This article started out really, really bad, and I was all set to write a comment about how shit it was, but it got better. However, you are obviously hoping that no-one notices you have changed your theory. Originally you argued that Bibi ‘has engineered a global campaign to dump Ukraine’ because he is competing for limited stores of foreign aid, and because he wants to prolong the Gaza war for his own incarceration status. This was rightly panned by all the commentators as (a) extremely implausible and (b) totally without evidence. (Your subsequent attempt to divert the discussion into allegations of antisemitism which, in fact, no-one made is low and beneath you).
In addition to moderating the extent to which Bibi is responsible for this global campaign (in blatant contradiction to your original article) you are now making an entirely different thesis, namely that Netanyahu wolud prefer western tensions with Russia to cool down in order to stem the trend towards closer relations between Russian and Iran. Now, this is actually a perfectly reasonable observation, and, in fact, this is clearly settled Israeli policy and not particularly associated with Netanyahu (Bennett clearly pursued this policy more aggressively). Thus all the blather about alleged links between Bibi and Candace Owens can really be dispensed with. I would make the following three observations:
(1) This is basically the same concept as the realist idea that the Russian-Ukraine war should be ended to stem the tide towards closer Russia-China relations.
(2) This is not, in fact, an anti-Ukraine policy. The war has to date killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and millions more have fled. The longer the war goes on, the less likely they are to return. Given Ukraine’s absolutely awful TFR, the war represents a genuine existential threat to the existence of Ukraine as a nation and country. This would be obvious to Ukrainians were it not for delusory nationalism (amplified by their average IQ of 90). Even so, war fever in Ukraine does seem to have died down significantly.
(3) Your preferred policy is massive increase of assistance to Ukraine from all NATO nations. This is not going to happen because no-one wants to do it. Ukraine is objectively not important to any of the member states of NATO except America, is not a real European country, and just isn’t worth the financial cost, let alone the risks of escalation. Poles and other Eastern Europeans with a more direct interest in combatting Russia don’t like Ukrainians, for obvious historical reasons, and are not going to risk their own interests for Ukraine. You can argue this is unwise because it only puts the inevitable conflagration of or whatever, but that is the reality. The only real options are (i) keep on with this war with devastating consequences for Ukraine or (ii) a negotiated settlement. The only people really emotionally invested in Ukraine are Anglo centrist Dad types and, even so, your escalationist views are shared by maybe 5% of the US population and no more than 10% of the defence establishment. Move on.
Other than that, there is a lot of crap in this article like screenshots that obviously don’t prove the point they are supposed to support. Presumably the goal of this is to exhaust and bewilder your audience so they give up and give you a pass on your original implausible and unsubstantiated assertion. But you don’t have to do this. You write too much, and this leads to inevitable quality control issues. You would be better off cutting the number of articles you write by 50%, editing them more, sitting on the for a few days, and sending them to a critical friend before you publish.
Yes, Bibi has engineered a global campaign to dump Ukraine because:
1. he is competing for limited stores of foreign aid: yes
2. and because he wants to prolong the Gaza war for his own incarceration status: yes.
3. and because he wants a deal with Russia: yes.
a. I didn't allege a link between Netanyahu and Candace. I alleged that Ben Shapiro's hiring policy is toward neo-isolationism, not neo-conservatism, and this is informed by Netanyahu's interests.
b. 5 million dead Ukrainians is better than 37 million dead Ukrainians, and by extension, 400 million enslaved Europeans. I would have said the same thing to Edvard Beneš. Counseling the Czechs to engage in a total war against Germany, with the backing of Britain, was not an "anti-Czech policy," nor was the guarantee to Poland an "anti-Polish policy." The problem is the British weren't aggressive enough. No, I'm not saying Putin is morally equivalent to Hitler, just saying that funding a state fighting for its independence is not "anti-Ukrainian." If that were true, then the Korean War was anti-Korean, and so on. This is a selective form of pacifism.
c. Ukraine is important because of China.
d. I do write too much. The purpose is:
i. I want to flesh out my ideas in a public forum and expose them to criticism. Ruminating in the dark protects my reputation but is unhelpful.
ii. I have a general problem with editing that comes from a lack of focus and discipline. But I think I have improved from my first articles, which were mostly bad.
iii. Do you want to be my critical friend? Having a free editor sounds very valuable.
In the process of writing this, I did have to defend ideas in public that I don't usually have to defend. That was beneficial for me, because it made me understand better the gaps I have in my knowledge, check my assumptions against reality, and make predictions for the future. I think you are correct that the kind of massive NATO spending on Ukraine that I am asking for is not going to happen.
