How do these huge drop off votes for Trump in swing states compare historically? Have we seen anything like this before? I have a real hard time believing that several hundred thousand citizens would vote Democrat on the down ballot races -- for senate or attorney general, etc. -- but then pick Trump for president. I'm not an expert in the field, but it seems to me the only way to get at the guts of what happened is still a Forensic Audit, a close up examination of the ballots compared to the votes tallied. Interestingly, Jackie Singh just published details on Twitter and Reddit that implicate an infamous Russian hack in controlling the GOP and our elections. More should come from that.Thank you for your work.
I agree, I question the outcome because there are too many disparities from previous years...with Musk and DeJoy involved, it definitely is questionable.
Please see a Reddit-community-driven explanation of how AI and brand new Direct to Cell satellite tech could have been used to insert drop off ballots and cause these strange results. https://substack.com/home/post/p-153003086
Investigate the mail-in ballots. Check how many were requested, vs how many were cast. Did Lewis dejoy’s XPO privatized mail processing facility ‘lose’ millions of ballots?
In NC every state wide race went to democrats, Trump won the state. It’s easier to claim there are funny numbers than recognize that swing states were targeted with multiple tactics to surprise democrat voters. In an election where you only have to chip away tens of thousands votes in key states it’s easy to see how the tactics worked when each of them only had to surprise a few thousand voters to be successful because combined it would tally up to a winning margin. If people don’t learn from this we will be back here again in a couple of years.
The tactics served to cause decreased voter turnout and brainwashing of the damaged cult. It’s called successful marketing and it is not illegal. Same with playing games with voter purges and other suppression tactics. The only illegal crap was the bomb threats to polling location of Election Day but they were just a small impact, but also, add all the small stuff and it becomes just enough.
That's fair but, fairly generalized. In contrast, it could be said that voter privacy would veil a states exploit of one race easier than having numerous state & local anomalies. This would create more state scrutiny because the local results, especially in rural, small population regions, could be vetted and recounted easily and draw more attention. With an entire state questioning 1 race, you couldn't generate a sizeable group feeling curious, demanding action.
Now, the reason there were alot of questions about results is where trump's flawed personality comes into frame. IMO, if an exploit was implemented, then trump being trump is what lead to the data being researched. There would be 12 or less counties to manipulate in order to have achieved a winning result and leave a minimal footprint; chip-away as you stated. The best exploits are the ones you never or can't easily find. The never fail, admit fault, winner (self-proclaimed), tough guy, Cohn & Stone disciple, womanizing, and desired persona says I'm better than minimal. He wants all the swing states to prove how desired and popular he is when in fact, he was losing his base support before election day. More manipulation would need some offset, i.e. padding both candidates appropriately in their strongholds, patterning data where implemented but this is assuming there will only be scrutiny if any, on the swing states.So, enter that data patterning seen for the first time in election history. Not 1 red county was flipped to blue and all flips in this election were from blue to red, nationwide. Another never-before seen stat in all previous elections. His small ego and ignorance may be the reason this data manipulation was found.
- 4 years constant FOX campaign for GOP's in all 50 states
From Hopium Chronicles on SubStack.
We need a more robust 24/7/365 pro-democracy media we discussed yesterday, but we also need a more aggressive Democratic Party-led strategy to engage Democratic voters in all 50 states to drive turnout in every election, in every state. The Democratic Party and our Presidential campaigns have to be more than just 7 battleground states.
The only TV outlet for Dems is Free Speech TV. One guy like Mark Cuban could buy it and make it our megaphone. This is why we suck at delivering our message. Nobody saw it. Thanks to Fox for screwing the country again.
When you gave this information to the candidates, the Democratic party, various honest election advocacy groups, meidas news hosts, even the cnns of the world, or the Courts, anybody?
These are indeed strange numbers. As others have pointed out, historical context matters - has this degree of drop off voting happened before? My own cruder analysis comparing only drop off votes between presidential and senate elections in swing vs non-swing states found the same basic results as yours - drop off votes heavily favored Trump in swing states in 2024. Even with the small sample size of the swing state group, statistical testing suggests the differences in drop off votes in swing vs non-swing states is improbable.
