39d
There's been some suggestion by right wingers that turnout was low compared to 2020 only because somehow this election was better "monitored". Obviously, this is just a backhanded way to revive the discredited Trumpian claims that he really, really won in 2020 and only Democratic cheating prevented him from being re-elected.
I decided to do some checking. We can all agree that the difference this year was that Trump carried 6 swing States - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada that he lost in 2020. So, if the claim was correct we would have seen sharp drops in voter turnout in those States.
Here's the numbers in the nearest thousand:
2020
Pennsylvania; 6,915,000
Michigan: 5,539,000
Wisconsin: 3,298,000
Georgia: 4,999,000
Arizona: 3,387,000
Nevada: 1,405,000
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020presgeresults.pdf
2024
Pennsylvania: 7,013,000 + 1.4%
Michigan: 5,655,000 + 2.1%
Wisconsin: 3,415,000 +3.7%
Georgia: 5,252,000 +5.0%
Arizona: 3,363,000 -0.6%
Nevada: 1,484,000 +5.6%
https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/
As you can see, actual turnout was up in every swing State but Arizona and there the drop was less than 1%. In all others, there were more votes cast, in two the increase was more than 5%.
Right wingers like Kelly Jay are going to need a different fairy tale.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 42242
@no1marauder saidSlice it dice it anyway you like, you still lost, that’s all we care about?? Like you, the large majority of the liberals that post here don’t even play chess or have pretend games like wildgrass and spruce. Take a break from the craziness, play some games, pull yourselves together😉.
There's been some suggestion by right wingers that turnout was low compared to 2020 only because somehow this election was better "monitored". Obviously, this is just a backhanded way to revive the discredited Trumpian claims that he really, really won in 2020 and only Democratic cheating prevented him from being re-elected.
I decided to do some checking. We can all ag ...[text shortened]... increase was more than 5%.
Right wingers like Kelly Jay are going to need a different fairy tale.
39d
@mike69 saidRight wingers are the ones posting the claims I mentioned. Just setting the record straight.
Slice it dice it anyway you like, you still lost, that’s all we care about?? Like you, the large majority of the liberals that post here don’t even play chess or have pretend games like wildgrass and spruce. Take a break from the craziness, play some games, pull yourselves together😉.
Unlike right wingers, I can admit when my preferred candidate lost - heck, I don't even have an urge to storm the Capitol or allow those who did to escape scot free - about it.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 42242
@no1marauder saidI haven’t heard that or care, I just feel blessed and relieved you lost. My hopes, prayers, and thoughts are that the country can heal and come together as one.
Right wingers are the ones posting the claims I mentioned. Just setting the record straight.
Unlike right wingers, I can admit when my preferred candidate lost - heck, I don't even have an urge to storm the Capitol or allow those who did to escape scot free - about it.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
@no1marauder saidInteresting. Hugely down on 2020, by around 8 million votes. What’s that, about 5 or 6%? That is quite something considering what was at stake and that the population was up about 6 million (although not sure if that translated into voting age). It indicates the level of engagement in the swing states.
There's been some suggestion by right wingers that turnout was low compared to 2020 only because somehow this election was better "monitored". Obviously, this is just a backhanded way to revive the discredited Trumpian claims that he really, really won in 2020 and only Democratic cheating prevented him from being re-elected.
I decided to do some checking. We can all ag ...[text shortened]... increase was more than 5%.
Right wingers like Kelly Jay are going to need a different fairy tale.
However does the increased turnout in the swing states actually prove your hypothesis about the right wingers claims (not that I agree with them as I don’t know). Wouldn’t that require comparative analysis on Democrat votes in those states 2024 vs 2020 and also the same in the remainder of the states as a control?
39d
@divegeester saidNo, it's not down by 8 million votes. A little over 153 million votes have been counted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election) and there's still about 2 million left on the West Coast (https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/).
Interesting. Hugely down on 2020, by around 8 million votes. What’s that, about 5 or 6%? That is quite something considering what was at stake and that the population was up about 6 million (although not sure if that translated into voting age). It indicates the level of engagement in the swing states.
However does the increased turnout in the swing states actually pr ...[text shortened]... at votes in those states 2024 vs 2020 and also the same in the remainder of the states as a control?
There were about 158.5 million votes cast in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
Turnout in 2018 and 2020 were unusually high and some regression should have been expected. The percentage of eligible voters casting ballots in the midterms dropped about 3.5% from 2018 to 2022. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2022:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout
A 2% or so overall fall in turnout in a Presidential year from 2020 to 2024 isn't shocking and hardly shows anything nefarious. And turnout was up in exactly those States where the stakes were highest which rendered foolish right wing claims that reduced turnout somehow "proves" "cheating" in 2020.
No, the fact that fewer people voted for the Democrat doesn't indicate cheating any more than that fewer voters cast their ballots for the Republican nominee in 2008 than did for the same party's nominee in 2004 or that Barack Obama got about 4 million less votes in 2012 than 2008.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
39d
@no1marauder saidYes, that’s what I said, hugely down by 8 million votes. My first sentence in fact.
