Seems some people are missing the point of the entire video: As I say at the end, my point is not that Kamala did nothing wrong & was actually a great candidate, but rather that the idea that Trump only won because of Kamala’s poor performance is wrong. Trump won because of his own record-breaking performance. Had Trump ran these numbers in 2020, he would’ve won, even with Joe Biden receiving the same 81M votes. If Kamala Harris didn’t lose a single voter compared to Biden, Trump would’ve still won. Trump even outperformed 2008 Obama in PA, NV, FL, OH, NC, and IA (all states Obama won) in terms of turnout. My whole point is that looking at the results of this election and going "Democrats lost because they couldn't get enough Democrats out to the polls" is misguided. Dems lost because Trump was so uniquely strong as a candidate, and that Dems need to analyze why he did so well with voters here if they want to replicate this. This isn't a 2016 where Trump just happened to win because no one wanted to vote for the Democratic candidate-he won because so many people wanted to vote for him. But sure, cope.
i agree but isnt it a bit odd how hillary clinton got 65M votes, biden suddenly got 81M, and then the democratic vote numbers just fell back down to 75M
here is the problem with your argument at least in pa. The number of mail in ballots. That weren't turned in 2024 is much higher than weren't turn in 2020. The counties with the biggest changes in failure to return was Philadelphia and the collar counties in fact her drop off from Biden looks almost like Hillary's drop off from Obama
until dems start playing on the anger felt by most americans about the state of the country the way republicans do by offering good policy and good rhetoric to counter the fashy republican "your life sucks because of trans people and immigrants", they will continue to lose to people like trump. we are a uniquely broken nation and everybody knows it. the neoliberal urge to sit on your hands and go "the system works!" while parading around ghouls like liz cheney as countless people can't afford to rent an apartment, can't afford healthcare, can't afford gas, and can't afford eggs. there's a reason the MAGA slogan resonates. the republican platform obviously doesn't offer any material change to americans at all, but it at least weaponizes the rage that most americans feel at how broken our systems really are.
It’s more difficult for Dems for sure, but that’s part of my point. Dems have been looking at this like 2016, when it isn’t. The question Dems need to be asking isn’t “how do we motivate democrats to go to the polls?” but “why were so many people motivated to vote for Trump?” The only way they win future elections is if they answer that second question.
If you listen to the words he's saying, you'll notice he acknowledges that she performed really poorly in many non-swing states, but doesn't focus on that because the non-swing states don't determine elections. It's not low D turnout that decided this election because D turn-out *in swing states* was good.
@@Killerqueen69420If that helps you sleep at night. Imo, losing to a supposedly unpopular convicted felon CEO despite the 1 billion dollar war chest and being the VP of the 81 million votes Biden - is the direct opposite of well.
-The cackling killed her campaign. -Her smugness was unattractive. -Her focus on abortion wasn't an important issue to people. -Neglecting the border as the border czar, made a lot of voters reject her. -Then saying prison inmates will get free trangender surgeries wasn't palatable. -She was asked what she would do differently from Biden. She said nothing came to mind. Meaning, the inflation would continue, and she'd continue to send 100's of billions to Ukraine. Her campaign was doomed to fail from the start.
TBH, I do think that point 3 *was* an important issue. It just got crowded out by the rest. There are single issue voters out there for every issue, including point 3, but I really don't think it's anywhere near a majority. As long as the new right doesn't get greedy and leaves it as a state's rights issue, I think that the importance of point 3 will steadily decline over the next few elections. Hard to say for sure if that will happen though. I'm pretty sure that DJT doesn't really care about it. I'm just not too sure what happens afterwards.
@@ColonelSandersLite It was sent back to the states, and at the state level it will remain. Her campaign was making it out to be a national issue which it never was. But I agree with you, I think the issue will die off soon.
Not to mention she got thrust into the position at the last minute she still wasn’t going to win regardless for all the points you stated but even a good candidate probably couldn’t win with only a few weeks to campaign
First major party candidate since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to not flip a single county that was won by the opposing party candidate in the previous election. Even McGovern flipped some counties! That cold hard fact is all you need to know to understand that Harris did _worse_ than most people think, not better.
Exactly. Much of her "turnout" came from California, her home state, which features about 8 million illegal aliens who are allowed to vote because of that state's voting policies. If the Trump admin were able to establish a nationbal voter ID system California would suddenly become a competitive state and the democrat POTUS candidate would not be able to run up the score.
Maybe that would be the case if the election was decided by the number of counties that vote for your candidate and not the electoral college. He acknowledges in the video that Trump had significant gains nationwide, but the point is that his gains were smaller in the states that mattered most like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Nationally, Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% in 2020 and Trump won the popular vote by 1.5% in 2024. Despite this massive swing in the popular vote, Trump's victories in each of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania were by less than 2% and those three states are enough to swing the election. This would suggest that the Harris campaign's efforts in these had some effectiveness in stemming the bleeding of a huge nationwide swing, but clearly not enough to win the election.
@@marachas_normally what you said would matter, but I’d argue that because some of Trump’s largest gains came from some of the largest states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey it matters less that Swing States didn’t shift as much as the nation at large. When large population states have large shifts it becomes harder to determine how much these swing states falling behind the national shift really matters, especially considering most of them besides Wisconsin were actually only 1 or 2 off the national swing.
And reclaiming those 2000 voters who didn't vote in 2024 means there is room for a 3rd party in 2028. With all those missing 2020 voters it can no longer be said, "A vote for C is a vote for B." Thanks for bringing up 1992. It is very hard to comment about some things without the platform deleting comments.
Glad to see someone calling out voter patterns in safe red and blue states. Seeing a red shift in safe red states like Kentucky and Tennessee tells me that people weren't voting against Kamala to save their state from flipping. They truly supported Trump the way they haven't supported any prior Republican candidate (including Trump himself in 2016 and 2020).
The thing we need to ask is: where did all those votes in 2020 go in 2024? It’s like 15 million voters!! That should be easy to determine as those people must be everywhere.
Partially 100% true. But then why did 90% of ruling incumbent parties and candidates get voted out? The global economy is in shambles and believe or not, but inflation is even worse in other countries. I do think it would have been closer if Biden dropped out earlier and the dems held open primaries and picked someone popular within their own party, but I suspect Trump would have still won with less margin.
Uhh, even the video creator disagrees with this assertion, lol. As a liberal, I wish it were that simple. Kamala beating Trump on the spread b/w the House popular vote and the POTUS PV proves that Kamala was in fact more popular than Trump... by a little. The difference is that the GOP is more popular than the DNC to a greater extent. And there's the international historic underperformance by incumbents that someone already implicated.
To illustrate what he is talking about If Kamala got Bidens numbers in the 7 main swing states (and in total numbers she got more in 4 of them) she would not have won any of them. If Trumps numbers remained the same If Trump got his 2020 numbers which already were massive he would have lost 6 of the swing states except Arizona. If Kamalas remained the same. In the swing states (except AZ) this election was Kamala doing OK but Trump was doing great.
Seeing the VEP percentage rankings for the swing states was really striking, based on the way people talk about this election I never would’ve expected her to be so high on those lists. Great vid as always! Hyped to see more long-form stuff from you
i wouldnt expect numbers like this again from the democrat party in our lifetime. this election and the following 4 years have exposed a deep disgust in the system.
@@MarvinPowell1 Those are just one part of his presentation and argument, though, and therefore doesn’t necessarily prove “the opposite” of his thesis. Use an ACTUAL argument to demonstrate how those two timestamps prove “the opposite”. Address his ACTUAL argument.