I also pulled the data from 2020 as a comparison. Drop off votes favoring Trump in swing states increased dramatically from 2020 to 2024. I can't speak to other historical data. Did this happen, for example, when Reagan won in a blowout in 1980?
I also can't speak to reasons, nefarious or innocent, that caused these drop off numbers. What I do know is numbers, and these numbers are so anomalous that they're setting off all my data analysis alarms.
I'd like to think there are innocent reasons for the dropoff votes, like the possibilities listed at the end of your post. I'd also feel a lot better if a forensic audit confirmed that these drop off votes are real. Enough experts have shouted "smoke!" that it's worth seeing if there's a fire. Time is running out to investigate this further.
The answer should be obvious. The 2020 election was a serious education to the Republican base as well as those who support Trump. They saw millions and millions of votes that were cast using these unsolicited mail-in ballots. So they decided to use that same strategy against the left for the 2024 election. In other words, the left got beat at their own game. It shouldn't be that hard for you lefties to figure this out.
Clarification, please. This is the last sentence between the 1st two graphs-- "Republican drop-off is still greater in the non-swing states, but the difference is less extreme: 2 % Republican drop-off compared to 1.37% Democratic drop-off." I don't understand the "still greater" part. You've got four more non-swing states than swing states with a much greater total population yet they combine for almost 300,000 fewer drops-offs. How does that equal "still greater"?
Thanks, Jenn. How embarrassing. Of course, they meant still greater meaning it was still happening, not even greater still, the way I insisted on interpreting it. Me-minus one brain. Thanks for the clarification.
Harris lost because she didn't have any genuine media support. Whereas Trump had propagandists at Fox News Newsmax OAN Rumble YouTube Telegram numerous podcasters and still won only 31.87% of voters. Not half the country. That said VP Harris did very well imho but Gretchen Whitmer would've won.
There is no mystery here. You incorrectly assume that voters are almost all registered to one of two parties. That is not the case. Every state, including every swing state, has large numbers of unaffiliated voters not associated with a particular party. These voters are more likely to vote mixed ballots such as the Republican Trump for President and a Democrat for Senator and there is nothing strange about this.
Your own data shows that TOTAL drop-off votes are not unusually high and these totals are smaller than the margins of victory (Arizona total drop-off is 41,355 while margin of victory is 187,382). This shows this isn't about lots of people voting for President and nothing else. It's about more voters not voting straight down the ballot with a single party.
What distinguishes the swing states from the non-swing states is the massive amount of advertising targeted in these states mostly for the Presidential race which is what caused drop-off votes cross-party. That advertising resulted in more unaffiliated voters going with Trump but not choosing Republicans down-ballot. Again, this is perfectly explained and understandable and shows Trump's advertising focus on fear (e.g. immigration) and the economy and ineffective government (e.g. inflation and uneven wealth gains) beat out the fear of authoritarianism.
Finally, given that the electoral college advantage for Republicans requires a Democratic presidential candidate to win the popular vote by about 2% (even so, Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college with a 2.1% popular vote win) having Harris behind by 1.5% in the popular vote made it almost impossible for her to win the electoral college.
You are missing the point that the difference in drop-off between parties is irrelevant. TOTAL (i.e. party-independent) drop-off numbers averaged 0.99% which was less than the margin of victory. When you have around 1/3rd of voters being unaffiliated and many of them voting mixed candidates across parties, you can easily have "drop-off" between parties by having people vote one party for President and a different party for Senator. Again, comparing drop-off between parties is a nearly meaningless statistic.
The list of "non-swing" states in this dataset is far from representative of the US as a whole and I would strongly caution against jumping to any conclusions based on such a limited sample size. All of these states, both swing and non-swing, have their own unique considerations that must to be accounted for if any worthwhile comparative analysis is to be performed, e.g., population, population density, demographics, etc.
Further, I think the authors ought to have more serious consideration for topical and historical contexts in their analysis. Factors that one would expect to contribute to increased divergence in vote for President relative to down-ballot races, e.g., candidate incumbency/tenure, are ignored, and no evidence is shown to suggest these trends are out of line with observations from previous general elections. It feels very premature to suggest the results are "strange" or "extreme" without a valid frame of reference.