α The fact that these are not strictly incompatible does not mean that you did not in one article argue for the (1) and (2), giving absolutely no indication of (3) and, then, just changed your argument while formally defending the original article. Just not cricket. I don't know if this is even successful in the pulling the wool over the eyes of the paypigs, but it is not the way to earn the respect of Elite Commenting Capital.
a. OK fine.
b. Bro, do I have to post the 'everything I don't like is Hitler' meme? I am not saying your position is anti-Ukraine, I am just saying the Israeli position is also not anti-Ukraine.
c. Have you written an article explaining this?
d. I'm a critical friend to all men of good will, but I don't even have time to write articles, let alone provide commentary on an article every other day. I use my wife and an unemployed friend of mine. But if you want to send me an article once a month, or specifically Israel stuff, then I'd be happy.
You are correct that your strategy of writing loads and loads has paid off well in becoming a great writer, but you are already there now. You should transition to once or twice a week after editing.
b. The Israeli position is not anti-Ukraine, but Netanyahu's deal with Russia is anti-Ukrainian. It's a rational anti-Ukrainianism, but doesn't align with my values.
c. I've mentioned the idea throughout a series of articles:
However it would be good to write an article "why Ukraine is important to China." Here's the short version:
"China can't fight NATO without Russia: like Japan in WWII, it doesn't have enough food or fuel to survive NATO sanctions. Furthermore, Chinese tanks can never threaten Europe without Russia as an ally, rendering its "million man strong infantry" totally useless. In a purely naval war, America (plus Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Norway) smokes China. If a Chinese-Russian alliance creates a land war in Europe, the outcome is not as certain. A lot more people die."
d. All of my friends are like you: they ain't got time for all that. The benefit of having a private editor is to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong in public and being corrected. This is also costly because it alienates people with a low tolerance for bullshit. But I would rather have my views corrected ASAP rather than wait around for someone to spare me the embarrassment.
e. I don't feel that I am "already there." I am a perfectionist, which is why editing is difficult for me, because if I spend too long on an article, I get overly critical and never publish it. I have to do things quick and dirty or not at all. It's a weird emotional complex. My current goal is to write 1 million words and 365 articles by April 18th, and then transition to writing less.
c. The normie response to this is that the West should try its best not to incentivize Russia to throw in its lot with China, i.e. it's an argument for a peace deal.
At risk of sounding um akshually, I’d like to comment on 3b and say that the Korean War isn’t really analogous since it wasn’t fought to protect a recognized nation’s independence but to prolong the artificial partition of a country split as a result of Cold War geopolitics following decolonization. The Korean War is therefore most comparable to the Vietnam War, and the latter probably made more strategic sense as I argue here: https://open.substack.com/pub/scrupulouspessimism/p/the-illogic-of-americas-asian-wars?r=pbr3i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
1) The Ukranians are worthless Slav trash and their fate is unimportant because they re worthless from birth.
I of course would not mind if we stopped sending them to die in their equivalent of the 10th battle of the isonzo for no good reason, but my overall attitude is like Bismarks about the value of the Balkans.
2) Avoiding war between Great Powers is the only thing that matters for human flourishing.
It's not clear to me that "Smart People" have processed this. They are just emoting or running scams for their own personal advancement. I don't want to die in nuclear fire because people think Putler hacked the voting machines to elect Trumpler.
I didn't mention Israel because while it's obvious they are the good guys, they are also perfectly capable of handling things themselves. All we need to do is get out of their way.
China is doing an enormous amount for Russia! Far beyond what anyone predicted! North Koreans don't go to Ukraine without Chinese permission, but most of it is economics.
What makes you think (or think that Netanyahu thinks) that the Russia-Iran relationship can be severed in return for Russia "winning" in Ukraine? Russia sees Iran as a strategic partner in its struggle against the US. It has since the early 2000s. And since Russia is now basically a unitary state, there is no great political cost to this grinding war of attrition - one that Russia seems likely to win (in terms of consolidating its gain in the East and Crimea). In terms of Ukraine vs Iran, it seems like Russia can probably get both.
Netanyahu knows that Russia has been arming, training, occasionally fighting alongside, and granting diplomatic cover to Iranian proxies for decades. Russia has acted continually in bad faith with Israel over Iranian power projection in Syria. Russia hosts Hamas. You seem to think that Netanyahu isn't wrong in thinking Russia could be wooed into containing Iran. Whether or not he does think that, you need to explain *why* he might think that. Again, this simple quid pro quo does not seem realistic. Perhaps the need for favorable resolution in Ukraine is more dire and time sensitive than it seems. But Putin does not face the same internal political pressures as other leaders. If various smart commentators are correct, the war in Ukraine, as militarily disastrous as it has been, has boosted regime security. And abandoning Iran would only happen if Putin were genuinely confident in productive partnership with the US-led West. Which, since he's a paranoid and conspiracy brained, seem unlikely.
