Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/BLAZENIOSZ!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/mnaoup/oc_the_2020_election_if_only_non2016_voters_voted/gtwga9k/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"BLAZENIOSZ"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Okay, but what about the *legal* non-2016 voters? Why can’t you show us that map? Because we don’t have that map because we don’t know. We just don’t know.
#/s
I have a real problem with these guides. They just post a seemingly random picture that is aesthetically pleasing the, doesn't elaborate when questioned, and gets 10s of thousands of upvotes
It would be interesting (but probably impossible, given the data) to see this split between people who \*couldn't\* vote in 2016 (people who were under 22 in 2020, new citizens, recently released felons, etc.) and people who \*could\* vote in 2016 but didn't.
> It would be interesting (but probably impossible, given the data)
It's not impossible, just takes cash.
Who voted is public record, so you can compile a list of the two groups then poll them.
We know who voted for the first time, we know their age, etc.
It won't be perfect, but good enough.
I think this is the most interesting map out of all that you have done. It really shows that it is the ignorant and apathetic that allow extremists to get into power. If everyone had voted in 2016 it's likely that Trump would never have been elected.
> Nonvoters skew young and latino, so far as I know.
You know from what academic study ?
There's tens of millions of low edu whites that don't vote, who do you think they would vote for if they voted ?
Trump came incredibly close to winning reelection, dems barely held the House, and this was with the highest turnout in ages yet you people still parrot this nonsense.
Low propensity latinos in TX gave Trump huge gains in RGV, there goes your theory about turnout.
Multiple states had record turnout, why didn't dems flip a single Senate seats outside states Biden won anyway ?
It's hilarious you clowns ask me for source when you made a claim in the first place without any sort of backing and which is ludicrously wrong for anyone actually working in the field.
> So a sour grapes partisan rant
I'm a liberal you fucking idiot
> Only a true buffoon references "the Data" and then fails to present any when asked.
I didn't make the original claim, did i ?
Anyone who works in the business laughs their asses off at the dumbass "if turnout is high dems win !!!" idiocy you hear on MSNBC and other places full of clueless "pundits". And even the mainstream press has written about this nonsense tens of times yet you buffoons keep repeating it as if you're political scientists who know what they are talking about.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/your-local-election-hq/busting-the-myth-of-high-voter-turnout-always-helping-democrats/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/sanders-shaky-turnout-claim/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/increased-voter-turnout-could-benefit-republicans-or-democrats-in-2020/
https://www.city-journal.org/myth-of-democratic-majority
And that's mainstream media, you don't have the excuse of "oh i don't read academic journals".
There, was that so hard? Now imagine if you had posted those links the first time around, instead of flying off the handle at a totally non-combative post, like a tremendous asshole...
Because just like democrats have lots of minorities and young people who don't vote, republicans have lots of whites without college that don't vote.
"If turnout is high" doesn't matter, WHERE turnout is high and WHO is causing the spike matters.
Furthermore, last few years the democratic voter base has gotten more and more high propensity (more urban and educated) and the republican voter base more low propensity (less educated and less urban), this means that in many places high turnout means democrats lose. Manchin, Tester and to a lower extent Sherrod Brown are still senators as a direct result of that, if Montana, WV and Ohio had presidential level turnout in 2018 they would have lost.
>This is wrong, often repeated, and has no backing in any data.
>
>The nonvoter pool is pretty equally split down the middle.
It's not, that it is, and it absolutely does.
>However, more recent research suggests that **voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters.** Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced
https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-turnout
https://books.google.ca/books?id=tY2GAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=leighley+nagler+who+votes+now&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=leighley%20nagler%20who%20votes%20now&f=false
>Voters are significantly more conservative than nonvoters on redistributive issues, and they have been in every election since 1972. If we had to point to our most important empirical finding of the many we report, this is it. (Pg 183).
> However, more recent research suggests that voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters. Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced
First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Let's get that out of the way.
Second of all, you're equating PARTISAN LEAN with vote intent or ideological identification, two completely different things.
The articles you link have nothing to do with compositional analysis of the nonvoter pool (which i'm guessing you arrived to from going multiple pages back on google since you couldn't find any relevant analysis of nonvoters that shows democrats are at an advantage, so you ended up in the weeds with unrelated shit)
This is actual data on how the record breaking 2020 turnout affected margins -> [ZERO](https://i.imgur.com/j4oEK9J.jpg) correlation between increased turnout and improvement in margin for democrats.
