David - I am responding here, rather than go all the way down to the original post.
Voter turnout can be measured as a percent of eligible voters or as a percent of registered voters. The 89% number I found was correct, as a percent of registered voters. However I incorrectly compared it against a percent of eligible voters in my comment. Here's an accurate comparison:
There were 3,684,726 registered voters in Wisconsin going into Election day. The total votes recorded in Wisconsin were 3,240,549. That would give Wisconsin a turnout of 88%. [UPDATE: The current vote total is 3,297,420, which would yield a turnout of over 89%. However, Wisconsin permits same-day registration, so the number of such registrations would bring that percentage down somewhat.] According to Ballotpedia, no American state in the period 2002-2018 has ever achieved a turnout rate of 80% or higher. [UPDATE: These are turnout numbers expressed as percentage of eligible voters, not registered voters, so the percentages are not directly comparable.]
Where? The accurate comparison is 88% of registered Wisconsin voters turned out in 2020 vs 84% in 2016.
Your "accurate comparison" states it's never been higher than 80% (with an update pointing out why that's BS). So far nothing you've shown has been accurate. How long before you admit to yourself that these sources are untrustworthy? They are feeding you lies, and you are eagerly devouring them.
Brian Stelter ponders here why Republicans are so hungry to consume lies. He suggests it's a result of "a poisonous stews of social alienation, negative partisanship, severe distrust of news sources" and "other factors as well".
Layzej - I am willing to consume lies from politicians because I have no choice. Both sides lie. However, there's a big difference in policies. Trump's policies have been pretty darn effective IMO.
"Hate crimes in US reach highest level in more than a decade," By MICHAEL BALSAMO, AP 11/15/20 https://apnews.com/article/hate-crimes-rise-fbi-data-ebbcadca8458aba96575da905650120d
"Hate crimes in the U.S. rose to the highest level in more than a decade as federal officials also recorded the highest number of hate-motivated killings since the FBI began collecting that data in the early 1990s, according to an FBI report released Monday."
Thomas - fact checking may be theoretically possible, but it's often not practical. Someone who read the entire 1000+ pages of the ObamaCare law and who understood the all the legal and insurance concepts might have been able to figure out that President Obama was making false statements about the bill. But, who would take all that trouble to check just one politician's false statement?
David - I don't have the heart to follow up on all the evidence of election cheating. I doubt if you do either. However, here's a link with a long list of various fraud accusations.
Thanks David. But they're just accusations, not evidence. These days anyone can put up anything on the Web and some people will take them seriously. I believe the official sources, all of whom have said the state elections were secure, there were few to no problems, and certainly nothing that would come anywhere close to changing the results. Trump lost. People claiming otherwise based on flimsy accusations are damaging American democracy, Trump most of all.
DiC, This wasn't about details in Obamacare. You spread these lies, not because you can't check them but because you like them, they fit into your worldview, and then you excuse it by claiming that everyone lies.
They want to be lied to. The refrain "Fox news sucks" is only shouted when Fox tells the truth.
DiC says he's willing to consume the lies because he thinks Trump's policies have been effective, but how could he know if he can't distinguish fact from fiction?
Trump says his policies have resulted in a stronger economy. That he's brought peace to the middle east. That he's ended COVID. That he won the election. DiC will have to take Trump's word for it. Or powerlineblog. Or any of the other sources that have repeatedly lied to his face.
13 comments:
David - I am responding here, rather than go all the way down to the original post.
Voter turnout can be measured as a percent of eligible voters or as a percent of registered voters. The 89% number I found was correct, as a percent of registered voters. However I incorrectly compared it against a percent of eligible voters in my comment. Here's an accurate comparison:
There were 3,684,726 registered voters in Wisconsin going into Election day. The total votes recorded in Wisconsin were 3,240,549. That would give Wisconsin a turnout of 88%. [UPDATE: The current vote total is 3,297,420, which would yield a turnout of over 89%. However, Wisconsin permits same-day registration, so the number of such registrations would bring that percentage down somewhat.] According to Ballotpedia, no American state in the period 2002-2018 has ever achieved a turnout rate of 80% or higher. [UPDATE: These are turnout numbers expressed as percentage of eligible voters, not registered voters, so the percentages are not directly comparable.]
