Much like how Democratic voters cannot grasp how much Republican politicians hate the Democratic Party, engaged voters cannot grasp just how disengaged the fabled independent/swing voter is from politics and governance.
Or the pundits obsessed with the imaginary huge number of 'Obama-to-Trump' voters in 2016. That was just two different populations of disengaged voters!
2020 was the largest turnout of voting eligible population , and it was still only 62%
That leaves 38% or ๐ค๐ซ๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐ง๐จ who didn't vote. Yet here we have the pollsters and pundits treating them as a distinct voting bloc (or NON-voting in this case!) instead of different factions voting or not voting depending on the year/candidate/what they had for lunch/whatever.
In other words they have zero predictive value, other than being the rough percentage of non-voters, ๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ
That is absurd on it's face, yet we're being told to believe this.
I have seen this study dissected multiple times without anyone ever mentioning that If these people didn't vote ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ 2018 ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ, just why does anyone expect them to vote in abnormally large numbers THIS year??? If past performance, so to speak, is indiciative of future, they can, as a group, be largely ignored.
Much like how Democratic voters cannot grasp how much Republican politicians hate the Democratic Party, engaged voters cannot grasp just how disengaged the fabled independent/swing voter is from politics and governance.
Or the pundits obsessed with the imaginary huge number of 'Obama-to-Trump' voters in 2016. That was just two different populations of disengaged voters!
2020 was the largest turnout of voting eligible population , and it was still only 62%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#Turnout_statistics
That leaves 38% or ๐ค๐ซ๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐ง๐จ who didn't vote. Yet here we have the pollsters and pundits treating them as a distinct voting bloc (or NON-voting in this case!) instead of different factions voting or not voting depending on the year/candidate/what they had for lunch/whatever.
In other words they have zero predictive value, other than being the rough percentage of non-voters, ๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ
That is absurd on it's face, yet we're being told to believe this.
I have seen this study dissected multiple times without anyone ever mentioning that If these people didn't vote ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ 2018 ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ, just why does anyone expect them to vote in abnormally large numbers THIS year??? If past performance, so to speak, is indiciative of future, they can, as a group, be largely ignored.
Hats off to the Off Year Only voter! You willful weirdos. ๐ซก
See also Paul Campos' "Ariana Grande theory of politics" https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/04/the-ariana-grande-theory-of-politics
That's terrific, and somehow cheering
And the comments are Oh. So. LGM. Had me giggling.
Thanks for the update, that does strengthen your point.