this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
182 points (88.9% liked)

politics

24370 readers
3547 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I read it like: 10 drop off votes vs 10 polling station votes = 0% difference.

Total in-person votes amounted to about 6% of the total vote.

94% of the vote was drop off / mail in? Please share your link.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Brain fart. Drop-off was 6%. The link I already shared has that.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I don't know why you gave me the Wikipedia link, but the other link has exactly what I just said. This is straight from what you (and previously I) linked to:

Six percent of early voting was done via a ballot drop box.

In any case, 18% wouldn't change anything I said. With that, I'm done doing silly analysis just to show that there is no point in us doing silly analysis.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

OH. The next article in the series explains it. "Drop off" meaning the drop between Presidential selection and the next-most powerful office. In this case Pres - Senator.

The data above reflects what’s commonly referred to as the “drop-off”—the difference between the number of votes cast for the presidential race and those cast for the next down-ballot race within the same party.

In mail-in voting, Harris and Trump show similar drop-off rates (1.48% vs. 1.96%), which aligns with expected voter behavior. But on Election Day, the numbers diverge sharply: Trump’s drop-off rate skyrockets to 4.51%, while Harris’ plummets to 0.87%.

That kind of disparity is impossible to ignore. According to this data—on Election Day only—voters selected Democrats down-ballot, then flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Then we're back to my original objection to the first charts. In a time of strong anti-establishment sentiment, an establishment candidate is more likely to underperform down ballot races, and an anti-establishment candidate is more likely to outperform down ballot races - especially in a purple/swing state.

Which also brings me back to my original point that this is not a theory of interest to leftist voters - both because we already know why it happened, and because it provides cover for neoliberals trying to hide from the utter collapse of their ideology.

The press doesn't know how to differentiate between extremist neoliberals and the far left, so the far left gets saddled with extremist neoliberal nonsense.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I know, every leftist wants to see the Democrats collapse because they can’t wish the same on the republiQans.

IF there’s anything to this, it means the Democrats won, though and leftists would get a lot of what they want. That they don’t care about that is all we need to know as it comes to midterms.

Of course that’s a big, if interesting, if.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah I know, every leftist wants to see the Democrats collapse because they can’t wish the same on the republiQans.

You got it backwards. Leftists want the Democrats to abandon neoliberalism so that they won't collapse. There is a fringe (not me) that wants the Democrats to collapse in favor of a third party, but they also want to destroy the Republicans.

IF there’s anything to this, it means the Democrats won, though and leftists would get a lot of what they want.

We never have before, and the Democrats don't campaign on it, so I highly doubt it. Most Democratic administrations result in less of what Leftists want, not more. Not as bad as Republican administrations, but the last President to really move the country left was FDR. Biden did too, but he barely even tried to undo the previous Trump administration.

To be clear, Democrats are far better than Republicans for the left, but it's not because we expect to get any of what we want from either.

Of course that’s a big, if interesting, if.

Kinda like "if monkeys come flying out of my ass". Even so, it's hardly all that interesting. We still won't understand how Trump won in 2016. We still won't understand the rising tide of fascism in the US and the rest of the neoliberal world. We'll be no closer to taking back Congress in 2026, or doing anything with our proof of election fraud without it.

At the absolute best this would prove that Trump is a criminal running a criminal administration who should be removed from office. We can already prove that a dozen different ways, yet there he still is. I'm not "interested" in expending time, resources, or political capital on a witch-hunt that even Kamala and Walz don't find valuable.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We never have before, and the Democrats don't campaign on it, so I highly doubt it.

That's just silly. Crazy wrong.

. . .the last President to really move the country left was FDR. Biden did too, but he barely even tried to undo the previous Trump administration.

So that contradicts your first statement.

To be clear, Democrats are far better than Republicans for the left, but it's not because we expect to get any of what we want from either.

You're ignoring the inherent contradiction by claiming what's "wanted" was and is never supported. That's not the case.

Of course that’s a big, if interesting, if.

Kinda like "if monkeys come flying out of my ass". Even so, it's hardly all that interesting. We still won't understand how Trump won in 2016. We still won't understand the rising tide of fascism in the US and the rest of the neoliberal world. We'll be no closer to taking back Congress in 2026, or doing anything with our proof of election fraud without it.

Hardly interesting to find that stuff out? Okay. I couldn't disagree more. We know from a number of sources trump colluded with russia for things like money and intelligence, we know there were a lot of voter roll break-ins and so on. And we know the Cambridge Analytica piece. That's a lot already - it's not an impenetrable fortress of unknowable things.

I'm not "interested" in expending time, resources, or political capital on a witch-hunt that even Kamala and Walz don't find valuable.

Fair enough then. IF anything happens you can read about it in the checkout line. And Kamala and Walz wouldn't support this publicly but I have no doubt they'd find any uncovered truths valuable.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

That's just silly. Crazy wrong.

"The era of big government is over". Ronald Reagan? No, Bill Clinton, right before screwing over unions and rolling back the federal safety net more than any Republican until perhaps Trump. Obama was Wall Street's bitch from the start and coopted a left wing push for healthcare reform to push a right wing healthcare plan. Both Clinton and Obama took in millions from Wall Street immediately upon leaving office.

So that contradicts your first statement.

~~Oh, come on.~~ Oh, fuck off. "Never" was obviously hyperbole, and accurate enough if you have to go back to 1945 for a counter example. It's arguably not even the same party since there aren't even any members serving today that we're serving back then.

You're ignoring the inherent contradiction by claiming what's "wanted" was and is never supported.

The first wall of resistance the left runs into on almost every issue is the Democratic establishment (here after just Democrats). The only way the left has moved the Democrats on anything is to first subvert them and build an irresistible tide of public support, and the Democrats form the chief resistance we always have to overcome. Democrats were late to the party on slavery, lgbt rights, labor rights, labor friendly trade policy, monetary policy, welfare, and taxation. They have currently caved entirely to right wing framing on immigration, trans rights, and law enforcement. If you think I can't back every one of those statements up, you are wrong.

That's a lot already - it's not an impenetrable fortress of unknowable things.

You missed my point entirely. We don't need to dig up secrets to show Trump's criminality. There is more than enough public information available to hang him up in the public square already. The Russia stuff blends a lot of reality with a lot of complete bullshit so that has become politically toxic, but just in the conduct of his administration alone there are countless undeniable crimes. We don't need more, we need the political power to impeach and prosecute.

And Kamala and Walz wouldn't support this publicly but I have no doubt they'd find any uncovered truths valuable.

Valuable for what? Calling a redo? That isn't going to happen. Be honest with yourself and admit that you are harboring that fantasy. You know it isn't real, but you just can't let go.

To be clear, I have no problem with actual investigation, but that sure doesn't appear to be what this group is doing. Nothing about this effort is convincing or interesting in the slightest.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

The Wiki link is the total. The drop-off total is in the first link.

It equals 18% because it includes the mail ins, which - doesn't limit to drop-offs and yeah they used the term "drop off" so in that case it would be 6%

If the counties were identified we could maybe get a better number.

Fair enough, you think election numbers need to be vetted by experts to tell us how they're arrived at and for some cases I don't necessariy disagree. I'm just saying with enough data we could do some of it.