@@MarvinPowell1 His basic thesis is that Kamala did better than you think, and the more detailed thesis as DEVELOPED in the video is that Kamala didn’t lose because of low-voter turnout and because she performed so poorly, but because Trump did so well. And if you actually LISTEN to his argument, regarding turnout, he says “I’m not denying Kamala did poorly nationally, I am denying that’s why she lost”. So, no, Marvin, in CONTEXT of his actual argument, neither timestamp proves the opposite of his argument. If you think it does, present a detailed argument that addresses his ACTUAL argument to demonstrate how those timestamps allegedly prove the opposite.
Harris lost for multiple reasons, most of them others have already stated. Overall, she just wasn't that good of a candidate, and she showed that at every opportunity. Like Clinton in 2016, she had financial support from the elite and had a ton of celebrity endorsements that, in the end, did nothing for her. Her VP pick, Tim Walz, soon enough was exposed in many different ways ranging from lying about his rank and splitting when his unit was about to get deployed, to the debate stage where he was as quiet as a church mouse compared to how he portrayed himself at rallies. Harris' campaign was simply doomed to fail, and it was absolutely hilarious to watch it unfold in real time, despite the gaslighting from legacy media.
That first map for Trump is horribly coded. In voting, red is Republican and blue is democrat, but that map has it reversed if you consider "increased votes for Trump" means "more Republican" and vice versa. Really weird
Yah it’s not ideal but it’s to make it consistent across both maps, where blue indicates an increase. People tell me to use red/green but I’m colorblind and can’t tell the difference
@YuvalTheTerrible oops, sorry I didn't know you made it! My dad is color blind so I definitely know what you're talking about with red/green or blue/purple not working. I maybe would have just reversed the colors for this one? 🤷♀️
She did horribly in red and blue states which she would've lost and won respectively anyway. In the swing states, she did a bit better or bit less than Biden but trump overperformed even that.
She did much worse in every swing state than Biden. For example, he won Nevada and Michigan by 2-3 points I believe, and Trump won Nevada by 3-4, and Michigan by 1.4.
So, she didn't lose because of low voter turnout, but because more people liked Trump. That kinda disproves the thumbnail*, because that means she did a lot worse than I thought. I thought, maybe, she had lower turnout because she campaigned with Cheney, but if she had decent turnout, then it really shows she did terribly in comparison with Trump
@@xycrypt My comment was that it did not back up the title because it was said that she lost because of low democratic turnout. This was shown not to be the case, and so the high republican turnout means that Trump won decisively, rather than solely because democrats did not turn out. The title was changed recently, it did not say "low turnout wasn't why kamala harris lost", but was something else. I have changed my comment to reflect that the video still goes against the thumbnail though, because ultimately republican turnout was why she lost. Thank you for the reply
This is a really really bad argument. Of course if you get record turnout both candidates are going to score higher in this metric. Kamala didn’t do good, or even ok, the populous simply are more likely to vote now than in the past. Very little to do with either candidate very much has to do with the get out the vote campaign on both sides. Really trash political analysis, although I do appreciate the data driven approach.
Not all turnout is equal. Trump was able to reach new parts of the electorate that don’t usually vote while Kamala only increased her share of the existing turnout, so obviously most of the new turnout is going to be in Trumps favor.
@@eddie-roo Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a Kamala apology piece at some level trying to pump up her perceived “achievements” through a recognition that (due to turnout) more adults in these states voted for her than most other candidates in history. I don’t think it is pointing out that with no narrative in mind
High turnout overall doesn’t necessarily mean high turnout for both candidates, (see 2008 Obama/McCain). The idea that “the populous simply are more likely to vote” doesn’t really track because again the only states where she performed well compared to previous candidates were in swing states, whereas Trump performed well everywhere. Most of the increase in voter turnout went to Trump, which is why my point is that she lost, not because of remarkably low turnout, but because Trump was so uniquely strong as a candidate. Similar to how there was probably no Republican that could’ve beaten 2008 Obama, I don’t see how any establishment Dem could’ve beaten Trump given his performance here.
I think she list cause she brought out all her rich friends to say how the economy is actually improving for her rich friends. Luckily, she didn't say let them eat cake.
She also kept changing her policies and never did a REAL interview. She only ran on abortion and women's rights when the average person could tell trump wasn't anti abortion hence making her a liar and manipulator. Does help she also said she wouodnt do anything different from biden.
The economy had actually been getting better for poor people compared to rich people. Wages are up. People are just really stupid and do not understand economics.
It's amazing that Harris was able to get 48% of the popular vote. She was a poor candidate propped up by Legacy Media. Name a particular concern of the voters, she was on the wrong side of most of those issues.
The presentation of data that could lead us to a different conclusion than we ourselves would normally draw regarding why our chosen candidate lost is not an "L", it is an expansion of facts, opening possibilities and preventing exessive blame towards one possible cause of a loss. It is very common for reactionaries on all political sides to establish excessive blame towards causes that while had some influence, were not the primary reason for a loss.
All the people talking about coping in the comments didn't watch the same video I did. To cope would be to retreat into the comfort of an imaginary silent democrat majority that simply didn't vote. This video acknowledges that there was no such secret silent majority, she didn't lose because she couldn't mobilise enough, she lost because for whatever reason more people were convinced by Trump.
If that's somehow actually the case, this video did a very poor job at convincing me. Performing worse than Biden in the swing states she focused her campaign in, despite his record setting turnout in 2020, is pretty pathetic considering the amount of money and energy she gained going into the election. It's pretty clear she had the energy of voters and lost it overtime due to the democrat insistence on catering to republican voters who are just going to vote republican anyways.
@@BagzAndPresident see it would be great if you could then submit actual research showing that there was fraud in those states. Them having voter ID vs having fraud are 2 very different things even if you believe in voter ID.
Younger men costed Kamala this election. Her campaign failed to appeal to this demographic considerably because of an unclear message on addressing economic issues.
A stronger issue is the Democrats demonizing men. Even when they tried to talk to men it was to be condescending. The only thing they told men is "you don't have any real problems, vote for Kamala or you're a racist and sexist"
90 million eligible people didnt vote an additional 76 million goted against her. If she had performed well amongst blacks as Obama did in Philadelphia, Atlanta , Tallahassee and Detroit she could have won.
First candidate since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to not flip a single county or county-equivalent, first candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 to not swing at least one state or D.C. in their political direction (that is, Trump swung all fifty states plus D.C. to the right this year), first Democrat to lose Starr County, Texas, - the county with the largest Hispanic population in the country (~90%) - since William Jennings Bryan in 1896, accounting for the end of the longest Democratic voting streak in ANY jurisdiction in history, and delivered the worst performance for a Democrat in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, (Scranton) since Grover Cleveland in 1892. This was a clear, decisive win; there's no denying it.
Excellent analysis! Your video popped in my recommended list and I've never heard nor seen of you before. I subscribed immediately after watching, I have so much faith in your content after this one video.
This is a cope? The entire thesis of the video revolves around the premise that Trump won during high voter turnout. You're attacking something that favors your side.
I would say that this is actually not good news for Democrats moving forward. Because if the whole reason that they lost was because Democrats didn't turn out, then it would be as simple as getting them to turn out to win. This I think is saying that in the swing states that matter, Democrats DID get high turnout, and STILL lost. This means that simply getting their people out to vote isn't enough to win, which is good news for Republicans, if it stays like this
Um what do you want democrats to do? To ignore why they lost the election? This isn't saying they won, it even nods to the fact that trump managed to do very well and it asks what they need to change to win themselves. Maybe you don't believe there'll ever be another election but there are lots of people who are still invested in democracy.