What actually is striking to us is that despite all those differences of population, population density, demographics, incumbency/tenure - in almost every state the large drop-off exists. That is perhaps the strangest thing about the phenomenon.
You need to take such factors into account, though - that's my point. Your methodology is comparative in nature, i.e., President versus down-ballot race, swing state versus non-swing state. Context is very important.
"In two states, North Carolina and Delaware, we used other down-ballot races because there was no Senate race."
You may be pleased to learn that Delaware did elect a Senator this year: Lisa Blunt Rochester (D). Comparing that race to President, we observe 7.74% R versus 2.23% D drop-off. Quite a difference in drop-off compared to the Governor's race (-2.19% R vs 3.51% D, as in your data). The point is not to highlight the mistake in leaving out this race, but rather to illustrate the fact that not all down-ballot races are equivalent (assuming more than one race is available for comparison).
Likewise, for North Carolina: the Attorney General contest was selected for comparison rather than the Gubernatorial contest. Why? More votes were cast for Governor than for AG (by a slim margin), so surely that race would serve as a better representative of a down-ballot race, right? Well, Governor compared to President in NC yields 22.67% R vs -13.04% D drop-off. That's a significantly more dramatic difference than President / AG. But I suppose you are probably aware of why that might be... Again: different race, different result.
For North Carolina, analyzing the governor race exacerbates the Republican drop-off since the Rep Governor had so many issues. Comparing to AG is more conservative (has less Republican drop-off than Gov) and likely more representative of true drop-off. I can't say why Delaware Gov was analyzed instead of Senate.
How do these huge drop off votes for Trump in swing states compare historically? Have we seen anything like this before? I have a real hard time believing that several hundred thousand citizens would vote Democrat on the down ballot races -- for senate or attorney general, etc. -- but then pick Trump for president. I'm not an expert in the field, but it seems to me the only way to get at the guts of what happened is still a Forensic Audit, a close up examination of the ballots compared to the votes tallied. Interestingly, Jackie Singh just published details on Twitter and Reddit that implicate an infamous Russian hack in controlling the GOP and our elections. More should come from that.Thank you for your work.
I agree, I question the outcome because there are too many disparities from previous years...with Musk and DeJoy involved, it definitely is questionable.
Please see a Reddit-community-driven explanation of how AI and brand new Direct to Cell satellite tech could have been used to insert drop off ballots and cause these strange results. https://substack.com/home/post/p-153003086
Investigate the mail-in ballots. Check how many were requested, vs how many were cast. Did Lewis dejoy’s XPO privatized mail processing facility ‘lose’ millions of ballots?
My guess is yes, ballots were conveniently lost or destroyed.
In NC every state wide race went to democrats, Trump won the state. It’s easier to claim there are funny numbers than recognize that swing states were targeted with multiple tactics to surprise democrat voters. In an election where you only have to chip away tens of thousands votes in key states it’s easy to see how the tactics worked when each of them only had to surprise a few thousand voters to be successful because combined it would tally up to a winning margin. If people don’t learn from this we will be back here again in a couple of years.
If they just do this obvious state of theft, they can easily prove we need to call a National Emergency for the arrest of Trump and his minion.
The tactics served to cause decreased voter turnout and brainwashing of the damaged cult. It’s called successful marketing and it is not illegal. Same with playing games with voter purges and other suppression tactics. The only illegal crap was the bomb threats to polling location of Election Day but they were just a small impact, but also, add all the small stuff and it becomes just enough.
Did you write "surprise" when you meant "suppress" there?
This is pretty obvious. We were robbed!
That's fair but, fairly generalized. In contrast, it could be said that voter privacy would veil a states exploit of one race easier than having numerous state & local anomalies. This would create more state scrutiny because the local results, especially in rural, small population regions, could be vetted and recounted easily and draw more attention. With an entire state questioning 1 race, you couldn't generate a sizeable group feeling curious, demanding action.
