Thanks for the analysis
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
48 points (94.4% liked)
Political Discussion and Commentary
189 readers
176 users here now
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
You need to compare percentages of votes to determine performance between elections. The size of the voting population grows, so the raw numbers should be higher.
Kinda. If one candidate capitalizes on the growth better than the other, then OPs thesis still stands.
I'm one of those people. I'm glad to see that more votes are coming in, and the margin compared to 2020 is smaller. Still, it's too large. If 81M people had shown up for Kamala, it would have beaten even Trump's increased numbers.
The Biden/Harris campaign raised over a billion dollars this cycle. They couldn't use that to ensure turnout was higher than during a pandemic? Why should we give them any money at all?
If 71+ million people hadn't shown up for Trump, he wouldn't have won either.
It actually was higher in most swing states which are the only ones that matter in a US election. She outperformed Biden in most of them.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make elsewhere (e.g. https://lemmy.world/comment/13326636 )
As you say, turnout was high where it mattered, but there was more red than blue. The part I don't get, is why there was more red than blue, and vote suppression doesn't seem to have had much effect considering how high the blue numbers are.
Btw, curious as to your sources for those numbers. I have no reason to dispute the accuracy or anything, I'm just wondering so I can refresh that page for myself when the counting is finally done.
It kinda looks like the entire election came down to Pennsylvania alone. Except even if she had Biden's 2020 numbers, it would have been insufficient (unless Trump likewise had Trump's 2020 numbers).
Beyond that, other stuff would have mattered only if Pennsylvania would have been won?
So the apathy argument is valid, but only for that one state's electoral college votes? Which ended up turning the tide, but still means that it's not due to people in blue states everywhere?
Well, maybe I missed something, it's just a thought. Also, hindsight can be 20/20 but foresight is rarely thus.