The only thing I'll say about the election results, is that at the very least, I believe the American people deserve a #SwingStateHandRecount.
— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) November 8, 2024
Isn’t it curious that no one is discussing the statistical improbability of 7 swing States, all dead even and within the polling margin for error, all going to Trump? I’m not a mathematician but I’m pretty sure the odds of that are astronomically against.
— Shoq (@shoq.bsky.social) November 8, 2024 at 10:01 PM
That last argument is absurd. Nate Silver has said for years that presidential polling is always somewhat inaccurate, and when it's inaccurate, it's generally inaccurate the same way in much of the country. In a race that polls said was neck-and-neck, that's why he consistently said the most likely scenario was a sweep of the swing states by either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. In late September, he thought a Harris sweep was somewhat more likely, with a Trump sweep as the second most likely outcome. Various splits of the swing states were, in his opinion, less likely. By late October, Silver was saying the same thing, but his model said a Trump sweep was a slightly more likely outcome, followed by a Harris sweep. A Trump sweep is what we got.
But the biggest reason I don't believe there was cheating is the New York Times "Shift from 2020" map:
Each arrow represents a county. Red arrows indicate a county where Trump's victory margin increased or margin of defeat decreased (or a county that Trump flipped). The blue arrows indicate the opposite for Harris. (There are very few arrows in California and some other Western states because the vote totals aren't final or close to final.)
Notice that there are very few blue arrows. Trump did better all over the country. This is consistent with Nate Silver's theory that voting shifts tend to be national. But on the subject of possible fraud, does it make sense that Republicans would cheat in nearly every county in America? Does it make sense that they'd be able to?
There are red arrows in extremely blue states such as Massachusetts and Maryland. Did Republicans cheat there? Why? Why bother?
In Massachusetts, Joe Biden beat Trump 66%-32% in 2020. Harris is leading there 61%-37%. In Suffolk County, which includes Boston, Biden won in 2020 by an 81%-17% margin. This year, Harris is leading 74%-23%. That's a rightward shift. But why would Republicans bother to rig -- or slightly skew -- any part of Massachusetts? They were always going to be trounced there. They lost every county in 2020 and they lost every county this year. And how would Republicans rig Massachusetts? Who are the officials who would have allowed it to happen? Massachusetts, Suffolk County, and Boston are all run by Democrats.
(But, of course, Trumpers seriously argue that Democrats rigged the 2020 election in a Republican-run country, and even in Republican-run states like Georgia. So I suppose it's no surprise that a few Democrats think Republicans could rig an election in a Democratic-run country, and in states like Arizona and Michigan that are currently run by Democrats.)
Yes, downballot Democrats won in states where Harris lost. But some of them didn't win by much: Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin and Elissa Slotkin in Michigan won by less than a point. Jacky Rosen in Nevada and Ruben Gallego in Arizona won by less than 2.
If there's a discrepancy, it's likely because voters want to punish the president when they're unhappy with the economy, and Harris is seen as a stand-in for Biden, in a way that even incumbent senators aren't. (And three incumbent Democratic senators lost, of course: Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Jon Tester in Montana.)
This election wasn't rigged. Democratic voters and voters who were gettable for Democrats just didn't feel as much urgency to defeat Trump as they did when they were experiencing his rule in real time. The Democratic presidential candidate wasn't white or male, in a country where there's still a great deal of racism and sexism. (I think many voters, including some women, will vote for a female senator but not a female president because they think there's some level of testosterone toughness needed for the presidency, even though women have led countries through tough situations all over the world.) And voters generally weren't happy. That's what the numbers are showing us.
No comments:
Post a Comment