I looked and couldn’t find it. Biden got 81 mil in 2020 while Kamala received 68. 13 mil less than Biden. Why and where did those votes go? Give Trump the 2 mil increase from 72 to 74 and you still have 11 million that voted for someone beside T or K, or they just didn’t vote. Say half were pubs and you still hand 5.5 mil dems. I doubt registrations were less in 2024 vs 2020. That’s it for me on this subject Have a good evening.
Your numbers are off. Here's a rounded approximation of the biggest changes; 2020 Vote totals : D - 81m R - 74m 2024 Vote totals : D - 75m R - 77m - In 2024 Trump gained appx 14% more of the appx 16 million Latino voters. That's a shift of appx 2 million votes. - In 2024 Trump gained appx 7% more of the appx 16 million Black voters. That's a shift of appx 1 million votes. That net total, applied to 2020 numbers would result in; D - 78m R - 77m for the 2024 election. However, KH received 75m votes to Trump's 77m, while overall turnout was down 2 million from 2020. My numbers have rounding error, but does it make sense that all of the non-voters in 2024 had previously voted Dem? Of course not - a probably significant number of voters switched from D in 2020 to R in 2024. Conclusion : Trump clearly gained in certain demographics (those above, and others), and clearly with independent voters overall. In short, the narrative that KH lost because Dem voters stayed home is clearly false.
Harris's weakest demographics during her Senate election were young and/or unmarried men and Hispanics. (EDIT: the campaign likely erroneously thought this was because her opponent was a centrist Latina and as for young/unmarried men, most Dems not named "Obama" regard us with somewhere between utter indifference and mild disdain.) These are also the demographics shifting red the fastest overall and the Harris campaign did nothing to stop the bleeding. Instead, Harris thought that some millions of centrists (particularly, pro- small-d democracy pro-choice middle-class women who usually can't be bothered to vote -- or folks who are at least in a majority of those categories) would decide Trump was more extreme and vote for her. In reality, voters who thought both candidates were too extreme broke to Trump by 40+ points.
See the numbers in my prior response to you. I can wrap this up to. But the obvious conclusion is; - Voters (very very sadly) bought the message Trump was selling and voted accordingly. The conclusion is clearly NOT : "OMG, Harris was such a bad candidate that even 10million+ Dems stayed home!"
They won 4 years ago and 2 years ago, with the same message and less inflation. You’re dead wrong as usual on here. Explain that.
I saw the numbers in your post. In the article I read it said more registered democrats didn’t vote than the difference in numbers between Trump and Kamala. That’s all I was referencing. It showed registered democrats and how many voted. Subtracted the amount.
Those of us who are serious investors in election outcomes know why the Democrats lost. Kamala / War abroad. Poverty at home. Chaos on the border. Trump = Peace abroad. Prosperity at home. Secure borders. Also: Democrats alienated the middle class. For these reasons Trump was ahead a year before the election and he never trailed, despite what lying Democrat pollsters told you. I told you who the best pollsters were: Rich Baris, Atlas Intel, Trafalgar, Rasmussen, Patrick Basham. 3 of the above were rated #1 by different people using different metrics. For example, Baris said Trump would win the popular vote by 1.7%. Trump won by 1.6%. Baris was within 1% in NC, Penn, Mich and Wisc. For those like VAg8r1 who think just about any Republican could have won that is dead wrong. Smart candidates who were running in House and Senate races did better when they adopted Trump's core issues. Lawfare against Trump helped him. 2 failed assassination attempts helped. RFKJr endorsing Trump helped. Elon and free speech on X helped.
It boils down to arrogance. Not that the GOP are completely immune to arrogance, but the GOP at least had the wherewithal to understand the old way of doing things was no longer working. They needed a makeover and largely lined up behind Trump. The ones who didn't line up behind Trump all seem to exude arrogance and are mostly pro-war types who just have to blow up things and kill people. The Dems need to have the humility to understand that what they thought of as "progress" was in many cases severely delusional thinking. It blows my mind that Dems are no longer the party of free speech, true liberalism and common sense. Trump may go down in GOP lore as more consequential than Reagan. While Reagan was a great president, he didn't have to completely makeover his party while at the same time fending off 91 felony indictments from the opposition party. Trump is a generational figure, to be sure. If he executes on his game plan the next 4 years, he could wind up on Mount Rushmore.
Ouch! That seems like an insult, which I've been warned about. Well, I don't care if you get a warning. But I do want you to know that when you lash out, in your unprovoked impotent rage, it is very hurtful. Perhaps you've been hurt before, and now you want someone else to feel your pain? I don't know. But you've succeeded in making me sad with your vicious insult, and now I will be posting from my sad place.