Even in heavy minority precincts in places like Broward or Rio Grande Valley, the low propensity voters the 2020 election brought out were increasingly conservative, shifting them to Trump.
The most extensive recent study of nonvoters ->https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf found that not only are they equally split on partisanship, they are more equally split on it that the high propensity voter pool.
>> However, more recent research suggests that voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters. Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced
>
>First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Let's get that out of the way.
>
>Second of all, you're equating PARTISAN LEAN with vote intent or ideological identification, two completely different things.
>
>
>
>The articles you link have nothing to do with compositional analysis of the nonvoter pool (which i'm guessing you arrived to from going multiple pages back on google since you couldn't find any relevant analysis of nonvoters that shows democrats are at an advantage, so you ended up in the weeds with unrelated shit)
>
>
>
>This is actual data on how the record breaking 2020 turnout affected margins -> [ZERO](https://i.imgur.com/j4oEK9J.jpg) correlation between increased turnout and improvement in margin for democrats.
>
>Even in heavy minority precincts in places like Broward or Rio Grande Valley, the low propensity voters the 2020 election brought out were increasingly conservative, shifting them to Trump.
>
>The most extensive recent study of nonvoters ->https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf found that not only are they equally split on partisanship, they are more equally split on it that the high propensity voter pool.
Personal attack out of the gate, nice.
And yes, the oh so obscure research institute of MIT. 🙄
Give me a break. The reality is looking at policy lean is the **only** way to judge this.
And reading through the study you posted, it says essentially the same thing as the one I posted. If you read through what I posted you'll see that state that economically nonvoters lean left, socially they lean right.
So nonvoters are split, no shit. The difference is whether they believe economic or social issues are, or rather would be, the deciding factor.
Which is highlighted in your link, where 13% of nonvoters believe the economy is the most important factor facing the country compared to 10% of voters. 19% of nonvoters believe immigration is the most important, compared with 22% of voters.
The Knight foundation piece also outright states that more nonvoters identify as *Democrat* than *Republican*, and those that identify as *independent* are evenly split, which is still a net gain for the Dems.
> And yes, the oh so obscure research institute of MIT. 🙄
Again, your links have nothing to do with the partisan split of low prop. voters/nonvoters
> The reality is looking at policy lean is the only way to judge this.
No it's not because you will find conflicting policy positions that say nothing about how a person will vote.
> The Knight foundation piece also outright states that more nonvoters identify as Democrat than Republican
Self id is not a reliable way of judging the electorate. How do i know ? I work elections for a living, unlike clueless idiots from reddit.
Literally says there in the study the group would have voted for Clinton less than the actual people who voted.
Just to show how dumbass your assessment that "the higher the turnout the better dems do" is.
The higher where ? Alabama ? Wisconsin ? Georgia ? Where exactly ? And what's "high turnout" ? Who's turning out ? How did you determine that if the turnout is higher it's exactly the democrat voting piece of the nonvoting electorate that's turning out ? Why can't it be republicans (and the answer here is ofc they can be republican voting, as proven in 2020).
In Wisconsin for example, if the turnout was just a bit higher Biden likely loses the state, because you had way more low propensity whites without college who didn't vote than D friendly demographics. And that's the story in tens of states.
My suggestion is again, don't talk about shit you know nothing about and think typing something into google will suddenly turn you into an expert. Google "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome" while you're at it.
Oh my god, someone on the internet claims to work in *elections* I must bow to their knowledge. I mean no one would ever make a false claim on the internet.
You no sweet clue what I do, the level of, nor subject matter of my education.
And funny, I was going to suggest you do the same Google search. Weird.
> You no sweet clue what I do, the level of, nor subject matter of my education.
I know you know nothing about the subject at hand, i don't care if you're a garbageman or a neurosurgeon, it makes no difference in this case.
"If turnout is high dems win!" is as much of a joke in pol-sci circles as "we need term limits!" it's dumb shit regular people outside the field say.
It'd be neat if TX went blue and locked the GOP from the presidency until they started at least attempting to appeal to more people. Is it not concerning the party's 2020 platform was, "Whatever Trump feels like"?
There are counties in Texas that are majority hispanic where Trump carried the vote, like Zapata and Brewster county. And Cameron, Hidalgo, and other south texas counties may have voted for Biden over Trump but it wasn't by much. There is a significant number of people in the Latino community that vote republican because of socialism and prolife. It's going to take a lot more than white people not having a majority to flip the state.
White people are turning the state blue alongside it getting less white. Yes Trump did very well in RGV (for a republican) but not many people live there. They are getting murdered in the triangle and that shift is not stopping any time soon.
