He lost by around 1% of the voters that showed up, 35% of eligible voters stayed home and didn't go to the polls.
If more than 2% of those that didn't vote but were registered didn't vote because of access issues then yes. But it's going to be a hard sell to convince me that 1 in 3 people didn't have access to a polling place.
He could have still lost even with voter suppression if 1/3 of people weren't disengaged with politics.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what percentage of the 35% that stayed home did so because of what factors.
Access?
Protest?
Confidence Kamala would win?
Didn't care?
There's many factors that lead to this outcome and if even one of them went the other way we wouldn't be here.
Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
It's an extremely uphill battle to argue that the second highest turnout election ever was suppressed to a meaningful degree.
Suppression includes the mass rejection and disqualification of perfectly legal ballots for various "reasons".
They turned up alright. But their vote was thrown away.
Rejected ballots aren't counted in turnout numbers. It takes conspiracy level thinking to think there was a coordinated suppression effort to get just enough Harris voters that aren't willing to verify or cast a provisional ballot.
So you didn't read the article. Just claim that the turnout being high eliminates any possibility that voter suppression happened and couldn't have made a difference. Under a context of historical widespread use of voter suppression by the Republican party. With millions of legal votes being arbitrarily rejected, strangely overrepresenting black voters. With mass rejection of mail-in ballots which are statistically overrepresenting Democrat votes. With targeted potential voters being purged for not responding to a "poison letter" that almost nobody responds to. Within an election what was decided under one percent of the votes. Got it.
I'm claiming it's unlikely that suppression managed to suppress almost exactly enough votes to swing an election. If you assume these efforts were perfect in targeting Harris voters, which is unlikely. It also would need to assume that the Trump conspirators targeted almost exactly enough voters with a sub 1% margin of error, which is again unlikely. Alternatively, there could have been extreme levels of suppression, and Trump was so unpopular he still barely won, but this is even more unlikely given the similar vote totals.
Trump didn't successfully steal any elections.