245
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
245 points (99.2% liked)
news
24484 readers
490 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hey, first of all sorry for being a nitpicky statistics nerd. I hope this doesn't come off as debate pervertry, pedantry and the like, but i want to clarify a few things.
Their core point is that Harris didn't lose the swing states because of absent former Biden voters, but because Trump mobilized voters that didn't vote for him in 2020. Harris lost 79,000 voters there, Trump won 810,000. The Biden 2020 voters who didn't go to the polls because of Gaza wouldn't have been enough to change that result, because while Harris lost a lot of these throughout the country, she barely lost any in the battleground states. Beating Trump's mobilization of new voters there would have required successful mobilization of people who didn't vote Biden in 2020.
And these people are simply not represented in the dataset. People who usually don't vote would have been interesting, first time voters would have been interesting, people who could have voted for the first time but didn't go to the polls would have been interesting and the latter two in particular might have been won over by a convincing anti-genocide stance. Maybe enough to flip the election, the tendency shown by the results of this survey and the opinion of young people on Gaza absolutely make that a plausible assumption. That's were i disagree with the person you're replying to, we can't rule out this issue was decisive. But they're correct that this survery doesn't prove that it was, because it looks entirely at people who voted Biden and didn't vote Harris.
Sure, I know you aren’t being debate perverty because you aren’t arguing with a claim that I actually made. Nowhere did I say people sitting out in the election was the reason Harris lost. I said Gaza was the main reason people who voted Biden in 2020 did sit out the election. Those are two entirely different claims.
That being said, I think you are making the same assumption as the other person. Looking at net voter gains/losses across the two years is meaningless without the data to separate them into groups. Harris lost 79000 votes there? Ok. Who? The same exact slate of people that showed up in 2020 minus 79000? That isn’t how election turnout works
Some pedantry from me.
We can't rule out the decisiveness of this issue based on the contents of this thread. I have seen enough other polling about low engagement/infrequent voters to have convinced me throroughly that those folks who might have turned out, but did not favored Trump because they thought he would be better on the economy.
Even that, I admit, does not mean there was not some way for Harris to come out against Israel and distance herself from Biden that would have managed to motivate a subset of low engagement voters who weren't that concerned about the economy, were concerned primarily about Gaza, and large enough to be decisive, but we're getting pretty thin thin with the should/could/would haves here.