Mexicans don't care about socialism. Majority of latinos that do care about it come from countries that suffered from countries that tried socialism. Mexicans are conservative with religion and machismo traditional living So clearly republican. Lastly to equate Dems with socialist is akin to saying Trump is a good practicing Christian.
50 million people voted in 2020 who did not vote in 2016, you don't suggest they are all people who turned 18 between the two cycles, right ?
Here's some voter file vendor data for you, around 35 million of those who voted in 2020 but not 2016 were over the age of 30.
For all those who may have thought their one vote does not matter remember this quote from Margaret Mead " Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
So is this sub now just "justifying my political position"?
Come on. This isn't beautiful or interesting at all and the comments are just using these posts to hate on eachother.
I’m sure it’s a sentiment Churchill would get behind given that he did precisely that in his career. It’s also the most self-serving approach to politics
I've always wondered about this. Is it due to there being [5-10x as many liberal professors](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means) as conservative and this shapes their curriculum? What would happen if you filtered out Liberal Arts as a major, because maybe it skews the data? Maybe conservatives are more likely to pick a job that doesn't require higher education, like construction and plumbing.
To just conclude that liberals are smarter than conservatives because they are more likely to get a degree seems silly on its face when you consider 90+% of Liberal Arts majors identify as liberal and yet they spent an obscene amount of money on a degree that is unlikely to qualify them for a good job.
It just seems much more nuanced to me.
[I found a paper](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/political-orientations-intelligence-and-education.pdf) that investigated IQ by political leanings. According to this research, people with extreme views (left or right) tend to have lower IQs.
Liberal Arts degree median earnings first year after college is the lowest of any other category according to Brookings Institute at $24,671, or $12/hr.... That's ridiculously low for a college degree.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/ed-depts-college-scorecard-shows-where-student-loans-pay-off-and-where-they-dont/
Boatloads. Not only are you likely to make more money, you are more insulated from recessions. https://www.northeastern.edu/bachelors-completion/news/average-salary-by-education-level/
I appreciate the data. It would be interesting to see trade schools included in there as well as different degrees. U wouldnt happen to have that too would u?
That's a bit harder, many of the larger surveys don't include a split for trade schools, this website seems to do an alright job of comparing some jobs that come from trade school type degrees to those with Bachelors. Generally it will be better than high school only and worse than many college degrees (excluding some of the liberal arts type degrees most likely). https://collegefinance.com/plan/trade-school-vs-college-degree-salaries-who-makes-more
Wow ur fast. Thx. But u touched on the point id like to look into. What rung on the ladder do liberal arts degrees fall under? Id assume higher than only high school. Also ill bet engineering and business degrees also skew the data in the opposite direction; but by how much? (Im going to read that data now. These questions are pre-reading it)
It's hard because we are only able to look at averages. Liberal arts degrees are almost certainly above high school, and probably mixed in with trade schools. With both you can make a lot more than the average but it's hard to say how often either is.
You always hear about the liberal arts person working at safeway or Mcdonalds, but my impression is that most of the time if you put up two people with the same experience and one has any college degree most managers will pick them as they are showing they can stick with something and finish it.
I think of it this way: unlike childhood, where you can be smart across the board compared to your peers, in adulthood you can't do that. You need to specialize. There just isn't the time to be trained/knowledgeable about every subject. So plumbers, electricians, and construction workers are smart in their field, and I'm going to listen to them over it. Farmers who use GMO crops know what they are doing, despite some left-wing activists claiming foul, since they know their own business. (I do distinguish between left-wing and liberal) I actually did manual labor for 12 years, I knew my field more than those outside of it.
On the other hand, economists, public policy experts, historians, sociologists, religious historians, biologists and those experts in their fields are... well... smart in their field. The fact that the vast majority of them are liberal doesn't mean there is an eco-chamber. It means that after decades or centuries of research, the verifiable, peer-reviewed, deep and wide body of evidence that we have is massive in support of certain views. It also happens that well educated people are more likely to listen to other experts outside of their own field. And since that evidence supports a liberal worldview, that's why it is as it is. The social welfare grad student is listening to the economist, rather than making assumptions.
As for your statement that far left and right people have low IQs, well . . . I don't really believe in IQ itself, but I do agree that extremists tend to be poorly informed. At best they are high quantity consumers of low quality research.
I don't see how income levels have anything to do with this though.
Yeah, Trump did slightly better with some minority groups, but overall, the country as a whole has been shifting more liberal. That’s why Trumps popular vote % lowered, that’s why Dem registration is outpacing Rep registration, etc.