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/11/massive-voter-fraud-in-wisconsin.php
DiC: "Here's an accurate comparison"
Where? The accurate comparison is 88% of registered Wisconsin voters turned out in 2020 vs 84% in 2016.
Your "accurate comparison" states it's never been higher than 80% (with an update pointing out why that's BS). So far nothing you've shown has been accurate. How long before you admit to yourself that these sources are untrustworthy? They are feeding you lies, and you are eagerly devouring them.
Brian Stelter ponders here why Republicans are so hungry to consume lies. He suggests it's a result of "a poisonous stews of social alienation, negative partisanship, severe distrust of news sources" and "other factors as well".
I'm curious whether you have any insights?
David, here are Oregon voter turnouts for general elections (pct of registered voters). It includes several turnouts > 80%:
2020 82%
2018 68%
2016 80%
2014 71%
2012 83%
2010 72%
2008 86%
2006 71%
2004 87%
2002 69%
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/VoterTurnoutDetails.aspx?map=TURN
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/Voter_Turnout_History_General_Election.pdf
Layzej - I am willing to consume lies from politicians because I have no choice.
Both sides lie. However, there's a big difference in policies. Trump's policies have been pretty darn effective IMO.
Cheers
Yes, Trump's policies have been effective:
"Hate crimes in US reach highest level in more than a decade,"
By MICHAEL BALSAMO, AP 11/15/20
https://apnews.com/article/hate-crimes-rise-fbi-data-ebbcadca8458aba96575da905650120d
"Hate crimes in the U.S. rose to the highest level in more than a decade as federal officials also recorded the highest number of hate-motivated killings since the FBI began collecting that data in the early 1990s, according to an FBI report released Monday."
“If people want to be lied to, they will vote for leaders who will lie to them.”
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RJZHL5GH_A8
“I don’t think willful denial will helps us. If plague is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, then lies and denial are its squires.”
Yale MD Nicholas Christakis on The cost of deceit:
DiC " I am willing to consume lies from politicians because I have no choice. "
Yet, others here showed that you can fact check. You made a choice to believe the liars rather than checking.
Layzej, thanks for pointing out this excellent interview. I put it in a post by itself:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2020/11/excellent-interview-with-yale-md.html
Thomas - fact checking may be theoretically possible, but it's often not practical. Someone who read the entire 1000+ pages of the ObamaCare law and who understood the all the legal and insurance concepts might have been able to figure out that President Obama was making false statements about the bill. But, who would take all that trouble to check just one politician's false statement?
Cheers
David - I don't have the heart to follow up on all the evidence of election cheating. I doubt if you do either. However, here's a link with a long list of various fraud accusations.
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=46398
Cheers
David
Thanks David. But they're just accusations, not evidence. These days anyone can put up anything on the Web and some people will take them seriously. I believe the official sources, all of whom have said the state elections were secure, there were few to no problems, and certainly nothing that would come anywhere close to changing the results. Trump lost. People claiming otherwise based on flimsy accusations are damaging American democracy, Trump most of all.
DiC, This wasn't about details in Obamacare. You spread these lies, not because you can't check them but because you like them, they fit into your worldview, and then you excuse it by claiming that everyone lies.
They want to be lied to. The refrain "Fox news sucks" is only shouted when Fox tells the truth.
DiC says he's willing to consume the lies because he thinks Trump's policies have been effective, but how could he know if he can't distinguish fact from fiction?
Trump says his policies have resulted in a stronger economy. That he's brought peace to the middle east. That he's ended COVID. That he won the election. DiC will have to take Trump's word for it. Or powerlineblog. Or any of the other sources that have repeatedly lied to his face.
Post a Comment