It says those are expected vote totals for states where less than 97 percent of the vote has been counted. Trump is gonna end up with some 73.000.000 votes, while Kamala has 68.000.000 right now, Biden received 81.200.000 in 2020. That’s 14 million fewer votes overall than in 2020. That sounds to me like a lot of Dem voters didn’t show up.
It says those are expected vote totals for states where less than 97 percent of the vote has been counted
We may have understood it the same way, yet just to be sure : The turnout is counted normally, except for states where less than 97% of the votes are counted, in which case the reported turnout has been replaced by the expected turnout.
That sounds to me like a lot of Dem voters didn’t show up
You’re right, if they didn’t voted for third parties, if the votes are mostly counted, if the voter turnout is the same, and if republicans didn’t received more votes than in 2020, then where did these 14M votes went ?
Thanks for confirming that i’m missing something, don’t know if you or someone here have the explanation.
Well, they haven’t counted all the votes yet, but it seems that 158.000.000 total votes were cast according to an analyst from UFL, who gets info from the bureau of elections or whatever. If Trump has 73M and Kamala has 68M votes, some 2.4M have voted third party. I guess that means there are still some 14.5 million votes to be counted.
Which seems like a lot, doesn’t it? I don’t know what’s going on, perhaps we’re making some error somewhere.
And if they don’t have the same source, it confirms the WaPo’s 65% with its 64.52%(, in the VEP_TURNOUT_RATE column)
we’re making some error somewhere
Yeah, you’re right, it’s too obvious, anyone can do 72.6M+68M+2.2M and easily see that it’s only ~143M out of 158.5, so we’re indeed making an obvious mistake somewhere. They’re probably simply not counted yet, as you said(, California is slow here).
While it is probably just that they werent counted yet can we atleast entertain the funniest outcome which is that after 4 years of yelling about how the election was stolen from him Trump actually stole the election, and hacked the voting machines or something? And a lot of the missing votes were fake? I just think it would be so funny I’d love to see how liberals reacted to that once its revealed. Like theyd probably just go “well shucks guess next time we wont let that happen”.
While it is probably just that they werent counted yet
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.
Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there). This seems like a good news for our instance though.
Ya i mean at the end of the day it doesnt matter i just thougnt itd be really funny if the democrats put all that effort into losing and Trump still had to steal the election.
Ideally, stats by categories would be more useful to draw a conclusion, but at first sight it doesn’t seem so though :
It says those are expected vote totals for states where less than 97 percent of the vote has been counted. Trump is gonna end up with some 73.000.000 votes, while Kamala has 68.000.000 right now, Biden received 81.200.000 in 2020. That’s 14 million fewer votes overall than in 2020. That sounds to me like a lot of Dem voters didn’t show up.
We may have understood it the same way, yet just to be sure : The turnout is counted normally, except for states where less than 97% of the votes are counted, in which case the reported turnout has been replaced by the expected turnout.
You’re right, if they didn’t voted for third parties, if the votes are mostly counted, if the voter turnout is the same, and if republicans didn’t received more votes than in 2020, then where did these 14M votes went ?
Thanks for confirming that i’m missing something, don’t know if you or someone here have the explanation.
Well, they haven’t counted all the votes yet, but it seems that 158.000.000 total votes were cast according to an analyst from UFL, who gets info from the bureau of elections or whatever. If Trump has 73M and Kamala has 68M votes, some 2.4M have voted third party. I guess that means there are still some 14.5 million votes to be counted.
Which seems like a lot, doesn’t it? I don’t know what’s going on, perhaps we’re making some error somewhere.
14 million write-ins for our boy Xi.
And if they don’t have the same source, it confirms the WaPo’s 65% with its 64.52%(, in the VEP_TURNOUT_RATE column)
Yeah, you’re right, it’s too obvious, anyone can do 72.6M+68M+2.2M and easily see that it’s only ~143M out of 158.5, so we’re indeed making an obvious mistake somewhere. They’re probably simply not counted yet, as you said(, California is slow here).
While it is probably just that they werent counted yet can we atleast entertain the funniest outcome which is that after 4 years of yelling about how the election was stolen from him Trump actually stole the election, and hacked the voting machines or something? And a lot of the missing votes were fake? I just think it would be so funny I’d love to see how liberals reacted to that once its revealed. Like theyd probably just go “well shucks guess next time we wont let that happen”.
Just a note on this :
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.
Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there).
This seems like a good news for our instance though.
Ya i mean at the end of the day it doesnt matter i just thougnt itd be really funny if the democrats put all that effort into losing and Trump still had to steal the election.
“RESUME THE COUNT!” - blue MAGA probably
If they were votes for third parties, then they would have shown up by now.