Population growth plus higher turnout. In 2004, turnout went up by 16.9 million votes compared to 2000 - a 16% increase. This year, we're up 14.3% so far. Turnout was up 14% in 1992, 11% in 1960, 26.6% in 1952, 14.9% in 1936, 26.5% in 1928, 23.2% in 1916. https://twitter.com/realmikenemesi/status/1331259114308202502 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Turnout was up 44.5% in 1920, but that was due to the 19th Amendment giving women the vote nationwide (women voting in individual states led to some of the surge in 1916).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not commenting on the popular vote spread here is really something.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
lol, care to explain how 20M more people voted than in 2016? Aren't you supposed to be a stats guy?
-
I think he's making the point on how close this was.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Could fit the difference between defeat & victory within here with room to sparepic.twitter.com/AJ3h4zcD1U
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1. A good preformance in 1st debate =
#Trump reelected. 2. Contrary to popular belief (IE: "NO WAY THEY COULD CHEAT NATIONWIDE ON SHUCH A MASSIVE SCALE! IT WOULD TAKE A HUGE CONSPIRACY), it only takes a tiny, tiny (almost infinitesimal) amount of cheating to win.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think people keep confusing two kinds of “close election”. This election was really really close in the sense that one decision or news cycle could have flipped it—call that “2016-close”. But it wasn’t “2000-close” where a recount or court challenge could reverse it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.