[croemer]

Don't use absolute numbers here, that's lying with statistics.

The correct metric would be relative turnout and that doesn't support your claim:

> In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900

[dpc050505]

People can care and think the two candidates with a chance to win are too bad to endorse with a vote, leading them to stay home and spend their time more wisely than in what they might consider to be a farce of democracy.

They may also live in an area where their preferred candidate has no chance of winning, making their vote a waste of time.

[Aachen]

Of course it makes a difference to vote for what you actually want, no matter if they win this time. If you don't have an appointment at the euthanasia office and you (or someone who can vote in your name) is in good enough health to reasonably go, I can't (currently) think of an argument why it wouldn't be worth one's time to vote for who should govern you

[kleiba]

Speaking of relative: since the term "landslide" has been thrown around in the direct aftermath of the election quite a bit, it's interesting to note that nationwide, Trump only received 1.5% more votes than Harris.

This is especially telling in the light of the numbers you just gave on voter turnout.

[croemer]

But this time he _did_ win the popular vote, in contrast to the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton.

[datavirtue]

Both sides received significantly less votes than previous election. One side just happened to drive better turnout. That is all.

[_mlbt]

The enthusiasm gap was entirely on the Democrat side this past election. Donald Trump won considerably more votes this past election than he ever has. There are also a significant number of prominent former lifelong Democrats that switched to being Trump supporters. Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., and Elon Musk come to mind.

> Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020. Trump won 3,059,799 more popular votes in 2024 than he won in 2020 and 14,299,293 more than he won in 2016. He now holds the record for the most cumulative popular votes won by any presidential candidate in U.S. history, surpassing Barack Obama. Running three times for the White House obviously helps.

https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

[croemer]

Again, these absolute numbers are misleading due to population growth. See my post up the chain.

[kleiba]

Why the downvote? This argument is correct.

[Aachen]

Quite astonished to see Elon Musk being used as an example of someone whose views are worth following. If someone goes from e.g. Red Cross employee to ever more worrying statements and eventually outright racism and misinformation, I'm worried what happened to them (some disease?) more than thinking "ah crap, the racism party was right after all, let me go and vote AfD now"

[johnnyanmac]

So, turnout was still really high but not literally the highest in 120 years. Who's talking about lying with statistics again?

This is all worthless anyway. We don't use the popular vote to determine presidency. Reports show That turnout among youth was lower than 2020, but still really high in battleground states. That tells me the youth already lost faith of their vote counting.