Post

Conversation

Spooky Charlotte Swasey
@charlotteeffect
Hi! Nope, Jon is basically correct here. That 19 million math is not useful and also ignoring the concept of churn, so it's odd to bring it up here. Plus, turnout was up in swing states.
Image
Image
Quote
Way To Win
@WayToWinAF
Hi Jon! This is incorrect. We're going to walk through the math quickly here, again. The @davidshor analysis doesn't take into account that there's a ton of churn each cycle. Different groups of voters enter and exit the electorate. Here's roughly how that looked in '20 and '24: x.com/jonfavs/status…
92K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Spooky Charlotte Swasey
@charlotteeffect
Yes, if people who stayed home were persuaded *and* did vote Democratic, that would be more D votes (obviously) but the evidence is that narrowly improving turnout among that group would have actually been worse for Ds.
1.2K
Way To Win
@WayToWinAF
Hi Charlotte! Double check it - the 19M is an (admittedly rough) measurement of churn, that's exactly what we're looking at. Very interesting to know about increased bg turnout and how much ground Harris made up. But there were likely still a lot of Biden '20 skippers.
722
Spooky Charlotte Swasey
@charlotteeffect
Maybe this is a definitions problem? My issue with that 19m as an explanation for Harris's loss is that it's made up of natural churn (moving, aging), marginal voters who are now pro trump, safe blue states with low turnout, and a much small # of swing state voters
621
Dan Ancona 💰⚔️
@DanAncona
Hey Charlotte, just saw this and started reading but THANK YOU for a thoughtful and date supported critique of the 19M and not a flippant, weirdly personal refusal to even consider it. It’s been a weird couple of days. Very appreciated! (And yeah, came from Mike P originally)
601