Established Research Contradicts Claim of 52-48 Trump Lead Among Hypothetical 2020 Non-Voters

A recent social media post by Lakshya Jain, citing an update flagged by @j_kalla, has introduced a significant claim regarding the 2020 U.S. presidential election. According to the tweet, "new estimates" from "CES validated voter estimates" suggest that former President Donald Trump "would have won non-voters 52-48 if they voted." This assertion challenges widely accepted analyses of the 2020 electorate.However, comprehensive studies utilizing validated voter data, such as those conducted by the Pew Research Center, present a contrasting picture. Research published by Pew in June 2021, based on their American Trends Panel which matches survey respondents to commercial voter files, indicated that non-voters in 2020 actually favored Joe Biden. Specifically, non-voters preferred Biden over Trump by a 15-percentage-point margin, with 50% supporting Biden and 35% favoring Trump.The Cooperative Election Study (CES) and similar "validated voter" methodologies are academic approaches that cross-reference survey responses with official voting records. This process aims to provide a more accurate understanding of who voted and how, distinguishing actual voters from non-voters and their stated preferences. The consensus from such rigorous studies has consistently shown that the expanded 2020 electorate, including new voters and those who had not participated in previous elections, largely contributed to Biden's victory.Further academic analysis, including a paper in Political Science Research and Methods using 2020 CES data, concluded that "new voters in 2020 and voters switching their preferences from 2016 cast their ballots in favor of Democrat Joe Biden." This body of research underscores that the overall dynamic of the 2020 election involved a significant mobilization of voters who leaned Democratic, rather than a hypothetical non-voter bloc that would have favored Trump.The discrepancy highlighted by Jain's tweet suggests either a highly specific re-analysis or a misinterpretation of existing data, as it stands in direct opposition to the broader findings from reputable election studies. Understanding the preferences of non-voters is crucial for political analysis, but such insights must be grounded in robust and widely corroborated research.