Yeah, both sides amiright?

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The turnout of Democratic voters was lower than previous elections. There are too many variables at play to claim anything definitively, but it’s safe to assume that the number of voters who abstained due to the issue was more than zero.

    If a conclusion is going to be drawn about whether the whole genocide topic had a tangible effect on the outcome, it’s important to consider those as well as the protest votes.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      I really want to see a credible analysis showing how many of those non-votes were due to abstentions versus voter-suppression mesaures such as electoral-roll purges, overcrowded polling stations, fake challenges at the polls, etc.

      • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Most of it was white and hispanic older men staying home.

        Those were the largest demographic shifts.

        We live in a bigoted country that can not vote for a woman

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      For something like 30 years running, the real winner of the election was non-voters. When other countries have this level of boycott and the US doesn’t like them, they get called “regimes” in need of “democraticization”.