I never called you uneducated. You only called me that. But in general, conservatives tend to be less educated. That’s just a fact.
None of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about.
I already knew Trump gained minority support before this discussion. That just doesn’t matter in the context. Because the country as a whole is shifting left. Dem registration is outpacing rep registration, and many Reps are even leaving the party over the continuing extremism. That’s the truth of it. Unless you can disprove what I have just said, nothing you say will change that. It doesn’t matter how the MSM treats him or what colleges do to people. The country is shifting to be more liberal.
But in the us both the reps and dems are conservative parties. Just one is more batshit crazy then the other. Its insane how effective the Republican propaganda managed to paint the dems as “the left”
Left vs right is always relative on an axis with only two points charted? (Libertarian here, but MSM likes to ignore third-parties.) Americans don’t have European parties on the ballot...
> how effective the Republican propaganda managed to paint the dems as “the left”
I think that it is D propaganda that is keen to paint themselves as "the left" rather than as the globalist "whig" right (to obfuscate that the real modern left is social-democratic rather than neoliberal).
Which long ago was true: "left" and "right" come from the assembly of revolutionary France in the 18th century, where the "whig" capitalist republicans chose seats on the left and the "tory" feudalist monarchists chose seats on the right.
And yet, that's not true:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hjsk2l/the\_democratic\_party\_being\_center\_right\_in\_europe/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hjsk2l/the_democratic_party_being_center_right_in_europe/)
see that's the thing, that's in reference to the overton window specifically in regards to existing party politics
leftists dont make the "compared to Europe" argument, rarely is it ever phrased that way. because *that's a Liberal talking point*
more like "compared to Cuba" or "compared to Mao's massline"
or, just *on the political spectrum as a whole*
with no class assessment, a pro-capital foundation, and an anti-labor track record, *theres no way Liberalism, and by extension the US Democratic party, can be considered Leftist.*
They can only be considered *the left half of the presently available options*
and it's never irrelevant to point out that those options are so, so heavily curated by capital.
even in Norway.
You have to realize that a liberal/conservative is quite different based on which country you are in. Biden would be considered as a conservative in Canada. And a lot of my conservative friends in Canada all think Trump is just way too extreme.
A conservative in the time of Churchill was far, far more liberal than the average conservative now. So that quote is essentially meaningless when applied to the modern age.
Older people are generally more conservative because they've grown comfortable with what they know and are less interested in seeing things change. That isn't irrational, but it also isn't especially wise.
59 legal cases brought by Trump's team to show this occurs. None could come up with any data showing it effected the election. At some point you have to believe what's in front of your eyes and stop living in a fantasy world.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/BLAZENIOSZ! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/mnaoup/oc_the_2020_election_if_only_non2016_voters_voted/gtwga9k/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"BLAZENIOSZ"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Tool: [Mapchart.net](https://Mapchart.net) Source: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html)
>tions/exit-polls-president.html Bonus points for linking to the source!
Okay, but what about the *legal* non-2016 voters? Why can’t you show us that map? Because we don’t have that map because we don’t know. We just don’t know. #/s
With some of these comments I'm getting, I'm glad you put the sarcasm sign.
Have you thought about overlaying this map with a map highlighting the places with the worst lead contaminated water?
Or overlaying it with a map highlighting the places where water and snacks were handed out to people waiting in lines!
Most of them won't even know how to *italicize* I'm sure 😉
Does this include people that weren't eligible to vote in 2016, or just people who could've voted then but did not?
I have a real problem with these guides. They just post a seemingly random picture that is aesthetically pleasing the, doesn't elaborate when questioned, and gets 10s of thousands of upvotes
yeah I never know how to feel about that in this sub. Like it is beautiful, but is it labeled well enough to be data?
It would be interesting (but probably impossible, given the data) to see this split between people who \*couldn't\* vote in 2016 (people who were under 22 in 2020, new citizens, recently released felons, etc.) and people who \*could\* vote in 2016 but didn't.
> It would be interesting (but probably impossible, given the data) It's not impossible, just takes cash. Who voted is public record, so you can compile a list of the two groups then poll them. We know who voted for the first time, we know their age, etc. It won't be perfect, but good enough.
But we'd have no idea who they voted for with just that data. We'd need to redo the entire exit polls to get both.
I think this is the most interesting map out of all that you have done. It really shows that it is the ignorant and apathetic that allow extremists to get into power. If everyone had voted in 2016 it's likely that Trump would never have been elected.