Basically trump did better across the country and Harris almost compensated in the swing states do to her larger campaign war chest and better ground game
She was supposed to win in a landslide, at least if you tuned into ABC, CBS, and NBC because they were all giddy about Kamala's chances, however the smiles turned to frowns only about an hour into the results coming in.
The frowns are fake. They lied about the landslide because it would get attention to turn to their ad driven TV business model. They are even happier now because they'll report on all the stuff the president is doing and people will tune in out of either rage or support. Regardless of your political leanings, the last four years was pretty quite and no one really tuned in.
Literally no one said this election was gonna be a landslide for Kamala. In the best case scenario for her, she wins by the slimmest of margins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. We all thought it would take days to find out who won.
"Kamala Harris Did a Lot Better than you think" - Spent $1-1.6 billion for the Election in a few months - Failed to win a single swing state - Failed to flip a single county - Big swing across almost all demographics for Trump - Almost all states shifted to the right Bro. You did NOT cook
I’d argue that it was absolutely about turnout and not much else. Hardly anyone changed their minds since 2020. Trump drove out some new voters, and Dems couldn’t replicate their ridiculously high turnout ceiling from 2020 that was achieved through unique circumstances.
It was not low turnout as to why Kamala lost. Trump received more votes in all but a handful of states compared to 2020 and got more votes than Biden in every single swing state. Trump also had a lot more low propensity voters than Kamala did, meaning Trump would have done even better had turnout been higher.
Yah but my point is even that ridiculously high turnout ceiling wouldn’t have been enough to beat Trump. Trump 2024 outperforms Biden 2020 in every swing state, and 5/7 had higher overall turnout this election. Hence, turnout on the Democrats part was irrelevant-Trump would’ve won either way.
@@YuvalTheTerrible "Biden's turnout wouldn't have beaten Trump 2024 therefore turnout doesn't matter" is not cohesive logic. It's not like Harris's 2024 turnout and Biden's 2020 turnout are the only options for turnout, with the budget Harris had, she could have very easily outperformed both Biden and Trump had she a populist message.
I understand what you’re saying. I appreciate that you are comparing 2024 trump to 2020 Biden though. Not very many people have thought to do that but you get some interesting insights if you do.
I think the one thing that you didn’t acknowledged is population. You shouldn’t say this person would have won in this year when the population is drastically different in both years.
The population differs between every election. Voters die. New voters are added in the 18-24 age cohort. People move out of state. People move into state.
The way you gathered and presented the evidence was very well however while the video was about how Kamala had better turnout then people realize, the title and the way you go about talking about this makes it seem like you are saying her losing all swing states and the popular vote wasn't that unsuccessful of an election. I would love to see more from you as the effort put into this video is very good and i would love to see you make stronger and more specific arguements
Don't you think that had she addressed her electability within her own camp, that not only would voter turnout increase among her low performing states but also in the swing states where you think she did pretty well?
Let’s all agree. Kamala sucked. I am a republican who supported Trump but I would still like to see a woman in office. Kamala did so many things wrong like failure to support the first amendment. Do you want that type of jerk in office. I don’t think so
I didn't see that at all. I think he is really proving what we all know, that Trump DROVE voter turnout for the win. I think the title of the video is to lure in bitter Harris supporters and then hit them between the eyes with the truth. At least that is my take on it.
Excellent video with a breakdown of the VEP. This was analysis I had not seen anywhere else. Some people don't understand. I will say though that most of her over performance has to do with the polarization and hyper political atmosphere we are in, rather than something individually about her.
The 2024 presidential election had almost 155 million voters turn out. So yes the United States is still trending up in terms of voter turnout to federal elections. This election was also much, much closer than 2020 in terms of popular vote.
@@oleonard7319 "Several million" no. There were 700,000 less voters between 2020 and 2024, and in the big scheme of things, that is not much at all. For Democrats to have won the popular vote they would need all the third party voters to vote for them (which they probably would in a ranked voting system, as opposed to the winner take all system we have today), but even that does not guarantee that they would win the electoral vote. You would end up with 2000 election all over again, where a small boost in the popular vote in specific states corresponds to a big boost in the electoral college.
This entire video amounts to "Kamala Harris didn't do that bad, Trump just had more people vote for him due to swing states." Yeah, no shit; that's how a two-party system always works.
So... you admit that Harris didn't lose because people didn't go out to vote for her? How is it her fault that her opposing candidate performed so well that any Democratic candidate that came before her wouldn't be able to beat him?
@butlered4350because she didnt perform hard enough. She may not have done POORLY, but her strategy wasnt enough to win. I think her problem was that her rhetoric wasn't what was motivating voters to go out and give her votes: it was their hatred for Trump. It had little to do with her actual effectiveness as a candidate. She consistently talked about little policy things here and there that would barely change the life of the average American. Instead, she and the democrats needed to what the right have been doing, but just in the opposite direction: embrace left populism. The shining examples of this are Bernie and AOC. AOC's speech at the DNC was by far the most interesting thing from that whole event, and Bernie had one of thr most successful grassroots campaigns of all time before getting screwed over by the DNC. Talk about healthcare. Talk about unions and workers' rights. Talk about Gaza. Listen to what your base is actually PASSIONATE about and SPEAK to it. Lord knows the right does, even if the thing they're passionate about is hating trans people and immigrants
If Kamala Harris did good why did she lose? In a winner take all system like what we have, you can only perform well if you win. If you don't win, you performed badly. Nuance like this doesn't matter with the current system.
@arnavvora1069 sounds like ur misinformed. It's okay you'll be enjoying ur rent being lower, no taxes on overtime, groceries not being 70% more expensive in no time.
@@akaliotp6766 You're gonna be in for a very rude awakening when grocery prices and inflation skyrocket with his tariffs. Tariffs do not hurt other countries, they hurt the consumer. Also, how the hell is he gonna implement no taxes on overtime? He's literally gonna cut overtime pay.
This is really interesting. im a uni student studying politics abroad in the US next year, I think it will be very different to learn about politics there especially after the US election.
Can I ask why you used VAP instead of registered voters, since VAP turnout only matters in states with same-day registration? Would you not be able to make your argument if you used voter registration, which is the prerequisite to voting? I'm assuming that you wouldn't be able to because places where Trump received more votes also have a higher percentage of their VAP registered as voters. If you had just said that voter registration numbers are lower in Democratic counties, for example, this video would make more sense. However, the lack of looking at this one a county-by-county basis also makes this analysis flawed.
Kamala could not run on her own record as VP. But to be fair, it was shocking to see so many people still voted for her, the results were closer to 50/50 instead of 60/40. And she was anointed and couldn’t win a primary on her own.
