… 8,942 U.S. citizens ages 18 and older who are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP). We verified their turnout in the five general elections from 2016 to 2024 using commercial voter files that collect publicly available official state turnout records.
It’s bullshit and the reason why is right there - and the fact that they ran the survey two weeks after the election. Idiocy.
You care to support your unfounded assertions? Two weeks is still pretty close to the election. You can only do so much on day-of exit polls. Two weeks later is very close to the election. And you quoted a paragraph, but I see nothing actual objectionable there. What exactly is your problem with anything you quoted? That’s a very large sample size. You’re just dismissing the study’s methodology as “bullshit” by fiat. It’s bullshit because you arbitrarily decided it was bullshit. Or more precisely, it’s simply bullshit because you didn’t like the conclusions reached. Blue MAGA indeed.
Well then you need to work on your critical thinking skills, it’s pretty obvious. The election wasn’t lost because people stayed home. If more people had voted, Trump would have one even more. Kamala didn’t lose because progressives stayed home. She lost because she abandoned enough policies that support the working and middle class that many of these voters voted for Trump instead. The online progressives that centrists love to blame thing on held their nose and voted for Kamala anyway, as unlike liberals, progressives will actually vote blue no matter who.
Again, the article does not support your assertion. It seems you have been led on by the suggestion presented in the article. If you consider the statistics the author presented without that suggestion, you’ll realize they’re fairly unrelated data points that add up to… several interesting, but unrelated data points.
Furthermore, it’s a nation wide data set, right? So how does that break down along state lines? For example, did enough people stay home in Michigan to affect the outcome of Michigan? We don’t know based on the data presented in the article.
Now, would you like to discuss my critical thinking skills? If you have more data I’d be happy to consider it.
You’re right. And the results show that the idea that the election was lost because progressives stayed home is a complete historical myth.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turnout-trum-00426544
This is that garbage Pew report from
It’s bullshit and the reason why is right there - and the fact that they ran the survey two weeks after the election. Idiocy.
You care to support your unfounded assertions? Two weeks is still pretty close to the election. You can only do so much on day-of exit polls. Two weeks later is very close to the election. And you quoted a paragraph, but I see nothing actual objectionable there. What exactly is your problem with anything you quoted? That’s a very large sample size. You’re just dismissing the study’s methodology as “bullshit” by fiat. It’s bullshit because you arbitrarily decided it was bullshit. Or more precisely, it’s simply bullshit because you didn’t like the conclusions reached. Blue MAGA indeed.
I do not. They are far from unfounded.
I’m sure.
I don’t see how your link supports your assertion.
Well then you need to work on your critical thinking skills, it’s pretty obvious. The election wasn’t lost because people stayed home. If more people had voted, Trump would have one even more. Kamala didn’t lose because progressives stayed home. She lost because she abandoned enough policies that support the working and middle class that many of these voters voted for Trump instead. The online progressives that centrists love to blame thing on held their nose and voted for Kamala anyway, as unlike liberals, progressives will actually vote blue no matter who.
Again, the article does not support your assertion. It seems you have been led on by the suggestion presented in the article. If you consider the statistics the author presented without that suggestion, you’ll realize they’re fairly unrelated data points that add up to… several interesting, but unrelated data points.
Furthermore, it’s a nation wide data set, right? So how does that break down along state lines? For example, did enough people stay home in Michigan to affect the outcome of Michigan? We don’t know based on the data presented in the article.
Now, would you like to discuss my critical thinking skills? If you have more data I’d be happy to consider it.