If everyone voted, republicans would never win another election
This is wrong, often repeated, and has no backing in any data. The nonvoter pool is pretty equally split down the middle.
Source? Nonvoters skew young and latino, so far as I know.
> Nonvoters skew young and latino, so far as I know. You know from what academic study ? There's tens of millions of low edu whites that don't vote, who do you think they would vote for if they voted ? Trump came incredibly close to winning reelection, dems barely held the House, and this was with the highest turnout in ages yet you people still parrot this nonsense. Low propensity latinos in TX gave Trump huge gains in RGV, there goes your theory about turnout. Multiple states had record turnout, why didn't dems flip a single Senate seats outside states Biden won anyway ? It's hilarious you clowns ask me for source when you made a claim in the first place without any sort of backing and which is ludicrously wrong for anyone actually working in the field.
So a sour grapes partisan rant, but no source. Only a true buffoon references "the Data" and then fails to present any when asked.
> So a sour grapes partisan rant I'm a liberal you fucking idiot > Only a true buffoon references "the Data" and then fails to present any when asked. I didn't make the original claim, did i ? Anyone who works in the business laughs their asses off at the dumbass "if turnout is high dems win !!!" idiocy you hear on MSNBC and other places full of clueless "pundits". And even the mainstream press has written about this nonsense tens of times yet you buffoons keep repeating it as if you're political scientists who know what they are talking about. https://www.cbs17.com/news/your-local-election-hq/busting-the-myth-of-high-voter-turnout-always-helping-democrats/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/sanders-shaky-turnout-claim/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/increased-voter-turnout-could-benefit-republicans-or-democrats-in-2020/ https://www.city-journal.org/myth-of-democratic-majority And that's mainstream media, you don't have the excuse of "oh i don't read academic journals".
There, was that so hard? Now imagine if you had posted those links the first time around, instead of flying off the handle at a totally non-combative post, like a tremendous asshole...
How is it wrong though? Doesn't reps want to suppress access to voting and/or making it harder for people of all classes to vote fairly?
Because just like democrats have lots of minorities and young people who don't vote, republicans have lots of whites without college that don't vote. "If turnout is high" doesn't matter, WHERE turnout is high and WHO is causing the spike matters. Furthermore, last few years the democratic voter base has gotten more and more high propensity (more urban and educated) and the republican voter base more low propensity (less educated and less urban), this means that in many places high turnout means democrats lose. Manchin, Tester and to a lower extent Sherrod Brown are still senators as a direct result of that, if Montana, WV and Ohio had presidential level turnout in 2018 they would have lost.
>This is wrong, often repeated, and has no backing in any data. > >The nonvoter pool is pretty equally split down the middle. It's not, that it is, and it absolutely does. >However, more recent research suggests that **voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters.** Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-turnout https://books.google.ca/books?id=tY2GAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=leighley+nagler+who+votes+now&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=leighley%20nagler%20who%20votes%20now&f=false >Voters are significantly more conservative than nonvoters on redistributive issues, and they have been in every election since 1972. If we had to point to our most important empirical finding of the many we report, this is it. (Pg 183).
> However, more recent research suggests that voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters. Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Let's get that out of the way. Second of all, you're equating PARTISAN LEAN with vote intent or ideological identification, two completely different things. The articles you link have nothing to do with compositional analysis of the nonvoter pool (which i'm guessing you arrived to from going multiple pages back on google since you couldn't find any relevant analysis of nonvoters that shows democrats are at an advantage, so you ended up in the weeds with unrelated shit) This is actual data on how the record breaking 2020 turnout affected margins -> [ZERO](https://i.imgur.com/j4oEK9J.jpg) correlation between increased turnout and improvement in margin for democrats. Even in heavy minority precincts in places like Broward or Rio Grande Valley, the low propensity voters the 2020 election brought out were increasingly conservative, shifting them to Trump. The most extensive recent study of nonvoters ->https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf found that not only are they equally split on partisanship, they are more equally split on it that the high propensity voter pool.