This is good arguements, but still kinda copey. Nobody actually voted for Kamala, the motivation for these voters was hatred of Trump, no more no less. You could have put a rock on stage and the 30-40% of the TDS Trump haters in the US would vote for it, so long as it isn't trump. For the moderates, the young, and the non TDS leftists 2024 was different from 2016, these people would have come out for Bernie, but not for Harris, and many in these groups voted Trump. I am a Brocialist and am very glad with the result, the Dems have been a disaster and need serious reform, and a shlacking is what they needed, I kinda wish the shilacking was harder, but this should be sufficient. Hopefully next election they run an actual economic leftist, and preferably an old white man. Instead of this neoliberal crap they have been pushing in these elections.
as a kamala voter i agree with you 100%, the democrats in this campaign have just made it all about going against trump when in ACTUALITY if kamala maybe focused much more on economical issues, policies and what she could do for both the working AND middle classes (much like trump did even though he most likely wont do anything to help with their situation), i definetely think she couldve engaged much more voters into voting. the issue of this massive progressivism has clearly become a problem too, while i support immigration and i support transgender people (post operation) using their identified bathroom, the democrats just need to stop trying to get votes with their progressivism and need to start actually focusing on issues which the lower 99% of americans face. however, i dont put the democrats completely at fault, trumps campaign spread TONS of misinformation about biden and kamala, such as the FEMA lies, springfield ohio incidents, saying kamala isnt black, saying that she's "anti religious" because a heckler at a rally shouted "lies lies lies" which various right-wing media stated the heckler saying "jesus is king", which if you watch the video is obviously untrue. to sum this up, you have a candidate which probably wouldve been better for americans however failed to describe how she would be, and then you have a candidate which is most likely going to raise prices via tariffs, cause global instability, fall-out with allies and take the biden economy for his advantage... but his followers do not care and i can guarantee you that, they will vote for him in ANY situation.
@@landonmichelle I said Brocialist not Socialist. I also reject Marx and have more of a Upton Sinclair or Teddy Roosevelt stance on financial issues. I generally reject the class struggle and social engineering of Marxism
You have to imagine that the increase in turnout was specifically because of how bad Biden/Harris was. A very large percentage of the votes were specifically against a candidate, not for one. Trump is unlikable, but the Economy and Immigration issues outweighed that and made Harris less likable. So, she is basically the least likable candidate in at least my lifetime. That shows in she had one of the worst job approval ratings of any candidate ever at -18%.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Seems some people are missing the point of the entire video:
As I say at the end, my point is not that Kamala did nothing wrong & was actually a great candidate, but rather that the idea that Trump only won because of Kamala’s poor performance is wrong. Trump won because of his own record-breaking performance. Had Trump ran these numbers in 2020, he would’ve won, even with Joe Biden receiving the same 81M votes. If Kamala Harris didn’t lose a single voter compared to Biden, Trump would’ve still won. Trump even outperformed 2008 Obama in PA, NV, FL, OH, NC, and IA (all states Obama won) in terms of turnout.
My whole point is that looking at the results of this election and going "Democrats lost because they couldn't get enough Democrats out to the polls" is misguided. Dems lost because Trump was so uniquely strong as a candidate, and that Dems need to analyze why he did so well with voters here if they want to replicate this. This isn't a 2016 where Trump just happened to win because no one wanted to vote for the Democratic candidate-he won because so many people wanted to vote for him.
But sure, cope.
i agree but isnt it a bit odd how hillary clinton got 65M votes, biden suddenly got 81M, and then the democratic vote numbers just fell back down to 75M
“Kamala Harris did a lot better than you think” um what?
here is the problem with your argument at least in pa. The number of mail in ballots. That weren't turned in 2024 is much higher than weren't turn in 2020. The counties with the biggest changes in failure to return was Philadelphia and the collar counties in fact her drop off from Biden looks almost like Hillary's drop off from Obama
@@oleonard7319 hmmm sounds a bit suspicious
until dems start playing on the anger felt by most americans about the state of the country the way republicans do by offering good policy and good rhetoric to counter the fashy republican "your life sucks because of trans people and immigrants", they will continue to lose to people like trump. we are a uniquely broken nation and everybody knows it.
the neoliberal urge to sit on your hands and go "the system works!" while parading around ghouls like liz cheney as countless people can't afford to rent an apartment, can't afford healthcare, can't afford gas, and can't afford eggs.
there's a reason the MAGA slogan resonates. the republican platform obviously doesn't offer any material change to americans at all, but it at least weaponizes the rage that most americans feel at how broken our systems really are.
Isnt this worse for the Dems? It proves people actually like Trump and MAGA
A very significant amount of people have liked him for 8 years, that is nothing new.
Yes, it is. but good luck actually getting Dems to acknowledge that
no, it proves that the population at large still cannot comprehend that how high inflation is is not the presidents doing.
It’s more difficult for Dems for sure, but that’s part of my point. Dems have been looking at this like 2016, when it isn’t. The question Dems need to be asking isn’t “how do we motivate democrats to go to the polls?” but “why were so many people motivated to vote for Trump?” The only way they win future elections is if they answer that second question.
His point wasn't "This performance is good for the dems" in the first place
she preformed so well she lost the popular vote
nah she performed well, it’s just trump performed even better
If you listen to the words he's saying, you'll notice he acknowledges that she performed really poorly in many non-swing states, but doesn't focus on that because the non-swing states don't determine elections. It's not low D turnout that decided this election because D turn-out *in swing states* was good.
@@Killerqueen69420If that helps you sleep at night. Imo, losing to a supposedly unpopular convicted felon CEO despite the 1 billion dollar war chest and being the VP of the 81 million votes Biden - is the direct opposite of well.
She performed well, trump just performed better. She didn’t lose because of low turnout, trump won because of high turnout.
Donald Trump lost the popular vote too. More than 50% Americans voted against him.
-The cackling killed her campaign.
-Her smugness was unattractive.
-Her focus on abortion wasn't an important issue to people.
-Neglecting the border as the border czar, made a lot of voters reject her.
-Then saying prison inmates will get free trangender surgeries wasn't palatable.
-She was asked what she would do differently from Biden. She said nothing came to mind. Meaning, the inflation would continue, and she'd continue to send 100's of billions to Ukraine.
Her campaign was doomed to fail from the start.
TBH, I do think that point 3 *was* an important issue. It just got crowded out by the rest.
There are single issue voters out there for every issue, including point 3, but I really don't think it's anywhere near a majority.
As long as the new right doesn't get greedy and leaves it as a state's rights issue, I think that the importance of point 3 will steadily decline over the next few elections. Hard to say for sure if that will happen though. I'm pretty sure that DJT doesn't really care about it. I'm just not too sure what happens afterwards.
@@ColonelSandersLite It was sent back to the states, and at the state level it will remain. Her campaign was making it out to be a national issue which it never was. But I agree with you, I think the issue will die off soon.
Not to mention she got thrust into the position at the last minute she still wasn’t going to win regardless for all the points you stated but even a good candidate probably couldn’t win with only a few weeks to campaign
First major party candidate since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to not flip a single county that was won by the opposing party candidate in the previous election. Even McGovern flipped some counties! That cold hard fact is all you need to know to understand that Harris did _worse_ than most people think, not better.
Exactly. Much of her "turnout" came from California, her home state, which features about 8 million illegal aliens who are allowed to vote because of that state's voting policies. If the Trump admin were able to establish a nationbal voter ID system California would suddenly become a competitive state and the democrat POTUS candidate would not be able to run up the score.
Inflation is a killer
And Trump decresed loses and incresed advantages in ALL STATES and DC, nobody ever did it.
Maybe that would be the case if the election was decided by the number of counties that vote for your candidate and not the electoral college. He acknowledges in the video that Trump had significant gains nationwide, but the point is that his gains were smaller in the states that mattered most like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Nationally, Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% in 2020 and Trump won the popular vote by 1.5% in 2024. Despite this massive swing in the popular vote, Trump's victories in each of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania were by less than 2% and those three states are enough to swing the election. This would suggest that the Harris campaign's efforts in these had some effectiveness in stemming the bleeding of a huge nationwide swing, but clearly not enough to win the election.
@@marachas_normally what you said would matter, but I’d argue that because some of Trump’s largest gains came from some of the largest states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey it matters less that Swing States didn’t shift as much as the nation at large. When large population states have large shifts it becomes harder to determine how much these swing states falling behind the national shift really matters, especially considering most of them besides Wisconsin were actually only 1 or 2 off the national swing.
A lot of people apparently hate this video, but i have to say it was very interesting.
I agree.
but it doesn't consider all of the cheating the Dems did for Kams to make any gains at all
She did so well she lost every swing state
More so Trump did even better and won every swing state
And didn’t flip a single county something that hasn’t happened since 1932
I don’t think you understood the video
@till7289 I don’t think you understand how the video doesn’t understand.
@@ImTitan16 by very small margins like 1.2 percent to 2.5 percentage
She lost for the same reason Carter (1980) and Bush (1992) did. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
And McCain in 2008 (though he wasn't the incumbent at the time, but his party was)
And reclaiming those 2000 voters who didn't vote in 2024 means there is room for a 3rd party in 2028. With all those missing 2020 voters it can no longer be said, "A vote for C is a vote for B."
Thanks for bringing up 1992. It is very hard to comment about some things without the platform deleting comments.
@@VegascoinVegas dead people and fax machines are now barred from voting
Glad to see someone calling out voter patterns in safe red and blue states. Seeing a red shift in safe red states like Kentucky and Tennessee tells me that people weren't voting against Kamala to save their state from flipping. They truly supported Trump the way they haven't supported any prior Republican candidate (including Trump himself in 2016 and 2020).
Thought provoking and true.
The thing we need to ask is: where did all those votes in 2020 go in 2024? It’s like 15 million voters!! That should be easy to determine as those people must be everywhere.
voter fraud was real in 2029 it seems that jan 6. was totally justified after all when we look at the FACTS
She lost because she was a poor candidate.
so poor, she had to steal $20 million from her campaign.
There should’ve been a primary. I’m also bitter because I want the Dems to actually have a Progressive candidate
Partially 100% true. But then why did 90% of ruling incumbent parties and candidates get voted out? The global economy is in shambles and believe or not, but inflation is even worse in other countries. I do think it would have been closer if Biden dropped out earlier and the dems held open primaries and picked someone popular within their own party, but I suspect Trump would have still won with less margin.
@@misterogers I like your math - Partially 100% true
for 🤡s
Uhh, even the video creator disagrees with this assertion, lol. As a liberal, I wish it were that simple. Kamala beating Trump on the spread b/w the House popular vote and the POTUS PV proves that Kamala was in fact more popular than Trump... by a little. The difference is that the GOP is more popular than the DNC to a greater extent. And there's the international historic underperformance by incumbents that someone already implicated.
Nothing says you preformed well like losing every single swing state, the popular vote, and electoral college!
the only states she wom dont have voter id.
She actually won some swing states, she won new Mexico and New Jersey 😅
@@lucaslevinsky8802”swing” “states”
@@lucaslevinsky8802they will be swing states next election LOL
To illustrate what he is talking about
If Kamala got Bidens numbers in the 7 main swing states (and in total numbers she got more in 4 of them) she would not have won any of them. If Trumps numbers remained the same
If Trump got his 2020 numbers which already were massive he would have lost 6 of the swing states except Arizona. If Kamalas remained the same.
In the swing states (except AZ) this election was Kamala doing OK but Trump was doing great.
Seeing the VEP percentage rankings for the swing states was really striking, based on the way people talk about this election I never would’ve expected her to be so high on those lists.
Great vid as always! Hyped to see more long-form stuff from you
i love ur shit you are part of the reason i'm pursuing a linguistics major besides my existing fascination with conlanging
i wouldnt expect numbers like this again from the democrat party in our lifetime. this election and the following 4 years have exposed a deep disgust in the system.
"Kamala Harris did a lot better than you think."
*proceeds to prove the opposite.*
Seriously 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Did you even watch the video? How did he “prove the opposite”?
@@davidmajor1508
0:52, 4:30
@@MarvinPowell1
Those are just one part of his presentation and argument, though, and therefore doesn’t necessarily prove “the opposite” of his thesis. Use an ACTUAL argument to demonstrate how those two timestamps prove “the opposite”. Address his ACTUAL argument.
@@MarvinPowell1
His basic thesis is that Kamala did better than you think, and the more detailed thesis as DEVELOPED in the video is that Kamala didn’t lose because of low-voter turnout and because she performed so poorly, but because Trump did so well.
And if you actually LISTEN to his argument, regarding turnout, he says “I’m not denying Kamala did poorly nationally, I am denying that’s why she lost”.
So, no, Marvin, in CONTEXT of his actual argument, neither timestamp proves the opposite of his argument.
If you think it does, present a detailed argument that addresses his ACTUAL argument to demonstrate how those timestamps allegedly prove the opposite.
Bernie Sanders said it to their faces, they got really disconnected from the people, they seemed more worried about getting celebrity endorsements
No, it's literally just inflation. Trump is a New York billionaire campaigning with the wealthiest man on earth
She performed so well she lost 86 electoral votes to Trump
Even though the results won’t back it up, she was the worst presidential nominee in US history.
Harris lost for multiple reasons, most of them others have already stated. Overall, she just wasn't that good of a candidate, and she showed that at every opportunity. Like Clinton in 2016, she had financial support from the elite and had a ton of celebrity endorsements that, in the end, did nothing for her. Her VP pick, Tim Walz, soon enough was exposed in many different ways ranging from lying about his rank and splitting when his unit was about to get deployed, to the debate stage where he was as quiet as a church mouse compared to how he portrayed himself at rallies. Harris' campaign was simply doomed to fail, and it was absolutely hilarious to watch it unfold in real time, despite the gaslighting from legacy media.
Walz was even worse than she was. She couldn’t have picked a worse candidate with possible exception being a squad member.
That first map for Trump is horribly coded. In voting, red is Republican and blue is democrat, but that map has it reversed if you consider "increased votes for Trump" means "more Republican" and vice versa.
Really weird
Yah it’s not ideal but it’s to make it consistent across both maps, where blue indicates an increase. People tell me to use red/green but I’m colorblind and can’t tell the difference
@YuvalTheTerrible oops, sorry I didn't know you made it!
My dad is color blind so I definitely know what you're talking about with red/green or blue/purple not working. I maybe would have just reversed the colors for this one? 🤷♀️
Without looking up colorblindness charts, arent there other color schemes that would work for you? Magenta vs Orange or something@@YuvalTheTerrible
@@YuvalTheTerribleyou could use blue and yellow. Those are still fairly contrasting colors.
@@eddie-roo Orange and blue
Fascinating analysis. Thank you sir. Keep up the good work. Love the way you went in depth with VEP
She did horribly in red and blue states which she would've lost and won respectively anyway.
In the swing states, she did a bit better or bit less than Biden but trump overperformed even that.
She did much worse in every swing state than Biden. For example, he won Nevada and Michigan by 2-3 points I believe, and Trump won Nevada by 3-4, and Michigan by 1.4.
So, she didn't lose because of low voter turnout, but because more people liked Trump. That kinda disproves the thumbnail*, because that means she did a lot worse than I thought. I thought, maybe, she had lower turnout because she campaigned with Cheney, but if she had decent turnout, then it really shows she did terribly in comparison with Trump
His claim is that she lost not because of low democratic turnout, but high republican turnout, which in fact backs up the title
@@xycrypt My comment was that it did not back up the title because it was said that she lost because of low democratic turnout. This was shown not to be the case, and so the high republican turnout means that Trump won decisively, rather than solely because democrats did not turn out. The title was changed recently, it did not say "low turnout wasn't why kamala harris lost", but was something else. I have changed my comment to reflect that the video still goes against the thumbnail though, because ultimately republican turnout was why she lost. Thank you for the reply
Turnout wasn’t low in states that could’ve won her it.
This is a really really bad argument. Of course if you get record turnout both candidates are going to score higher in this metric. Kamala didn’t do good, or even ok, the populous simply are more likely to vote now than in the past. Very little to do with either candidate very much has to do with the get out the vote campaign on both sides. Really trash political analysis, although I do appreciate the data driven approach.
You've somehow proved this video wrong in 6 second read
Not all turnout is equal. Trump was able to reach new parts of the electorate that don’t usually vote while Kamala only increased her share of the existing turnout, so obviously most of the new turnout is going to be in Trumps favor.
This was just saying Harris didn’t lose because of poor turnout, which is a lie many people are spreading.
@@eddie-roo
Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a Kamala apology piece at some level trying to pump up her perceived “achievements” through a recognition that (due to turnout) more adults in these states voted for her than most other candidates in history. I don’t think it is pointing out that with no narrative in mind
High turnout overall doesn’t necessarily mean high turnout for both candidates, (see 2008 Obama/McCain). The idea that “the populous simply are more likely to vote” doesn’t really track because again the only states where she performed well compared to previous candidates were in swing states, whereas Trump performed well everywhere. Most of the increase in voter turnout went to Trump, which is why my point is that she lost, not because of remarkably low turnout, but because Trump was so uniquely strong as a candidate. Similar to how there was probably no Republican that could’ve beaten 2008 Obama, I don’t see how any establishment Dem could’ve beaten Trump given his performance here.
I think she list cause she brought out all her rich friends to say how the economy is actually improving for her rich friends. Luckily, she didn't say let them eat cake.
She also kept changing her policies and never did a REAL interview. She only ran on abortion and women's rights when the average person could tell trump wasn't anti abortion hence making her a liar and manipulator. Does help she also said she wouodnt do anything different from biden.
The economy had actually been getting better for poor people compared to rich people. Wages are up. People are just really stupid and do not understand economics.
Good thing the other guy has no rich friends, as we all know.
Are you high
@@elli6220you are the reason Kamala lost. Bless you for that! Please keep up this up.
It's amazing that Harris was able to get 48% of the popular vote. She was a poor candidate propped up by Legacy Media. Name a particular concern of the voters, she was on the wrong side of most of those issues.
Now Democrats are the pro seed oil party. Good luck with that.
Not being a criminal is one
@ delusional
Fearmongering made this a lot closer than it should have been.
@@Simracingisgoated You mean Trump's anti-immigrant fearmongering, right?
And why was 'turnout' so high in 2020?
Covid. Duh
@@mediumsizedmammal It was a high turnout of ballots not so much actual people if you get my drift.
ballots arriving in a van in the middle of the night for joe because he is the most popular candidate ever and of course everyone loved him
@@duanekelly-fe5bt Bingo
@@duanekelly-fe5bt it's been 4 years dude, let it go
TLDW: Trump told Kamala "Anything you can do, I can do it better"
Great video. Haven't seen this detail mentioned anywhere else.
Don't get discouraged by people who can't tell stats from politics.
hold that L kamala voters
The presentation of data that could lead us to a different conclusion than we ourselves would normally draw regarding why our chosen candidate lost is not an "L", it is an expansion of facts, opening possibilities and preventing exessive blame towards one possible cause of a loss.
It is very common for reactionaries on all political sides to establish excessive blame towards causes that while had some influence, were not the primary reason for a loss.
@@thegreatgmantheguy bro please rephrase that you're gonna give someone an aneurism
Zero counter argument
@@thegreatgmantheguy you probably think there is more then 2 genders
@@thegreatgmantheguy here you dropped this “L”
All the people talking about coping in the comments didn't watch the same video I did. To cope would be to retreat into the comfort of an imaginary silent democrat majority that simply didn't vote. This video acknowledges that there was no such secret silent majority, she didn't lose because she couldn't mobilise enough, she lost because for whatever reason more people were convinced by Trump.
So basically, Kamala's 100% was just smaller than Trump's 80%?
"She lost because more people were convinced by the other candidate"
That's literally how every election works, what are y'all trying to get at here
@@Historical-Stuffnothing?its not a point,but a fact that is stated
If that's somehow actually the case, this video did a very poor job at convincing me. Performing worse than Biden in the swing states she focused her campaign in, despite his record setting turnout in 2020, is pretty pathetic considering the amount of money and energy she gained going into the election. It's pretty clear she had the energy of voters and lost it overtime due to the democrat insistence on catering to republican voters who are just going to vote republican anyways.
“Kamala Harris did a lot better than you think” I smell major cope. 😂
yeahhh
@@strangelyukrainian7314wrong. Trump only lost states that don’t require voter ID. Let that sink in. Hmm maybe because… no they wouldnt do that..
@@BagzAndPresident Not exactly true, that just oversimplifying things and handwaving other aspects
@@BagzAndPresident see it would be great if you could then submit actual research showing that there was fraud in those states. Them having voter ID vs having fraud are 2 very different things even if you believe in voter ID.
@@BagzAndPresident Wrong. Trump won Nevada and Pennsylvania, both states that don't require any ID to vote
uninstalled tiktok so it was nice to see your content again
I agree, people saying this are just coping
Younger men costed Kamala this election. Her campaign failed to appeal to this demographic considerably because of an unclear message on addressing economic issues.
So say she cost herself the election. It's not a young man's fault she was unclear.
A stronger issue is the Democrats demonizing men. Even when they tried to talk to men it was to be condescending. The only thing they told men is "you don't have any real problems, vote for Kamala or you're a racist and sexist"
90 million eligible people didnt vote an additional 76 million goted against her. If she had performed well amongst blacks as Obama did in Philadelphia, Atlanta , Tallahassee and Detroit she could have won.
Jake Tapper: Literally nothing?
She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
First candidate since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to not flip a single county or county-equivalent, first candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 to not swing at least one state or D.C. in their political direction (that is, Trump swung all fifty states plus D.C. to the right this year), first Democrat to lose Starr County, Texas, - the county with the largest Hispanic population in the country (~90%) - since William Jennings Bryan in 1896, accounting for the end of the longest Democratic voting streak in ANY jurisdiction in history, and delivered the worst performance for a Democrat in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, (Scranton) since Grover Cleveland in 1892. This was a clear, decisive win; there's no denying it.
Excellent analysis! Your video popped in my recommended list and I've never heard nor seen of you before. I subscribed immediately after watching, I have so much faith in your content after this one video.
Nah, she definitely performed badly. That's un-debatable. Weshouldn'tt pretend that we don't have common sense to back her up.
Her performing badly is exactly his argument.
An objective video backed up with data and balanced analysis. Well done.
Loving the long form content.
funny how 7 minutes are considered "long" by today's standards
@@kiirabu197 Compared to the TikTok content Yuval usually does, this is long form content.
@Lodit24I'm not on TikTok, what does yuval do there?
@@kiirabu197Long form means it is not shorts
@@Ethan-12 i.e. “today's standards”
2020 is an outlier. 2024 is still 1960 tier which is very impressive. Top 3 if not Top 2 in turnout since 1900
Keep coping. It's entertaining.
This is a cope? The entire thesis of the video revolves around the premise that Trump won during high voter turnout. You're attacking something that favors your side.
I would say that this is actually not good news for Democrats moving forward. Because if the whole reason that they lost was because Democrats didn't turn out, then it would be as simple as getting them to turn out to win. This I think is saying that in the swing states that matter, Democrats DID get high turnout, and STILL lost. This means that simply getting their people out to vote isn't enough to win, which is good news for Republicans, if it stays like this
You'll be coping with the terrible economy he's bringing.
Um what do you want democrats to do? To ignore why they lost the election? This isn't saying they won, it even nods to the fact that trump managed to do very well and it asks what they need to change to win themselves. Maybe you don't believe there'll ever be another election but there are lots of people who are still invested in democracy.
Atleast he ain't invading Capitol🤞
Basically trump did better across the country and Harris almost compensated in the swing states do to her larger campaign war chest and better ground game
And cheating, the Democrats most reliable demographic.
ROFL @ "high turnout" in 2020. We all know how that happened.
The amount of votes in the swing states increased from 2020 to 2024.
Harris lost because she was a horrible canidate
the worst canidate in history....just a total train wreck
She was supposed to win in a landslide, at least if you tuned into ABC, CBS, and NBC because they were all giddy about Kamala's chances, however the smiles turned to frowns only about an hour into the results coming in.
Enough of the media tricked people to vote Trump
The frowns are fake. They lied about the landslide because it would get attention to turn to their ad driven TV business model. They are even happier now because they'll report on all the stuff the president is doing and people will tune in out of either rage or support.
Regardless of your political leanings, the last four years was pretty quite and no one really tuned in.
Literally no one said this election was gonna be a landslide for Kamala. In the best case scenario for her, she wins by the slimmest of margins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. We all thought it would take days to find out who won.
The narrative was always that it was a very close race
I loved watching them go from joy to depression in less than 8 hours
I’m still questioning the 2020 election. How come the voters of 2020 didn’t just show up on this year’s election. Just saying.
We all know why but can't say it without getting deleted.
So the Dems managed to rig it when out of power, but couldn’t do the same when in power?
Just wanna say things, but turnouts can go up and down, not an American tho so idc about your conspirac-.
@@gtc239 It had nothing to do with turnout and everything to do with the Democrats printing up 50 million fake ballots.
This only works for her if the population stays the same forever…it doesn’t.
6:25 "Supreme Almighty Unbeatable Donald Trump" over a video of Trump doing a silly dance feels way funnier than it should be
"Kamala Harris Did a Lot Better than you think"
- Spent $1-1.6 billion for the Election in a few months
- Failed to win a single swing state
- Failed to flip a single county
- Big swing across almost all demographics for Trump
- Almost all states shifted to the right
Bro. You did NOT cook
EVERY state shifted to the right and democrats lost the popular vote for the first time in 20 years. This election was an absolute bloodbath.
Don’t forget, left the dnc $20M in debt 😆
Dems lost despite owning the legacy media, social media, academia and primary education. The Dems are cooked.
Pretty sure all the states DID shift to the right.
Did you even watch the video?
Low DEMOCRATIC turnout.
(They were all voting trump)
@@ConsueloWubba Even the Biden family voted Trump!!
People also forget that people who voted Democrat for most elections voted for Trump this year
Lose the white house the senate the house but she did better than you think. Grading on the curve.
In all fairness, she did win the deceased demographic by a huge margin.
I’d argue that it was absolutely about turnout and not much else. Hardly anyone changed their minds since 2020. Trump drove out some new voters, and Dems couldn’t replicate their ridiculously high turnout ceiling from 2020 that was achieved through unique circumstances.
It was not low turnout as to why Kamala lost. Trump received more votes in all but a handful of states compared to 2020 and got more votes than Biden in every single swing state. Trump also had a lot more low propensity voters than Kamala did, meaning Trump would have done even better had turnout been higher.
Yah but my point is even that ridiculously high turnout ceiling wouldn’t have been enough to beat Trump. Trump 2024 outperforms Biden 2020 in every swing state, and 5/7 had higher overall turnout this election. Hence, turnout on the Democrats part was irrelevant-Trump would’ve won either way.
@@YuvalTheTerrible "Biden's turnout wouldn't have beaten Trump 2024 therefore turnout doesn't matter" is not cohesive logic. It's not like Harris's 2024 turnout and Biden's 2020 turnout are the only options for turnout, with the budget Harris had, she could have very easily outperformed both Biden and Trump had she a populist message.
Like burst water pipes?
I understand what you’re saying. I appreciate that you are comparing 2024 trump to 2020 Biden though. Not very many people have thought to do that but you get some interesting insights if you do.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, kamala voter 😂😂😂
I think the one thing that you didn’t acknowledged is population. You shouldn’t say this person would have won in this year when the population is drastically different in both years.
The population differs between every election. Voters die. New voters are added in the 18-24 age cohort. People move out of state. People move into state.
Pennsylvania is an interesting case because even the Amish came out to vote Trump
The way you gathered and presented the evidence was very well however while the video was about how Kamala had better turnout then people realize, the title and the way you go about talking about this makes it seem like you are saying her losing all swing states and the popular vote wasn't that unsuccessful of an election.
I would love to see more from you as the effort put into this video is very good and i would love to see you make stronger and more specific arguements
The title is clickbait, intended to get Harris supporters to watch it and then see the reality of how she lost.
10/10 video ! iv literally never seen ur videos before and now I'm subscribing. keep it up bro ❤
Don't you think that had she addressed her electability within her own camp, that not only would voter turnout increase among her low performing states but also in the swing states where you think she did pretty well?
It wasn't a turnout issue. It was all of those votes that magically disappeared
Let’s all agree. Kamala sucked. I am a republican who supported Trump but I would still like to see a woman in office. Kamala did so many things wrong like failure to support the first amendment. Do you want that type of jerk in office. I don’t think so
She ran on two things. "More abortions in all states" and "I am not Trump." It failed magnificently.
Loved the video, I'd totally watch more especially if you uploaded something longer so I could watch it while finishing school work
Thanks for digging into data that few really look into in such detail.
1:17 "It's unfair to compare her performance to highest voter turn out in history" why was it so high though? *cough* bellwhether counties *cough*
This guy just coping 😂😂😂😂
I didn't see that at all. I think he is really proving what we all know, that Trump DROVE voter turnout for the win. I think the title of the video is to lure in bitter Harris supporters and then hit them between the eyes with the truth. At least that is my take on it.
Excellent video with a breakdown of the VEP. This was analysis I had not seen anywhere else. Some people don't understand. I will say though that most of her over performance has to do with the polarization and hyper political atmosphere we are in, rather than something individually about her.
God Bless
Donald J Trump..
& The USA... Amen
I've been trying to figure out the "low turn-out" line when this appears to have been the 2nd largest election in history.
I agree, 2020 was a very, very "special" election.
The 2024 presidential election had almost 155 million voters turn out. So yes the United States is still trending up in terms of voter turnout to federal elections. This election was also much, much closer than 2020 in terms of popular vote.
no actually the turnout was lower by several million
@@oleonard7319 "Several million" no. There were 700,000 less voters between 2020 and 2024, and in the big scheme of things, that is not much at all. For Democrats to have won the popular vote they would need all the third party voters to vote for them (which they probably would in a ranked voting system, as opposed to the winner take all system we have today), but even that does not guarantee that they would win the electoral vote. You would end up with 2000 election all over again, where a small boost in the popular vote in specific states corresponds to a big boost in the electoral college.
Interesting… maybe the democrats have to actually start supporting popular policies if they want to win elections!!
This entire video amounts to "Kamala Harris didn't do that bad, Trump just had more people vote for him due to swing states."
Yeah, no shit; that's how a two-party system always works.
So... you admit that Harris didn't lose because people didn't go out to vote for her? How is it her fault that her opposing candidate performed so well that any Democratic candidate that came before her wouldn't be able to beat him?
@butlered4350because she didnt perform hard enough. She may not have done POORLY, but her strategy wasnt enough to win. I think her problem was that her rhetoric wasn't what was motivating voters to go out and give her votes: it was their hatred for Trump. It had little to do with her actual effectiveness as a candidate. She consistently talked about little policy things here and there that would barely change the life of the average American. Instead, she and the democrats needed to what the right have been doing, but just in the opposite direction: embrace left populism. The shining examples of this are Bernie and AOC. AOC's speech at the DNC was by far the most interesting thing from that whole event, and Bernie had one of thr most successful grassroots campaigns of all time before getting screwed over by the DNC. Talk about healthcare. Talk about unions and workers' rights. Talk about Gaza. Listen to what your base is actually PASSIONATE about and SPEAK to it. Lord knows the right does, even if the thing they're passionate about is hating trans people and immigrants
Interesting that you think Gaza is a winning strategy for Dems. That's not going to appeal to anyone but the far left who will vote Dem regardless.
If Kamala Harris did good why did she lose? In a winner take all system like what we have, you can only perform well if you win. If you don't win, you performed badly. Nuance like this doesn't matter with the current system.
This man has 4 videos and they all bangers.
I really don’t understand the sense of bewilderment from the left as to why she lost…….
I hope the next candidate promises real change
Aint that what trump is doing?
@@akaliotp6766 lmao yeah hes gonna change the economy into a depression
@arnavvora1069 sounds like ur misinformed. It's okay you'll be enjoying ur rent being lower, no taxes on overtime, groceries not being 70% more expensive in no time.
@@arnavvora1069You said that when Trump first won in 2016 and that never happened.
@@akaliotp6766 You're gonna be in for a very rude awakening when grocery prices and inflation skyrocket with his tariffs. Tariffs do not hurt other countries, they hurt the consumer. Also, how the hell is he gonna implement no taxes on overtime? He's literally gonna cut overtime pay.
Well, I still just can't believe that Taylor Swift and Megan Thee Stallion didn't put Kamala over the top.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Now we Make America Great Again!!
This is really interesting. im a uni student studying politics abroad in the US next year, I think it will be very different to learn about politics there especially after the US election.
Excellent analysis
correct..trump always end up losing to obama 3rd and 4th term if law abolish term limits
Can I ask why you used VAP instead of registered voters, since VAP turnout only matters in states with same-day registration? Would you not be able to make your argument if you used voter registration, which is the prerequisite to voting? I'm assuming that you wouldn't be able to because places where Trump received more votes also have a higher percentage of their VAP registered as voters. If you had just said that voter registration numbers are lower in Democratic counties, for example, this video would make more sense. However, the lack of looking at this one a county-by-county basis also makes this analysis flawed.
Kamala could not run on her own record as VP. But to be fair, it was shocking to see so many people still voted for her, the results were closer to 50/50 instead of 60/40. And she was anointed and couldn’t win a primary on her own.
In PA, was that extra 8% of the state that turned out to vote for Trump the Amish who normally don't vote?
No. That was part of it, but he improved all across the state, not just in places with high Amish populations.
They voted in 2004...and most of them voted in 2020.
Keep in mind, the population has increased and there are more ways of voting now.
Yet vote totals were down versus 2020. Funny that.
"Honestly, Smithers, I don't know why Harvard even bothers to show up. They barely even won."
- Montgomery Burns
I remember seeing a lady say we are not going to court you for your vote bet she wish she did now lol
Too bad they will never let a Bernie sanders run.
Turnout was relatively high, it's just that 2020 will for a long time stand out just because of how streamlined mail in voting was for that election
This is good arguements, but still kinda copey. Nobody actually voted for Kamala, the motivation for these voters was hatred of Trump, no more no less. You could have put a rock on stage and the 30-40% of the TDS Trump haters in the US would vote for it, so long as it isn't trump. For the moderates, the young, and the non TDS leftists 2024 was different from 2016, these people would have come out for Bernie, but not for Harris, and many in these groups voted Trump.
I am a Brocialist and am very glad with the result, the Dems have been a disaster and need serious reform, and a shlacking is what they needed, I kinda wish the shilacking was harder, but this should be sufficient. Hopefully next election they run an actual economic leftist, and preferably an old white man. Instead of this neoliberal crap they have been pushing in these elections.
You don’t get to call yourself a socialist if you’re happy with Trump winning. He will set the movement so far back.
as a kamala voter i agree with you 100%, the democrats in this campaign have just made it all about going against trump when in ACTUALITY if kamala maybe focused much more on economical issues, policies and what she could do for both the working AND middle classes (much like trump did even though he most likely wont do anything to help with their situation), i definetely think she couldve engaged much more voters into voting.
the issue of this massive progressivism has clearly become a problem too, while i support immigration and i support transgender people (post operation) using their identified bathroom, the democrats just need to stop trying to get votes with their progressivism and need to start actually focusing on issues which the lower 99% of americans face. however, i dont put the democrats completely at fault, trumps campaign spread TONS of misinformation about biden and kamala, such as the FEMA lies, springfield ohio incidents, saying kamala isnt black, saying that she's "anti religious" because a heckler at a rally shouted "lies lies lies" which various right-wing media stated the heckler saying "jesus is king", which if you watch the video is obviously untrue.
to sum this up, you have a candidate which probably wouldve been better for americans however failed to describe how she would be, and then you have a candidate which is most likely going to raise prices via tariffs, cause global instability, fall-out with allies and take the biden economy for his advantage... but his followers do not care and i can guarantee you that, they will vote for him in ANY situation.
If you're a socialist, why are you here? This country was never meant to be socialist and will never be socialist. If that's your goal... move.
@@landonmichelle define socialism
@@landonmichelle I said Brocialist not Socialist. I also reject Marx and have more of a Upton Sinclair or Teddy Roosevelt stance on financial issues. I generally reject the class struggle and social engineering of Marxism
The Blue map confused me, and the red map made perfect sense.
Yes, I know there is a key. It's just odd he didn't color code it by party.
Bro, you're comparing swing states turnout to 2008, when swing states were Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Florida Virginia and New Mexico
2020 did not necessarily have a higher "turnout" . More people bothered to vote because standards were relaxed because of COVID.
More dead people you mean.
Also I am begging for more long form content it amazing :)
He recieved more votes in every state
You have to imagine that the increase in turnout was specifically because of how bad Biden/Harris was. A very large percentage of the votes were specifically against a candidate, not for one. Trump is unlikable, but the Economy and Immigration issues outweighed that and made Harris less likable. So, she is basically the least likable candidate in at least my lifetime. That shows in she had one of the worst job approval ratings of any candidate ever at -18%.
Some remarkably bad comprehension in the comments
Does this analysis consider elections before 2000 or is that just when American elections began to become high turnout?
VEP numbers go back to 84 I believe, but it was only about 48% of the VEP voting until the late 90s