“…the Black share of the electorate falling to its lowest level since 2006”
I’m not sure what that shows. Are you saying she only worked to increase Black turnout? Can you provide a cite for that?
It shows that her efforts were just barely enough to overcome significant turnouts among Trump voters. I don’t think it’s too much to say that without her efforts Biden would have lost in GA.
Biden won through a combination of increased black turnout (even though he got a slightly smaller share of the black vote) and significant increases in white suburban support (both highly-educated, where he made big gains, but also less-educated, where he made modest gains).
To me it does show that Biden had unique strengths that played well in this election. He was able to win back enough white Obama-Trump voters to pull it out, while bringing out enough new black voters to hold off Trump’s turnout gains in his base rural areas.
The Georgia color map in that same twitter thread shows it wonderfully. It’s a bright blue ring surrounding Atlanta, with Atlanta itself neutral. And then many of the rural far-flung places are a light shade of blue (meaning Biden over-performed Clinton by 1-2%).
From the OP:
I’ve been thinking about this and wondering if it’s really true. Does Raffensperger really ‘know’ who voted absentee in the primary and then did not vote at all in the general?
In the June primary, Trump received 947,352 votes. In the November general, Trump received 2,461,837 votes. I just find it hard to believe that all of those 24,000 absentee voters in June did not vote at all in November.
Absolutely he would know (or be able to find out). The poll books/registers record who voted in any particular election and whether they voted in-person on election day, absentee, or early. For Kansas, there’s a website that lets me look up my voting history (and you can look it up too with my name and birthdate); you can see I voted at the polling place for the 2014 general election, then voted early for the 2016 general, etc. They don’t know WHO I voted for, but the fact that I voted is a public record, so anybody else willing to pay the fee can buy the data as well. (The data for the 2020 general election hasn’t been uploaded yet, but the county certainly knows it.) In Georgia, you can download them from the Secretary of State’s website.
I think had Trump merely tried and failed to address the pandemic and lead a response in good faith, people would have given him a lot more grace. But instead, he didn’t even try to address the pandemic or lead, but rather used it as a re-election opportunity. I can’t help but think that was disgusting to a lot of voters who were/are fearful for themselves and their loved ones. Not his “base” of course; they’re all-in on it just being “a flu” and all that. But other ordinary undecided voters likely were repelled by that behavior.
I think you may be misunderstanding something. There were more than 24,000 Republican absentee voters in the primary. I don’t know the total, but definitely more than 24K. It’s just that 24K of those decided not to vote in the general election.
As far as him knowing, of course he can find that out. It should be a not too difficult database query and he’s the guy in charge of that database. If he doesn’t know how to do it, he has flunkies who do.
Yeah, you guys are both right. I did indeed misunderstand, and I certainly didn’t think about performing a couple of database queries.
Ignorance fought, yet again.
Thanks!
This is where I think it’s just really, really hard to separate out all the threads that go into people’s feelings about Trump. On the one hand, to someone like me, he seems cruel, incompetent, and narcissistic, and I can’t think of a single reason to support him. But to a lot of his fans, there was something they liked: that the cruelty was aimed at those they didn’t like, or they liked how his seeming incompetence as a slap in the face of ‘experts.’ I don’t know. But I would say I’m not completely sure you can craft a capable, competent version of Trump and still keep all that support. IOW, if Trump were the kind of person to take the pandemic seriously, those same personality traits might have kept him from getting elected in the first place.
It seems like after 8 years of peace, stability, and economic growth, the American people start being willing to roll the dice on idiots. We saw it in 2000, and then again in 2016. (Both times in very close races where everything had to break right for the moron, but it did.) It might be the case that that’s the only environment where Trump could have won. Anything that came up during his term that was a challenge (war, recession, pandemic…) would cause him to lose.
As a Hispanic, I prefer to say that Trump has ‘the Mierdas touch’.
I don’t think people liked the incompetence, but rather they liked his hostile, disdainful and cruel attitude toward those they perceived as “elites who want to tell them what to do”, or toward people who weren’t behaving as they expected. They revel in the fact that Trump wasn’t a typical politician acting equivocal and conciliatory in hopes of not offending anyone- you know where he stands, and he lets people that he (and they) don’t like know it.
I mean, they don’t like AOC at all, and they love it when Trump calls her names, or makes fun of her or whatever. They perceive it as not being a mealy-mouthed politician, and as a blow for their side, even if it happens to be hostile, misogynistic and racist.
I call it my “But then they wouldn’t be Nazi’s” argument. It came up when people argue that if Germany, in WW2, had invaded the Soviet Union as liberators and treated the conquered population with respect and actually liberated them. If they had done so they might have won.
However, if they did that they wouldn’t have been Nazi’s and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to invade in the first place.
Remember all those vain hopes that while Trump was an ass on the campaign trail, he would “pivot” into responsible statesmanship once in office? It turns out he never pivoted, never left the campaign trail.
SELECT
COUNT(*) AS Qty
FROM
Voters
WHERE
VotedInGeneral = 0
AND VotedInRepublicanPrimary = 1
AND PrimaryBallotType = 'Mail'
AND WasSuppressedByKemp = 0
You should use proper boolean values instead of integers.
Not if you want portability, but this really the place for that sort of discussion, especially since it was obviously meant as a joke. I also didn’t use table aliases, fully qualified object names, nor handle the case sensitivity possibilities of " PrimaryBallotType = ‘Mail’ ", which would have been better points to critique as they are actually defensible best practices for most situations
I’ll happily join in if you want to post your opinion in the proper place. Just drop me a DM once you’ve done so.
I’m just razzin you, dude. I haven’t done any SQL in about a decade and don’t care to get into it again.
But you should still use booleans 
Would not work in an Oracle database, which for some reason does not support booleans.
Oracle doesn’t support booleans, just as G*D intended. Show me just one boolean in the bible - but there’s a bunch of one’s and zero’s (somewhere I’d imagine).
Matthew 5:37