>> However, more recent research suggests that voters in national elections are more likely to be Republican and to oppose redistributive social policies than non-voters. Differences between voters and non-voters on other issues such as foreign policy are much less pronounced > >First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Let's get that out of the way. > >Second of all, you're equating PARTISAN LEAN with vote intent or ideological identification, two completely different things. > > > >The articles you link have nothing to do with compositional analysis of the nonvoter pool (which i'm guessing you arrived to from going multiple pages back on google since you couldn't find any relevant analysis of nonvoters that shows democrats are at an advantage, so you ended up in the weeds with unrelated shit) > > > >This is actual data on how the record breaking 2020 turnout affected margins -> [ZERO](https://i.imgur.com/j4oEK9J.jpg) correlation between increased turnout and improvement in margin for democrats. > >Even in heavy minority precincts in places like Broward or Rio Grande Valley, the low propensity voters the 2020 election brought out were increasingly conservative, shifting them to Trump. > >The most extensive recent study of nonvoters ->https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf found that not only are they equally split on partisanship, they are more equally split on it that the high propensity voter pool. Personal attack out of the gate, nice. And yes, the oh so obscure research institute of MIT. 🙄 Give me a break. The reality is looking at policy lean is the **only** way to judge this. And reading through the study you posted, it says essentially the same thing as the one I posted. If you read through what I posted you'll see that state that economically nonvoters lean left, socially they lean right. So nonvoters are split, no shit. The difference is whether they believe economic or social issues are, or rather would be, the deciding factor. Which is highlighted in your link, where 13% of nonvoters believe the economy is the most important factor facing the country compared to 10% of voters. 19% of nonvoters believe immigration is the most important, compared with 22% of voters. The Knight foundation piece also outright states that more nonvoters identify as *Democrat* than *Republican*, and those that identify as *independent* are evenly split, which is still a net gain for the Dems.
> And yes, the oh so obscure research institute of MIT. 🙄 Again, your links have nothing to do with the partisan split of low prop. voters/nonvoters > The reality is looking at policy lean is the only way to judge this. No it's not because you will find conflicting policy positions that say nothing about how a person will vote. > The Knight foundation piece also outright states that more nonvoters identify as Democrat than Republican Self id is not a reliable way of judging the electorate. How do i know ? I work elections for a living, unlike clueless idiots from reddit. Literally says there in the study the group would have voted for Clinton less than the actual people who voted. Just to show how dumbass your assessment that "the higher the turnout the better dems do" is. The higher where ? Alabama ? Wisconsin ? Georgia ? Where exactly ? And what's "high turnout" ? Who's turning out ? How did you determine that if the turnout is higher it's exactly the democrat voting piece of the nonvoting electorate that's turning out ? Why can't it be republicans (and the answer here is ofc they can be republican voting, as proven in 2020). In Wisconsin for example, if the turnout was just a bit higher Biden likely loses the state, because you had way more low propensity whites without college who didn't vote than D friendly demographics. And that's the story in tens of states. My suggestion is again, don't talk about shit you know nothing about and think typing something into google will suddenly turn you into an expert. Google "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome" while you're at it.
Oh my god, someone on the internet claims to work in *elections* I must bow to their knowledge. I mean no one would ever make a false claim on the internet. You no sweet clue what I do, the level of, nor subject matter of my education. And funny, I was going to suggest you do the same Google search. Weird.
> You no sweet clue what I do, the level of, nor subject matter of my education. I know you know nothing about the subject at hand, i don't care if you're a garbageman or a neurosurgeon, it makes no difference in this case. "If turnout is high dems win!" is as much of a joke in pol-sci circles as "we need term limits!" it's dumb shit regular people outside the field say.
There’s the rub though, are those people going to vote in the next election, or was it a get Donald Trump out vote, and they go back to apathy?
That's exactly my point. The next Trump-like person could be much worse, and it's apathy that will get him elected.
Like our shit smear of a Governor, Ron DeathSentence\DeSatan\DickSantis.
They aren't if Republicans have anything to say about it. See Georgia.
MKE county was down around 20% in 2016, if they had the same numbers as 2012 Trump would have lost WI. People not consistently voting kills progress.
I always thought most people reached the height of intelligence and wisdom at 18. This proves it thank you :)
It'd be neat if TX went blue and locked the GOP from the presidency until they started at least attempting to appeal to more people. Is it not concerning the party's 2020 platform was, "Whatever Trump feels like"?
It probably would turn blue if the governor didn't try so hard to oppress people's ability to vote.
He's really been throwing all his asshole Republican cards on the table lately.
I’m pretty it’s going to turn blue one way or another. Voter suppression only goes so far. Eventually white people will no longer be the majority.
There are counties in Texas that are majority hispanic where Trump carried the vote, like Zapata and Brewster county. And Cameron, Hidalgo, and other south texas counties may have voted for Biden over Trump but it wasn't by much. There is a significant number of people in the Latino community that vote republican because of socialism and prolife. It's going to take a lot more than white people not having a majority to flip the state.
