While it is probably just that they werent counted yet
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.
Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there). This seems like a good news for our instance though.
Just a note on this :
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.
Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there).
This seems like a good news for our instance though.