The whole aid-competition angle seems like a red herring. Israel competing with Ukraine for aid does not explain why Netanyahu would think that Russia would completely abandon its Middle East policy in favor of Israel in return for an influence campaign to do something that was already part of the platform of the insurgent wing of the GOP in America.
If anything any influence campaign in the insurgent isolationist space is to carve out a special exception for Israel. It would still explain the stances of the various people you listed and it makes more sense from Netanyahu's perspective. The personal relationship between Netanyahu and Putin does remain something of a mystery here. Is there anyone else advancing the theory you're putting forward?
Ukraine is more important than Iran. Putin is willing to make a deal. There is a huge cost to the war. My theories will be tested over the next year, and we will see what happens.
Very interesting analysis, but aren't the isolationists making such a deal with Putin less probable? If Putin sees support for Ukraine coming to an end, why would he make any deal? The correct strategy would be a credible stick and carrots approach, not premature unilateral abandonment of Ukraine.
I'm flattered that you felt the need to write a post to respond to my comment. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but when I do, I will try to give more detailed thoughts.
I don't think it was necessary to give the whole I'm not an Anti Semite/self-hating confused jew disclaimer at the beginning. I never said that you are an antisemite, and I didn't even mean to imply it. I just meant that the correlations are so unsubstantiated, speculative and counterinitiative as to be on the level of lunacy that Anti Semites display when talking about Jews. (If there is a psychological dimension to a writer's thoughts, I prefer not to engage with it as its unproductive.)
Will try to engage points one by one. From what i read so far I even more shocked at how you are doubling down on this line of thinking. (Candice Owens is somehow a secret supporter of Israel now)
Your machiavellian projection of Bibi and his influence over American politics is straight out of Nick Fuentes and John Mearsheimer's wildest fantasies
Republicans argue that Hunter Biden laptop suppression lost them 2020, and they claimed to have poll numbers from voters saying they wouldn't have voted for Biden if they knew. Was there a laptop story this cycle? I can't think of one in particular, but the Springfield Haitians comes to mind, alongside greater awareness of immigration in general. Then again, Republican turnout didn't increase -- Democrats just became demoralized. You could say they "lost Twitter" and dropped out as a result. The mail-in ballot change was huge, and maybe Twitter affected that. Another thing I would say is that Twitter put competitive pressure on platforms like Youtube to lighten up on the censorship, because people were being driven to Twitter.
So I checked Wisconsin, and Trump won 1.61m votes in 2020, compared to Biden at 1.63m.
In 2024, Kamala won 1.668 (!) and Trump won 1.697.
So while turnout was suppressed in deep blue states like California, New York, etc, turnout was actually higher in swing states, and that could be a Twitter effect, especially among voters 18-29. I should really write a full article on this.
This article started out really, really bad, and I was all set to write a comment about how shit it was, but it got better. However, you are obviously hoping that no-one notices you have changed your theory. Originally you argued that Bibi ‘has engineered a global campaign to dump Ukraine’ because he is competing for limited stores of foreign aid, and because he wants to prolong the Gaza war for his own incarceration status. This was rightly panned by all the commentators as (a) extremely implausible and (b) totally without evidence. (Your subsequent attempt to divert the discussion into allegations of antisemitism which, in fact, no-one made is low and beneath you).
In addition to moderating the extent to which Bibi is responsible for this global campaign (in blatant contradiction to your original article) you are now making an entirely different thesis, namely that Netanyahu wolud prefer western tensions with Russia to cool down in order to stem the trend towards closer relations between Russian and Iran. Now, this is actually a perfectly reasonable observation, and, in fact, this is clearly settled Israeli policy and not particularly associated with Netanyahu (Bennett clearly pursued this policy more aggressively). Thus all the blather about alleged links between Bibi and Candace Owens can really be dispensed with. I would make the following three observations:
(1) This is basically the same concept as the realist idea that the Russian-Ukraine war should be ended to stem the tide towards closer Russia-China relations.
