was turnout suppressed in wayne county?

marginally, and it bucks the trend, but 2-3% either way is a rounding error.

if you do the basic math,

1) the democrats received 60,589 less votes

2) turnout was down by 13,899 votes

3) if every single one of those people that didn't vote were democrats, there are still 60589-13899 = 46690 votes to account for.

4) the republicans received 24,225 more votes - in wayne county. strictly.

5) if every single one of those were biden voters in 2020, that leaves 46690-24225 = 22465 voters that are unaccounted for and i suppose must have voted for jill stein.

if we do some naive math that is probably loosely right using that number of 60589 less votes in wayne county (detroit), it follows that:

1) 24,225 moved from biden to trump

2) 22,465 moved to stein (or another third party candidate)

3) 13,899 refrained from voting

almost twice as many voters switched from biden to trump than stayed home; depressed turnout would be the least of detroit's worries.

and they should not delude or confuse themselves as it will breed complacency and that is a problem in detroit. they need to face the facts: even in detroit, they lost votes to trump, explicitly.

this is naive math because it could instead be that:

1) trump got 24,225 brand new voters to get off the couch to vote for him, in detroit, explicitly.

2) all of the 60,589 voters that voted for biden but didn't vote for harris abstained or voted for stein.

stein's vote total went up by about 30,000, which is more than 23,000, so there is some evidence that some of trumps's increase in votes was due to new voters (around 7,000-8,000), but also that most of it wasn't. the green party has long argued that it registers new voters, especially young and first time voters, so it's also naive (and no doubt wrong) to assume that all of those 30,000 voters were biden voters. the libertarian party vote went down by the same amount that rfk went up, and it's naive to connect that together, but it washes it out, nonetheless.

there's lots of ways to put this together, certainly, but none of it supports the idea that harris lost because turnout was low; rather, it supports the idea that trump won because he increased turnout in his favour.

does he call donald "boss"?

i'm imagining he ought to.

he's technically slovenian, but he looks like something right out of an italian mob film, with the sunken eyes and the fitted suits and the apparent fact that he's 7 feet tall.

barron trump constantly looks like a low level hitman when he shows up on stage with trump.

"which one of these guys am i taking out, boss?"

don't listen to the liberal media when it tells you harris lost due to low turnout.

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2024/11/michigan-sets-voter-turnout-record-but-turnout-declined-in-every-democratic-county.html

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/06/wisconsin-vote-totals-2024-election-record-president-trump-harris/76098668007/

in pennsylvania, total turnout seems to have been marginally up, not down, but it was roughly flat. total votes increased by around 50,000. it would probably technically be record turnout, given that turnout in 2020 was high everywhere, but i can't find an article stating as much.

trump won by getting non-voters off the couch and he did that by creating an inspiring message of hope and change that resonated in key demographic groups.

i don't want them to give up their customs. i don't care what they eat or how they mumble at the wall.

what i want is for them to respect my customs, and the growing problem as they increase in numbers is that they increasingly don't respect my customs, and that they're increasingly aggressive about it when they don't.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/one-quarter-of-canadians-say-immigrants-should-give-up-customs-poll

this argument is not supported by the data.

trump won by getting non-voters out not just in high numbers but in record numbers. trump did not suppress turnout or win by breeding apathy. there was in fact record turnout.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/americans-didnt-embrace-trump-they-rejected-biden-harris.html

i was born in 1981, but i don't identify as a millennial and admit that i frankly don't understand millennials very well.

i'm the last gen xer.

i nonetheless think the point i'm making about charli xcx is correct: this isn't music that adults of any generation would listen to, this is music for little kids. people in their 20s hanging on to this may be likely to have developmental disorders.

i would also classify taylor swift as being "music for children", but she seems to have retained an unusual amount of the audience that liked her as children into adulthood, which i actually don't understand well. i've heard a fair amount of taylor swift, and it definitely strikes me as something that hyper-targets the preteen market. i don't know if it's that a lot of millennials are hanging on to their childhood longer than they should or if it's more of a cultural thing, or even if it's that people are taking their kids to the shows, but you'd think that at least half of the people going to these shows ought to have outgrown her years ago.

i actually get the impression that taylor swift has even outgrown herself.

beyonce may be better targeted at people old enough to vote, but probably just barely.

i haven't seen statistics, but i would assume that charli xcx is geared towards about 12-15 year olds and people in their 20s would largely prefer music that is more mature than that.

when i was in my 20s, i would have considered that kind of music immature and anybody my age that still listened to it to be immature.

there's some information coming out that it actually cost harris a lot of money to get on stage with all of these celebrities everywhere, and that her research wasn't very focused on relevant demographic groups.