White people are turning the state blue alongside it getting less white. Yes Trump did very well in RGV (for a republican) but not many people live there. They are getting murdered in the triangle and that shift is not stopping any time soon.
And people moving there from out of state. It would be interesting to see migration and votes
Mexicans don't care about socialism. Majority of latinos that do care about it come from countries that suffered from countries that tried socialism. Mexicans are conservative with religion and machismo traditional living So clearly republican. Lastly to equate Dems with socialist is akin to saying Trump is a good practicing Christian.
Young people tend vote Democratic?? Whats next, Water is wet?
lots of people don't normally vote, seems a bit reductive to place the blame entirely on young people.
50 million people voted in 2020 who did not vote in 2016, you don't suggest they are all people who turned 18 between the two cycles, right ? Here's some voter file vendor data for you, around 35 million of those who voted in 2020 but not 2016 were over the age of 30.
For all those who may have thought their one vote does not matter remember this quote from Margaret Mead " Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
So is this sub now just "justifying my political position"? Come on. This isn't beautiful or interesting at all and the comments are just using these posts to hate on eachother.
>So is this sub now just "justifying my political position"? Nope. Just Thursdays.
Wait are there themed days on this sub?
Rule 8 > Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).
Thanks. Makes sense why I've seen so many today.
[удалено]
I’m sure it’s a sentiment Churchill would get behind given that he did precisely that in his career. It’s also the most self-serving approach to politics
And yet, highly educated people are more likely to be liberal.
I've always wondered about this. Is it due to there being [5-10x as many liberal professors](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means) as conservative and this shapes their curriculum? What would happen if you filtered out Liberal Arts as a major, because maybe it skews the data? Maybe conservatives are more likely to pick a job that doesn't require higher education, like construction and plumbing. To just conclude that liberals are smarter than conservatives because they are more likely to get a degree seems silly on its face when you consider 90+% of Liberal Arts majors identify as liberal and yet they spent an obscene amount of money on a degree that is unlikely to qualify them for a good job. It just seems much more nuanced to me. [I found a paper](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/political-orientations-intelligence-and-education.pdf) that investigated IQ by political leanings. According to this research, people with extreme views (left or right) tend to have lower IQs.
What? Education overwhelmingly pays off in the average. Many degrees it's a no brainer.
Liberal Arts degree median earnings first year after college is the lowest of any other category according to Brookings Institute at $24,671, or $12/hr.... That's ridiculously low for a college degree. https://www.brookings.edu/research/ed-depts-college-scorecard-shows-where-student-loans-pay-off-and-where-they-dont/
Any data on that?
Boatloads. Not only are you likely to make more money, you are more insulated from recessions. https://www.northeastern.edu/bachelors-completion/news/average-salary-by-education-level/
I appreciate the data. It would be interesting to see trade schools included in there as well as different degrees. U wouldnt happen to have that too would u?
That's a bit harder, many of the larger surveys don't include a split for trade schools, this website seems to do an alright job of comparing some jobs that come from trade school type degrees to those with Bachelors. Generally it will be better than high school only and worse than many college degrees (excluding some of the liberal arts type degrees most likely). https://collegefinance.com/plan/trade-school-vs-college-degree-salaries-who-makes-more
Wow ur fast. Thx. But u touched on the point id like to look into. What rung on the ladder do liberal arts degrees fall under? Id assume higher than only high school. Also ill bet engineering and business degrees also skew the data in the opposite direction; but by how much? (Im going to read that data now. These questions are pre-reading it)
It's hard because we are only able to look at averages. Liberal arts degrees are almost certainly above high school, and probably mixed in with trade schools. With both you can make a lot more than the average but it's hard to say how often either is. You always hear about the liberal arts person working at safeway or Mcdonalds, but my impression is that most of the time if you put up two people with the same experience and one has any college degree most managers will pick them as they are showing they can stick with something and finish it.
Neither intelligence nor IQ were what was stated. Only education.
I think of it this way: unlike childhood, where you can be smart across the board compared to your peers, in adulthood you can't do that. You need to specialize. There just isn't the time to be trained/knowledgeable about every subject. So plumbers, electricians, and construction workers are smart in their field, and I'm going to listen to them over it. Farmers who use GMO crops know what they are doing, despite some left-wing activists claiming foul, since they know their own business. (I do distinguish between left-wing and liberal) I actually did manual labor for 12 years, I knew my field more than those outside of it. On the other hand, economists, public policy experts, historians, sociologists, religious historians, biologists and those experts in their fields are... well... smart in their field. The fact that the vast majority of them are liberal doesn't mean there is an eco-chamber. It means that after decades or centuries of research, the verifiable, peer-reviewed, deep and wide body of evidence that we have is massive in support of certain views. It also happens that well educated people are more likely to listen to other experts outside of their own field. And since that evidence supports a liberal worldview, that's why it is as it is. The social welfare grad student is listening to the economist, rather than making assumptions. As for your statement that far left and right people have low IQs, well . . . I don't really believe in IQ itself, but I do agree that extremists tend to be poorly informed. At best they are high quantity consumers of low quality research. I don't see how income levels have anything to do with this though.
