ThreadSky
About ThreadSky
Log In
maxkennerly.bsky.social
•
220 days ago
Agreed, it wasn't a turnout problem for the electorate as a whole; it was a turnout problem for Democrats.
Comments
Log in
with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
[–]
paultree10.bsky.social
•
220 days ago
I mean turnout could always be better but 2020 Democratic turnout still would’ve lost all seven swing states in 2024.
So the issue wasn’t that 2020 voters stayed home. Not that alone, anyways.
3
reply
[–]
imagequest.bsky.social
•
220 days ago
IS there anyway to find out if people didn't vote for President, but DID for down ballot races? I think Dems showed up, but didn't vote at all for President. I want someone to prove this theory wrong.
0
1
reply
[–]
paultree10.bsky.social
•
220 days ago
For the 5 swing states with a senate race, Harris got more raw votes in three, slightly fewer in one, and much fewer in one.
PA: Harris 3.416m, Casey 3.378.
NV: Harris 705k, Rosen 701k
MI: Harris 2.724m, Slotkin 2.708m
WI: Harris 1.667m, Baldwin 1.672m
AZ: Harris 1.577m, Gallego 1.670m
0
1
reply
[–]
imagequest.bsky.social
•
220 days ago
Would this have been enough to lose each swing state?
0
reply
Posting Rules
Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service
×
Reply
Post Reply
Comments
So the issue wasn’t that 2020 voters stayed home. Not that alone, anyways.
PA: Harris 3.416m, Casey 3.378.
NV: Harris 705k, Rosen 701k
MI: Harris 2.724m, Slotkin 2.708m
WI: Harris 1.667m, Baldwin 1.672m
AZ: Harris 1.577m, Gallego 1.670m