No, it's not down by 8 million votes. A little over 153 million votes have been counted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election) and there's still about 2 million left on the West Coast (https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/).
There were about 158.5 million votes cast in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ...[text shortened]... same party's nominee in 2004 or that Barack Obama got about 4 million less votes in 2012 than 2008.
No, I didn’t say numbers being down was evidence of voter fraud. You said numbers up in swing states was evidence there wasn’t voter fraud and I questioned the efficacy of your hypothesis and offered what I thought would be a better data set for analysis.
Are you sure you’re a lawyer Sir, because … really!
@divegeester saidYes, you said voter turnout was down by 8 million, which is an incorrect statement. It will be down about 3.5 million or 2.2% when all the votes are counted.
Yes, that’s what I said, hugely down by 8 million votes. My first sentence in fact.
No, I didn’t say numbers being down was evidence of voter fraud. You said numbers up in swing states was evidence there wasn’t voter fraud and I questioned the efficacy of your hypothesis and offered what I thought would be a better data set for analysis.
Are you sure you’re a lawyer Sir, because … really!
Admitting error isn't your strong point.
No, your proposed "data set" would be "proof" of cheating by Republicans in 2004 or Democrats in 2008 or any time partisan vote totals changed from one election to the next.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
@no1marauder saidI stand corrected on the down by 8 million overall, just a mistake. however I made no claim associated with it. It was just an observation.
Yes, you said voter turnout was down by 8 million, which is an incorrect statement. It will be down about 3.5 million or 2.2% when all the votes are counted.
Admitting error isn't your strong point.
No, your proposed "data set" would be "proof" of cheating by Republicans in 2004 or Democrats in 2008 or any time partisan vote totals changed from one election to the next.
I don’t see how comparing voting numbers of democrats 2020 vs 2024, between those in the swing states and the US overall proves cheating at all by anyone, least of all in historical elections. And yes it would provide a clearer insight into why voting overall was down by 3.2 million overall and yet up in the swing states. The assertions you are making in your OP aren’t supported by the data you have shared.
@divegeester saidWhat "assertion" was I making?
I stand corrected on the down by 8 million overall, just a mistake. however I made no claim associated with it. It was just an observation.
I don’t see how comparing voting numbers of democrats 2020 vs 2024, between those in the swing states and the US overall proves cheating at all by anyone, least of all in historical elections. And yes it would provide a clearer in ...[text shortened]... swing states. The assertions you are making in your OP aren’t supported by the data you have shared.
I was responding to assertions that this year's lower turnout "proves" that Democrats cheated in the election in 2020. Yet, there is no lower turnout in the States that actually decided this election. Ergo, the underlying premise is incorrect and thus cannot be "proof" of the assertion mentioned.
I could do that in symbolic logic if you like.
EDIT: I'll do it anyway.
IF P, then Q
Not P, therefore
Not Q.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
38d
@no1marauder saidThat the higher turnout in the swing states contradicts some Republicans claims that lower turnout overall indicated better voting controls and therefore less cheating.
What "assertion" was I making?
As I said, I found your OP interesting but I don’t think the data you shared supports your hypothesis, for the reasons I gave.
38d
@mike69 saidGood for your feewings, snowflake. 😆
I just feel blessed and relieved
Joe Biden just pulled off a 'soft' landing, reducing inflation without causing inflation. Nice job and NOT an easy task! Now Trump is gonna take that economy and nose-dive it into the dirt.
Because feewings.
Enjoy!
38d
@divegeester saidI can see why you quoted the first sentence of my post and edited out the rest.
That the higher turnout in the swing states contradicts some Republicans claims that lower turnout overall indicated better voting controls and therefore less cheating.
As I said, I found your OP interesting but I don’t think the data you shared supports your hypothesis, for the reasons I gave.
If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore,
Not Q
So yes the data I gave refutes the right wing assertion.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
@no1marauder saidBecause that’s what I was referring to.
I can see why you quoted the first sentence of my post and edited out the rest.
If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore,
Not Q
So yes the data I gave refutes the right wing assertion.
Your junior school ABC of logic doesn’t refute what I’m putting to you, which is that the claim you make in your OP that increased turnout in swing states infers that the Republican’s claim, that the lower turnout overall was due to increased voting process management, is false (albeit false for other reasons). Pointing to turnout in 6 states and conflating the trend in those to the entire US is simply not good statistical analysis and wouldn’t pass the slightest of scrutiny by an election pollster.
38d
@divegeester saidActually the data I presented is exactly and precisely on point. There wasn't lower turnout in the States that decided the election so lower turnout elsewhere is irrelevant to their argument.
Because that’s what I was referring to.
Your junior school ABC of logic doesn’t refute what I’m putting to you, which is that the claim you make in your OP that increased turnout in swing states infers that the Republican’s claim, that the lower turnout overall was due to increased voting process management, is false (albeit false for other reasons). Pointing to turno ...[text shortened]... y not good statistical analysis and wouldn’t pass the slightest of scrutiny by an election pollster.
That you are having difficulty comprehending that fairly obvious point is a flaw in you, not in my data or interpretation of it.