this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
46 points (94.2% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

230 readers
65 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:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. 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 3 months ago
MODERATORS
laverabe@lemmy.world
46
Harris could've matched Bidens 2020 vote total in every single swing state and she still would've lost the election. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 weeks ago by FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

[This is not an Original Post, But a Repost]

I've seen this narrative going around recently saying "16 million people didn't show up and that's why she lost" and it's wrong for two reasons.

1, Half of California hasn't even been counted yet. By the time we're done counting, we're going to have much closer vote counts to 2020. I'd assume Trump around 76-77 million and Kamala around 73 million. This would mean about 6-7 million people didn't show up not 18 million.

2. Trump is outperforming Biden 2020 by a pretty significant Margin in swing states, lets look:

Wisconsin:

2020 Biden: 1,631,000 votes

2020 Trump: 1,610,000 votes

2024 Trump: 1,697,000 votes.

2024 Harris: 1,668,000 votes.

Michigan:

2020 Biden: 2,800,000 votes

2020 Trump: 2,649,000 votes

2024: Trump: 2,795,000

2024 Harris: 2,714,000

Pennsylvania:

2020 Biden: 3,460,000 votes

2020 Trump: 3,378,000 votes.

2024 Trump: 3,473,000 votes

2024: Harris: 3,339,000 votes

North Carolina:

2020 Biden: 2,684,000 votes

2020 Trump: 2,759,000 votes

2024 Trump: 2,876,000 votes

2024 Harris: 2,685,000 votes.

Georgia:

2020 Biden: 2,474,000 votes

2020 Trump: 2,461,000 votes

2024 Trump: 2,653,000 votes

2024 Harris: 2,539,000 votes.

Arizona and Nevada still too early to tell, but as you can see, if Trumps support remained completely stagnate from 2020, Harris would've carried 3/7 swing states with a shot to flip Pennsylvania too. Moreover, if she had maintained Bidens vote count in swing states she would've lost most states even harder with the exception of maybe flipping Michigan and Pennsylvania being closer than it was. These appear to be the only states with a genuine argument for apathy/protest votes.

The turn out is NOT lower where it actually matters. The news articles that said swing states had record turn out were genuinely correct, you were just wrong for thinking it was democrats and not republicans. Almost all the popular vote bleeding comes from solid blue states deciding not to vote and it would not have changed the outcome of this election if they did show up to vote.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blaze 17 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for the analysis

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Kinda. If one candidate capitalizes on the growth better than the other, then OPs thesis still stands.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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?

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

If 71+ million people hadn't shown up for Trump, he wouldn't have won either.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 10 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.