Now, the reason there were alot of questions about results is where trump's flawed personality comes into frame. IMO, if an exploit was implemented, then trump being trump is what lead to the data being researched. There would be 12 or less counties to manipulate in order to have achieved a winning result and leave a minimal footprint; chip-away as you stated. The best exploits are the ones you never or can't easily find. The never fail, admit fault, winner (self-proclaimed), tough guy, Cohn & Stone disciple, womanizing, and desired persona says I'm better than minimal. He wants all the swing states to prove how desired and popular he is when in fact, he was losing his base support before election day. More manipulation would need some offset, i.e. padding both candidates appropriately in their strongholds, patterning data where implemented but this is assuming there will only be scrutiny if any, on the swing states.So, enter that data patterning seen for the first time in election history. Not 1 red county was flipped to blue and all flips in this election were from blue to red, nationwide. Another never-before seen stat in all previous elections. His small ego and ignorance may be the reason this data manipulation was found.
Horseshit
Contact Harris and tell her to demand a recount.
🗽🇺🇲🇺🇦
The 2024 DNC Presidental Campaign
- Silence for 3 years, 7 months
- Campaign 5 months in swing states
The 2024 RNC Presidential Campaign
- 4 years constant FOX campaign for GOP's in all 50 states
From Hopium Chronicles on SubStack.
We need a more robust 24/7/365 pro-democracy media we discussed yesterday, but we also need a more aggressive Democratic Party-led strategy to engage Democratic voters in all 50 states to drive turnout in every election, in every state. The Democratic Party and our Presidential campaigns have to be more than just 7 battleground states.
https://open.substack.com/pub/simonwdc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=280c3q
The only TV outlet for Dems is Free Speech TV. One guy like Mark Cuban could buy it and make it our megaphone. This is why we suck at delivering our message. Nobody saw it. Thanks to Fox for screwing the country again.
When you gave this information to the candidates, the Democratic party, various honest election advocacy groups, meidas news hosts, even the cnns of the world, or the Courts, anybody?
These are indeed strange numbers. As others have pointed out, historical context matters - has this degree of drop off voting happened before? My own cruder analysis comparing only drop off votes between presidential and senate elections in swing vs non-swing states found the same basic results as yours - drop off votes heavily favored Trump in swing states in 2024. Even with the small sample size of the swing state group, statistical testing suggests the differences in drop off votes in swing vs non-swing states is improbable.
I also pulled the data from 2020 as a comparison. Drop off votes favoring Trump in swing states increased dramatically from 2020 to 2024. I can't speak to other historical data. Did this happen, for example, when Reagan won in a blowout in 1980?
I also can't speak to reasons, nefarious or innocent, that caused these drop off numbers. What I do know is numbers, and these numbers are so anomalous that they're setting off all my data analysis alarms.
I'd like to think there are innocent reasons for the dropoff votes, like the possibilities listed at the end of your post. I'd also feel a lot better if a forensic audit confirmed that these drop off votes are real. Enough experts have shouted "smoke!" that it's worth seeing if there's a fire. Time is running out to investigate this further.
Why the complete silence from the Harris campaign?
Not a peep?!
The answer should be obvious. The 2020 election was a serious education to the Republican base as well as those who support Trump. They saw millions and millions of votes that were cast using these unsolicited mail-in ballots. So they decided to use that same strategy against the left for the 2024 election. In other words, the left got beat at their own game. It shouldn't be that hard for you lefties to figure this out.
It's the Republicans that lie and cheat time and time again
Clarification, please. This is the last sentence between the 1st two graphs-- "Republican drop-off is still greater in the non-swing states, but the difference is less extreme: 2 % Republican drop-off compared to 1.37% Democratic drop-off." I don't understand the "still greater" part. You've got four more non-swing states than swing states with a much greater total population yet they combine for almost 300,000 fewer drops-offs. How does that equal "still greater"?
Republican compared to Democrat is still greater within the category of non-swing states.
Thanks, Jenn. How embarrassing. Of course, they meant still greater meaning it was still happening, not even greater still, the way I insisted on interpreting it. Me-minus one brain. Thanks for the clarification.
Harris lost because she didn't have any genuine media support. Whereas Trump had propagandists at Fox News Newsmax OAN Rumble YouTube Telegram numerous podcasters and still won only 31.87% of voters. Not half the country. That said VP Harris did very well imho but Gretchen Whitmer would've won.
