A deeper dive into the 2020 election numbers reveal truths not highlighted in the major media

By Dave Andrusko

Kudos to Hotair’s John Sexton for alerting us to a fascinating analysis that appeared Sunday in the New York Times. His title—“NY Times: Latino And Asian Neighborhoods Shifted Red In 2020”—is better than the Times’—“Immigrant Neighborhoods Shifted Red as the Country Chose Blue”—but both capture  the lead three paragraphs of the analysis written by Weiyi Cai and Ford Fessenden:

Across the United States, many areas with large populations of Latinos and residents of Asian descent, including ones with the highest numbers of immigrants, had something in common this election: a surge in turnout and a shift to the right, often a sizable one.

The pattern was evident in big cities like Chicago and New York, in California and Florida, and along the Texas border with Mexico, according to a New York Times analysis of voting in 28,000 precincts in more than 20 cities.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. beat President Trump in almost all of these places en route to his record popular vote victory. But the red shifts, along with a wave of blue shifts in Republican and white areas, have scrambled the conventional wisdom of American politics and could presage a new electoral calculus for the parties.

Two thoughts. First, given how well President Trump did overall—he accumulated more than 74 million votes, 10 million more than in 2016—if you take into considerations the  improvements noted above, you really do have to wonder how he lost.

Second, a fascinating piece that ran Sunday at NBC News gives you a real sense of how incredibly close this race was. [Bear in mind that the results in the “battleground” states were always going to determine the outcome.]

Dante Chinni writes

But if you look just at the states that put Biden over the top in the Electoral College, he won by fewer votes than Trump did in 2016.

Throughout Trump’s time in the White House, much has been made of how he won the presidency by under 78,000 votes in three states. And that point was true. Trump won because of narrow margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

But the margins this year were even tighter in the three states that put Biden over the top in the Electoral College. He won Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by a total of less than 45,000 votes.  …

In other words, a swing of a few thousand votes in a few states this year and the country could have been looking at a second term for Trump, even though Biden would have won the national popular vote by 7 million votes. [Underlining added.]

To return to the NYTimes analysis for one last look, Cai and Fessenden write

Thousands of new voters across the country turned out in areas with significant numbers of Latinos and residents of Asian descent — populations whose participation in past elections has lagged. …

But in a divided American electorate, any shift can be consequential. Already the shift appears to have changed outcomes in a number of congressional races. [Underlining added.]

As we’ve discussed before, while so much attention has understandably focused on the questionable vote tallies for President in key states, what gets lost is President Trump’s coattails. We discuss elsewhere today that at least 13 Congressional seats flipped from pro-abortion to pro-life. These pro-life pickups are a major reason the Democrat majority in the House shrank rather than (as widely predicted) increased.

With a race yet to be finalized, there are 18 (potentially 19) new pro-life Republican women in the House of Representatives and more than a dozen new pro-life Republican men!