- Dec 23, 2009
- Reaction score
- Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Here’s a good question..It could be that Statista is wrong, I don't know. It's why I threw it out there. Rounding up the numbers from the link you posted state by state, I came up with about 206 registered voters. CNBC is making claim that nearly 160 million voted. If the turnout was that high, the question is why? We've seen his pathetic crowds at his town halls and rallies compared to Trump. We seen he put little energy into his campaign. The man has not one excitable policy. In fact most of his platform will kill this country. A majority of voters (Democrat and Republican) believe the guy has dementia.There are a couple of problems with your reasoning. First, according to your chart, there should be about 15-16 million more registered voters than in 2018, if earlier trends continue. Voter registration went up about 16 million from 2010 to 2012, and around 15 million from 2014 to 2016. Second, following that chart assumes that circumstances and voter registration trends did continue as before without increasing. As I've mentioned a few times, there were reasons to expect a greater than usual increase in voter registration (and voter turnout) this election cycle.
As to sources, if you look back at my link to registered voters (Number Of Registered Voters by State 2020) you will see that they cite various state websites for their numbers, for example www.sos.wa.gov for Washington, and elections.delaware.gov for Delaware. The other source I used, for total population and voter-age population, was the US Census.
To go back to Statista, according to them, overall voter turnout in the 2020 election was 66.7% 2020 Presidential Election: voter turnout rate U.S. 2020 | Statista So if you are going to use Statista to claim near 100% turnout, you should probably check to see what they actually have to say about voter turnout.
Finally, as best as I can determine in a quick check, Statista has been around since 2008 while World Population Review has been around since 2011. The US Census has obviously been around longer. So the argument that Statista would not risk their reputation can apply equally to the sources I've used. Additionally, Statista appears to be a German owned site, which is pretty funny considering the rumors that have been going around about a raid in Germany to get servers holding evidence of election fraud.
Again, none of this disproves your claims, but it does make your argument a lot less compelling. It doesn't help that Statista keeps its sources behind a paywall.
Trump I can understand given his record. Obama I can understand as the first Mulatto President that got a lot more blacks to register to vote along with the white guilt crowd. But Biden? A guy who spent nearly a half-century in federal politics and accomplished nothing? It doesn't make sense. The man is more confused than a baby at a topless bar.
When you consider Trump's increased voter turnout among blacks and Hispanics, there is no way he could have lost this election legitimately.
Has any incumbent president ever received as much as 17% more votes for a second term and still lose reelection?
I have a suspicion the answer is ‘no’.