There is no mystery here. You incorrectly assume that voters are almost all registered to one of two parties. That is not the case. Every state, including every swing state, has large numbers of unaffiliated voters not associated with a particular party. These voters are more likely to vote mixed ballots such as the Republican Trump for President and a Democrat for Senator and there is nothing strange about this.
Your own data shows that TOTAL drop-off votes are not unusually high and these totals are smaller than the margins of victory (Arizona total drop-off is 41,355 while margin of victory is 187,382). This shows this isn't about lots of people voting for President and nothing else. It's about more voters not voting straight down the ballot with a single party.
What distinguishes the swing states from the non-swing states is the massive amount of advertising targeted in these states mostly for the Presidential race which is what caused drop-off votes cross-party. That advertising resulted in more unaffiliated voters going with Trump but not choosing Republicans down-ballot. Again, this is perfectly explained and understandable and shows Trump's advertising focus on fear (e.g. immigration) and the economy and ineffective government (e.g. inflation and uneven wealth gains) beat out the fear of authoritarianism.
Finally, given that the electoral college advantage for Republicans requires a Democratic presidential candidate to win the popular vote by about 2% (even so, Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college with a 2.1% popular vote win) having Harris behind by 1.5% in the popular vote made it almost impossible for her to win the electoral college.
The drop-off difference is over 267k. That's what is comparable to the margin of victory and it exceeds that margin.
You are missing the point that the difference in drop-off between parties is irrelevant. TOTAL (i.e. party-independent) drop-off numbers averaged 0.99% which was less than the margin of victory. When you have around 1/3rd of voters being unaffiliated and many of them voting mixed candidates across parties, you can easily have "drop-off" between parties by having people vote one party for President and a different party for Senator. Again, comparing drop-off between parties is a nearly meaningless statistic.
The list of "non-swing" states in this dataset is far from representative of the US as a whole and I would strongly caution against jumping to any conclusions based on such a limited sample size. All of these states, both swing and non-swing, have their own unique considerations that must to be accounted for if any worthwhile comparative analysis is to be performed, e.g., population, population density, demographics, etc.
Further, I think the authors ought to have more serious consideration for topical and historical contexts in their analysis. Factors that one would expect to contribute to increased divergence in vote for President relative to down-ballot races, e.g., candidate incumbency/tenure, are ignored, and no evidence is shown to suggest these trends are out of line with observations from previous general elections. It feels very premature to suggest the results are "strange" or "extreme" without a valid frame of reference.
What actually is striking to us is that despite all those differences of population, population density, demographics, incumbency/tenure - in almost every state the large drop-off exists. That is perhaps the strangest thing about the phenomenon.
You need to take such factors into account, though - that's my point. Your methodology is comparative in nature, i.e., President versus down-ballot race, swing state versus non-swing state. Context is very important.
"In two states, North Carolina and Delaware, we used other down-ballot races because there was no Senate race."
You may be pleased to learn that Delaware did elect a Senator this year: Lisa Blunt Rochester (D). Comparing that race to President, we observe 7.74% R versus 2.23% D drop-off. Quite a difference in drop-off compared to the Governor's race (-2.19% R vs 3.51% D, as in your data). The point is not to highlight the mistake in leaving out this race, but rather to illustrate the fact that not all down-ballot races are equivalent (assuming more than one race is available for comparison).
Likewise, for North Carolina: the Attorney General contest was selected for comparison rather than the Gubernatorial contest. Why? More votes were cast for Governor than for AG (by a slim margin), so surely that race would serve as a better representative of a down-ballot race, right? Well, Governor compared to President in NC yields 22.67% R vs -13.04% D drop-off. That's a significantly more dramatic difference than President / AG. But I suppose you are probably aware of why that might be... Again: different race, different result.
For North Carolina, analyzing the governor race exacerbates the Republican drop-off since the Rep Governor had so many issues. Comparing to AG is more conservative (has less Republican drop-off than Gov) and likely more representative of true drop-off. I can't say why Delaware Gov was analyzed instead of Senate.
The abnormalities were in swing states...The GQP is not that smart.