Good morning. Today, my colleague Nate Cohn explains that low turnout didn't cost Kamala Harris the election. We're also covering Hunter Biden's pardon, climate change and black pants. —David Leonhardt
Persuasion over turnout
If you've been reading post-election coverage, you've probably seen one of the big takeaways from the returns so far: In counties across the country, Kamala Harris won many fewer votes than President Biden did four years ago. With nearly all votes counted, she has about 74 million; Biden received 81 million four years ago. Donald Trump, in contrast, has 77 million votes, up from 74 million four years ago. The drop-off in the Democratic vote was largest in the big blue cities. In places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, Trump gained vote share but didn't necessarily earn many more votes than he did four years ago. Instead, Democratic tallies plunged. As such, it's tempting to conclude that Democrats simply didn't turn out this year — and that Harris might have won if they had voted in the numbers they did four years ago. This interpretation would be a mistake. In today's newsletter, I'll explain. Disenchanted DemocratsFor one, the story doesn't apply to the battlegrounds, where turnout was much higher. In all seven battleground states, Trump won more votes than Biden did in 2020. More important, it is wrong to assume that the voters who stayed home would have backed Harris. Even if they had been dragged to the polls, it might not have meaningfully helped her. How is that possible? The low turnout among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups — especially nonwhite voters — was a reflection of lower support for Harris: Millions of Democrats soured on their party and stayed home, reluctantly backed Harris or even made the leap to Trump.
During the campaign, The New York Times and Siena College polled many of these voters. After the election, we analyzed election records to see who did and didn't vote. The results suggest that higher turnout wouldn't have been an enormous help to Harris. That may be surprising. It's not usually how people think about turnout. Typically, turnout and party-switching are imagined as independent. After all, millions of voters are all but sure to vote for one party, and the only question is whether they'll vote. In lower-turnout midterms and special elections, turnout can be the whole ballgame. But in a presidential election, turnout and persuasion often go hand in hand. The voters who may or may not show up are different from the rest of the electorate. They're less ideological. They're less likely to be partisans, even if they're registered with a party. They're less likely to have deep views on the issues. They don't get their news from traditional media. Throughout the race, polls found that Trump's strength was concentrated among these voters. Many were registered Democrats or Biden voters four years ago. But they weren't acting like Democrats in 2024. They were more concerned by pocketbook issues than democracy or abortion rights. If they decided to vote, many said they would back Trump. The Las Vegas exampleIt will be many months until the story is clear nationwide, but the data we have so far suggests that the decline in Democratic turnout doesn't explain Harris's loss. Clark County, Nev., which contains Las Vegas, is an example. There, 64.8 percent of registered Democrats turned out, down from 67.7 percent in 2020; turnout among registered Republicans stayed roughly the same.
But this lower Democratic turnout would explain only about one-third of the decline in Democratic support in Clark County, even if one assumed that all Democrats were Harris voters. The remaining two-thirds of the shift toward Trump was because voters flipped his way. Even that back-of-the-envelope calculation probably overestimates the role of turnout. Our polling data suggests that many of these nonvoting Democrats were no lock for Harris. In Times/Siena data for Clark County, Harris led registered Democrats who voted in 2024, 88 percent to 8 percent. But she had a much narrower lead, 71 percent to 23 percent, among the registered Democrats who stayed home. There's no equivalent pattern of a drop in support for Trump among Republicans who stayed home. Indeed, many high-turnout Republicans are highly engaged, college-educated "Never Trump" voters who have helped Democrats in special and midterm elections. In Las Vegas and elsewhere, our data suggests that most voters who turned out in 2020 but stayed home in 2024 voted for Biden in 2020 — but about half of them, and maybe even a slight majority, appear to have backed Trump this year. Regardless, there's no reason to believe that they would have backed Harris by a wide margin, let alone the kind of margin that would have made a difference in the election.
Hunter Biden Pardon
Trump Appointments
Trump Administration
More on Politics
Supreme Court
Middle East
International
Other Big Stories
Opinions Today is Giving Tuesday, an unofficial holiday when many people donate to charities. Kathleen Kingsbury introduces the Communities Fund, a charitable program run by The Times that ensures 100 percent of donations go to nonprofit groups. (Donate here.) Nicholas Kristof recommends charities that help women and children in the developing world. Tressie McMillan Cottom recommends supporting victims of Hurricane Helene. Margaret Renkl recommends charities that connect gardeners to native plants. Zeynep Tufekci recommends donating to research projects studying long Covid. Last chance to save on Cooking before Thanksgiving. Readers of The Morning: Save on a year of Cooking. Search recipes by ingredient or explore editors' picks to easily find something delicious.
From Pong to Pokémon: See kids' favorite holiday toys over seven decades. Workout: Exercise for better sleep. All inclusive: How to pick the right resort for your next vacation. Lives Lived: Peter Westbrook was a six-time Olympian who in 1984 became the first African American and Asian American to win a medal at the Games in fencing, a sport long dominated by white Europeans. He died at 72.
N.F.L.: The Denver Broncos beat the Cleveland Browns, 41-32, in a frenzied game. M.L.B.: Baseball officials are discussing a new rule, called the Golden At-Bat, in which a team could substitute any player into the game for a single plate appearance. Golf: Mollie Marcoux Samaan will resign as L.P.G.A. commissioner. Her successor will inherit a rising sport with many issues.
Black pants are essential. It is possible to spend years chasing the perfect pair, "permanently twinkling in the distance," Vanessa Friedman, The Times's chief fashion critic, writes. But how many pairs of black pants is too many? Friedman says that each pair should have its own use — slacks for work, jeans for play. But if you wear them, and they don't get lost in the back of your closet, you can never have too many. More on culture
Assemble this French toast casserole a day in advance. Shop the Cyber Monday deals that are still going.
Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangram was comically. And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Sudoku, Connections and Strands. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.
|
martes, 3 de diciembre de 2024
The Morning: Turnout wasn’t the problem
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
ROPA Y COMPLEMENTOS ALIAZON
ROPA Y COMPLEMENTOS
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario