, 2025 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE West Dover, NS — Today, Rick Perkins, Conservative Candidate for South Shore—St. Margarets, and Chris D’Entremont, Conservative Candidate for Acadie-Annapolis, announced the Conservative plan to protect Canadian fisheries. A new Conservative government will put science first, restore law and order and protect harvester rights. Conservatives will restore sustainable fisheries and ensure fairness in Canada’s coastal communities. “During the Lost Liberal Decade, the government has failed Canada’s fish harvesters. They’ve ignored science, weakened enforcement, and stolen quota from law-abiding Canadians,” said Perkins. “Now they want a fourth term to do more damage. Enough is enough. We need to uphold principles of conservation and preserve sustainable access so we can protect our shared resource for future generations.” The Auditor General has confirmed that under the Liberals’ watch, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) cannot collect reliable catch data—crippling its ability to protect fish stocks and manage our fisheries sustainably. Meanwhile, DFO bureaucrats ignore the real-world experience of Canadian harvesters, creating a growing disconnect between science and what’s happening on the water. According to a 2024 Nanos poll, 98% of Maritime Fishermen’s Union members cite unregulated fishing as the number one threat to their ability to earn a living. Out-of-season and undocumented harvesting continues to rise due to the Liberals’ refusal to enforce the rules. Worse still, the sixth Liberal Fisheries Minister in ten years expropriated quota from legal elver harvesters, without compensation, sending shockwaves across the fishing industry. Harvesters worry they’ll be next. The Conservatives' Canada First Fisheries Plan will: Put Science First: A Conservative Government will return to completing appropriate assessments and monitoring of Canada’s fishery stocks so better and more timely management decisions for fish harvesters can be determined to allow the industry to prepare for the upcoming fishing season. Restore Law and Order: Conservatives will restore the sustainability of the Atlantic fishery by ensuring that fishing is allowed only in accordance with DFO regulations. Protect Harvester Rights – Conservatives will uphold the principle of Willing Buyer/Willing Seller so that if new entrants access quota or fishing rights, it be purchased at fair market value from existing license holders who are willing to sell. Fishing access obtained through this policy must be managed by DFO with clear conservation objectives based on science. “Canada’s fish harvesters follow the rules, and they deserve a government that respects their rights—not one that steals their livelihoods. All harvesting must be in accordance with the rules and only people with permission, licences, and quota can do the fishing,” said D’Entremont. “This election is a choice. We can’t afford a fourth term of more Liberal chaos. We need a new Conservative government that brings back common sense and puts Canadians First–For a Change.” Conservatives have a plan to bring back control over our natural resources, restore fairness and order, and protect the fishery for future generations. O Sleep Country Canada Sponsored ·

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Conservatives Announce Plan to Protect Canada’s Fisheries After the Lost Liberal Decade, Conservativ...

Apr 16, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Mostly False

Fact Check: Conservatives Announce Plan to Protect Canada’s Fisheries After the Lost Liberal Decade, Conservatives will stop the chaos and put Canadian fishers first - for a change. April 16, 2025 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE West Dover, NS — Today, Rick Perkins, Conservative Candidate for South Shore—St. Margarets, and Chris D’Entremont, Conservative Candidate for Acadie-Annapolis, announced the Conservative plan to protect Canadian fisheries. A new Conservative government will put science first, restore law and order and protect harvester rights. Conservatives will restore sustainable fisheries and ensure fairness in Canada’s coastal communities. “During the Lost Liberal Decade, the government has failed Canada’s fish harvesters. They’ve ignored science, weakened enforcement, and stolen quota from law-abiding Canadians,” said Perkins. “Now they want a fourth term to do more damage. Enough is enough. We need to uphold principles of conservation and preserve sustainable access so we can protect our shared resource for future generations.” The Auditor General has confirmed that under the Liberals’ watch, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) cannot collect reliable catch data—crippling its ability to protect fish stocks and manage our fisheries sustainably. Meanwhile, DFO bureaucrats ignore the real-world experience of Canadian harvesters, creating a growing disconnect between science and what’s happening on the water. According to a 2024 Nanos poll, 98% of Maritime Fishermen’s Union members cite unregulated fishing as the number one threat to their ability to earn a living. Out-of-season and undocumented harvesting continues to rise due to the Liberals’ refusal to enforce the rules. Worse still, the sixth Liberal Fisheries Minister in ten years expropriated quota from legal elver harvesters, without compensation, sending shockwaves across the fishing industry. Harvesters worry they’ll be next. The Conservatives' Canada First Fisheries Plan will: Put Science First: A Conservative Government will return to completing appropriate assessments and monitoring of Canada’s fishery stocks so better and more timely management decisions for fish harvesters can be determined to allow the industry to prepare for the upcoming fishing season. Restore Law and Order: Conservatives will restore the sustainability of the Atlantic fishery by ensuring that fishing is allowed only in accordance with DFO regulations. Protect Harvester Rights – Conservatives will uphold the principle of Willing Buyer/Willing Seller so that if new entrants access quota or fishing rights, it be purchased at fair market value from existing license holders who are willing to sell. Fishing access obtained through this policy must be managed by DFO with clear conservation objectives based on science. “Canada’s fish harvesters follow the rules, and they deserve a government that respects their rights—not one that steals their livelihoods. All harvesting must be in accordance with the rules and only people with permission, licences, and quota can do the fishing,” said D’Entremont. “This election is a choice. We can’t afford a fourth term of more Liberal chaos. We need a new Conservative government that brings back common sense and puts Canadians First–For a Change.” Conservatives have a plan to bring back control over our natural resources, restore fairness and order, and protect the fishery for future generations. O Sleep Country Canada Sponsored ·

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Conservatives Announce Plan to Protect Canada’s Fisheries After the Lost Liberal Decade, Conservativ...

Apr 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Exclusion of Trump in Oregon voters' pamphlet is proof of election interference
False

Fact Check: Exclusion of Trump in Oregon voters' pamphlet is proof of election interference

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Exclusion of Trump in Oregon voters' pamphlet is proof of election interference

Apr 30, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks