Read on Twitter
I see a lot of responses to this arguing "no, some people would do that".
But
guys
...at a 117:1 ratio?
this doesn't _smell_ like bull crap, this looks, smells, sounds, and TASTES like it.
2:1 ? Sure, maybe
5:1 ? ....uh, well, ...COULD be
10:1 ? um...
117:1 ? https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1326583758070439936
But
guys
...at a 117:1 ratio?
this doesn't _smell_ like bull crap, this looks, smells, sounds, and TASTES like it.
2:1 ? Sure, maybe
5:1 ? ....uh, well, ...COULD be
10:1 ? um...
117:1 ? https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1326583758070439936
2/
Megan McArdle RTed someone saying "but Dems spent a ton and mobilized 1st time voters who didn't vote on weird questions about tax law".
Two points:
Megan McArdle RTed someone saying "but Dems spent a ton and mobilized 1st time voters who didn't vote on weird questions about tax law".
Two points:
3/
* total voters was 7,587,625 ; of those 648,116 first timers, so 8.54% of all voters. Let's assume that ALL prior voters voted on 2 or more races, and ALL of those first timers voted just top of the ticket (this is giving maximal credence to the claim)
* total voters was 7,587,625 ; of those 648,116 first timers, so 8.54% of all voters. Let's assume that ALL prior voters voted on 2 or more races, and ALL of those first timers voted just top of the ticket (this is giving maximal credence to the claim)
4/
if so, then new voters split 117:1 for Biden vs Trump?
is this somehow more plausible than the initial claim?
the raw data for # voters, # new voters is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Georgia_elections
if so, then new voters split 117:1 for Biden vs Trump?
is this somehow more plausible than the initial claim?
the raw data for # voters, # new voters is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Georgia_elections
5/
...and I forget what my second point was. :-/
...and I forget what my second point was. :-/
6/
AH! I remember the second point. Here's what Megan RT'ed
https://twitter.com/DanFosterType/status/1326596085117317121
AH! I remember the second point. Here's what Megan RT'ed
https://twitter.com/DanFosterType/status/1326596085117317121
7/
it's this bit
> ballot question on "ad valorem taxes for all real property owned by a purely public charity”.
Pure motte-and-bailey / non-central example fallacy.
The ORIGINAL TOPIC was "why did these 'voters' vote for president and NOT ONE OTHER SINGLE THING?
it's this bit
> ballot question on "ad valorem taxes for all real property owned by a purely public charity”.
Pure motte-and-bailey / non-central example fallacy.
The ORIGINAL TOPIC was "why did these 'voters' vote for president and NOT ONE OTHER SINGLE THING?
8/
The response was "why would they vote on a ballot measure?"
But even then, the above question was manipulated to make it sound as absolutely esoteric as possible "ad valorum taxes for all real property". Far more esoteric than the actual ballot Q.
https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_2020_ballot_measures
The response was "why would they vote on a ballot measure?"
But even then, the above question was manipulated to make it sound as absolutely esoteric as possible "ad valorum taxes for all real property". Far more esoteric than the actual ballot Q.
https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_2020_ballot_measures
9/
BUT
this is the motte!
The question was "why did they only vote the top of the ticket".
There are far more questions on the Georgia ballot than president and "ad valorum taxes".
Here's the list of GROUPS of questions
https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_elections,_2020
BUT
this is the motte!
The question was "why did they only vote the top of the ticket".
There are far more questions on the Georgia ballot than president and "ad valorum taxes".
Here's the list of GROUPS of questions
https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_elections,_2020
10/
We are not asking "at a ratio of 117:1, why did Biden voters not vote on an esoteric question about taxes?"
We are asking "why, at a ratio of 117:1, did Biden voters not vote on SENATORS OR REPS OR ANYTHING AT ALL?"
We are not asking "at a ratio of 117:1, why did Biden voters not vote on an esoteric question about taxes?"
We are asking "why, at a ratio of 117:1, did Biden voters not vote on SENATORS OR REPS OR ANYTHING AT ALL?"
11/
You're telling me that Dems spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate and develop new Dem voters, and pretty much 0% of these people voted for ANY Senator, or ANY Representative?
Sure, new / low information voters will vote less down-ticket, maybe even randomly.
You're telling me that Dems spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate and develop new Dem voters, and pretty much 0% of these people voted for ANY Senator, or ANY Representative?
Sure, new / low information voters will vote less down-ticket, maybe even randomly.
12/
But effectively ZERO PERCENT OF THEM remembered to vote on ANYTHING other than POTUS?
Here's a much simpler theory which explains this evidence:
The local Dem machine is used to stealing a few votes, panicked, and tried to load up fake ballots as quickly as possible.
But effectively ZERO PERCENT OF THEM remembered to vote on ANYTHING other than POTUS?
Here's a much simpler theory which explains this evidence:
The local Dem machine is used to stealing a few votes, panicked, and tried to load up fake ballots as quickly as possible.
13/
Very tight deadlines. Hours, not days. A mad scramble to fill out blank ballots in a back room, a dozen people hastily filling in the oval for Biden and NOTHING ELSE.
in 5 minutes you can fill out 50 "Biden" ballots ...or 5 "Straight D" tickets.
The machine chose path A.
Very tight deadlines. Hours, not days. A mad scramble to fill out blank ballots in a back room, a dozen people hastily filling in the oval for Biden and NOTHING ELSE.
in 5 minutes you can fill out 50 "Biden" ballots ...or 5 "Straight D" tickets.
The machine chose path A.
14/
I have zero proof ... but to my mind it is a far easier to swallow the theory "people have incentives and bend laws" than "first time voters broke 117:1 for Biden ... and ALSO didn't know how to fill out more than one oval".
I have zero proof ... but to my mind it is a far easier to swallow the theory "people have incentives and bend laws" than "first time voters broke 117:1 for Biden ... and ALSO didn't know how to fill out more than one oval".