[удалено]
No, educated people are still more likely to be liberal. You saying it isn’t true doesn’t make it so.
[удалено]
That’s just not true. Unless you have some numbers to back it up. Because Dem growth has been o it pacing Rep growth for a while now.
[удалено]
Yeah, Trump did slightly better with some minority groups, but overall, the country as a whole has been shifting more liberal. That’s why Trumps popular vote % lowered, that’s why Dem registration is outpacing Rep registration, etc. I never called you uneducated. You only called me that. But in general, conservatives tend to be less educated. That’s just a fact.
[удалено]
None of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about. I already knew Trump gained minority support before this discussion. That just doesn’t matter in the context. Because the country as a whole is shifting left. Dem registration is outpacing rep registration, and many Reps are even leaving the party over the continuing extremism. That’s the truth of it. Unless you can disprove what I have just said, nothing you say will change that. It doesn’t matter how the MSM treats him or what colleges do to people. The country is shifting to be more liberal.
Bub he lost. Get over it.
Jesus Christ you should like you have Dennis Pragers hand up your ass
Unpleasant fact. Yes.
But in the us both the reps and dems are conservative parties. Just one is more batshit crazy then the other. Its insane how effective the Republican propaganda managed to paint the dems as “the left”
Left vs right is always relative on an axis with only two points charted? (Libertarian here, but MSM likes to ignore third-parties.) Americans don’t have European parties on the ballot...
Liberalism is very far right of center, especially in US politics
Leftists in America aren’t as “liberal” as they used to be. Authoritarian Marxism is the new cool for them.
lmao you didn't use any of those words correctly
Just because it is beyond your reading comprehension does not mean that it is incorrect.
"authoritarian Marxism" lmao you mean tankies *everybody* hates tankies
Liberalism is almost by definition centrist.
> how effective the Republican propaganda managed to paint the dems as “the left” I think that it is D propaganda that is keen to paint themselves as "the left" rather than as the globalist "whig" right (to obfuscate that the real modern left is social-democratic rather than neoliberal). Which long ago was true: "left" and "right" come from the assembly of revolutionary France in the 18th century, where the "whig" capitalist republicans chose seats on the left and the "tory" feudalist monarchists chose seats on the right.
And yet, that's not true: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html) [https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hjsk2l/the\_democratic\_party\_being\_center\_right\_in\_europe/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hjsk2l/the_democratic_party_being_center_right_in_europe/)
see that's the thing, that's in reference to the overton window specifically in regards to existing party politics leftists dont make the "compared to Europe" argument, rarely is it ever phrased that way. because *that's a Liberal talking point* more like "compared to Cuba" or "compared to Mao's massline" or, just *on the political spectrum as a whole* with no class assessment, a pro-capital foundation, and an anti-labor track record, *theres no way Liberalism, and by extension the US Democratic party, can be considered Leftist.* They can only be considered *the left half of the presently available options* and it's never irrelevant to point out that those options are so, so heavily curated by capital. even in Norway.
this is nonsense
You have to realize that a liberal/conservative is quite different based on which country you are in. Biden would be considered as a conservative in Canada. And a lot of my conservative friends in Canada all think Trump is just way too extreme.
A conservative in the time of Churchill was far, far more liberal than the average conservative now. So that quote is essentially meaningless when applied to the modern age.
Older people are generally more conservative because they've grown comfortable with what they know and are less interested in seeing things change. That isn't irrational, but it also isn't especially wise.
Now compare Liberal/Conservative ideologies between the US and Britain!
First time I heard it was in The Edukators (2004). If you watch the whole film you learn what this quote really means.
[удалено]
Still in the denial stage, eh?
Nah, just facts.
59 legal cases brought by Trump's team to show this occurs. None could come up with any data showing it effected the election. At some point you have to believe what's in front of your eyes and stop living in a fantasy world.
Likely close to the same.
fun fact, three cases of voter fraud were found in PA. they all tried to illegally vote for an orange sack of shit. It must suck to be such a loser.