(2) This is not, in fact, an anti-Ukraine policy. The war has to date killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and millions more have fled. The longer the war goes on, the less likely they are to return. Given Ukraine’s absolutely awful TFR, the war represents a genuine existential threat to the existence of Ukraine as a nation and country. This would be obvious to Ukrainians were it not for delusory nationalism (amplified by their average IQ of 90). Even so, war fever in Ukraine does seem to have died down significantly.
(3) Your preferred policy is massive increase of assistance to Ukraine from all NATO nations. This is not going to happen because no-one wants to do it. Ukraine is objectively not important to any of the member states of NATO except America, is not a real European country, and just isn’t worth the financial cost, let alone the risks of escalation. Poles and other Eastern Europeans with a more direct interest in combatting Russia don’t like Ukrainians, for obvious historical reasons, and are not going to risk their own interests for Ukraine. You can argue this is unwise because it only puts the inevitable conflagration of or whatever, but that is the reality. The only real options are (i) keep on with this war with devastating consequences for Ukraine or (ii) a negotiated settlement. The only people really emotionally invested in Ukraine are Anglo centrist Dad types and, even so, your escalationist views are shared by maybe 5% of the US population and no more than 10% of the defence establishment. Move on.
Other than that, there is a lot of crap in this article like screenshots that obviously don’t prove the point they are supposed to support. Presumably the goal of this is to exhaust and bewilder your audience so they give up and give you a pass on your original implausible and unsubstantiated assertion. But you don’t have to do this. You write too much, and this leads to inevitable quality control issues. You would be better off cutting the number of articles you write by 50%, editing them more, sitting on the for a few days, and sending them to a critical friend before you publish.
Yes, Bibi has engineered a global campaign to dump Ukraine because:
1. he is competing for limited stores of foreign aid: yes
2. and because he wants to prolong the Gaza war for his own incarceration status: yes.
3. and because he wants a deal with Russia: yes.
a. I didn't allege a link between Netanyahu and Candace. I alleged that Ben Shapiro's hiring policy is toward neo-isolationism, not neo-conservatism, and this is informed by Netanyahu's interests.
b. 5 million dead Ukrainians is better than 37 million dead Ukrainians, and by extension, 400 million enslaved Europeans. I would have said the same thing to Edvard Beneš. Counseling the Czechs to engage in a total war against Germany, with the backing of Britain, was not an "anti-Czech policy," nor was the guarantee to Poland an "anti-Polish policy." The problem is the British weren't aggressive enough. No, I'm not saying Putin is morally equivalent to Hitler, just saying that funding a state fighting for its independence is not "anti-Ukrainian." If that were true, then the Korean War was anti-Korean, and so on. This is a selective form of pacifism.
c. Ukraine is important because of China.
d. I do write too much. The purpose is:
i. I want to flesh out my ideas in a public forum and expose them to criticism. Ruminating in the dark protects my reputation but is unhelpful.
ii. I have a general problem with editing that comes from a lack of focus and discipline. But I think I have improved from my first articles, which were mostly bad.
iii. Do you want to be my critical friend? Having a free editor sounds very valuable.
In the process of writing this, I did have to defend ideas in public that I don't usually have to defend. That was beneficial for me, because it made me understand better the gaps I have in my knowledge, check my assumptions against reality, and make predictions for the future. I think you are correct that the kind of massive NATO spending on Ukraine that I am asking for is not going to happen.
α The fact that these are not strictly incompatible does not mean that you did not in one article argue for the (1) and (2), giving absolutely no indication of (3) and, then, just changed your argument while formally defending the original article. Just not cricket. I don't know if this is even successful in the pulling the wool over the eyes of the paypigs, but it is not the way to earn the respect of Elite Commenting Capital.
a. OK fine.
b. Bro, do I have to post the 'everything I don't like is Hitler' meme? I am not saying your position is anti-Ukraine, I am just saying the Israeli position is also not anti-Ukraine.
c. Have you written an article explaining this?
d. I'm a critical friend to all men of good will, but I don't even have time to write articles, let alone provide commentary on an article every other day. I use my wife and an unemployed friend of mine. But if you want to send me an article once a month, or specifically Israel stuff, then I'd be happy.
You are correct that your strategy of writing loads and loads has paid off well in becoming a great writer, but you are already there now. You should transition to once or twice a week after editing.
b. The Israeli position is not anti-Ukraine, but Netanyahu's deal with Russia is anti-Ukrainian. It's a rational anti-Ukrainianism, but doesn't align with my values.
c. I've mentioned the idea throughout a series of articles:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/putinism-without-putin
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-peace
However it would be good to write an article "why Ukraine is important to China." Here's the short version:
"China can't fight NATO without Russia: like Japan in WWII, it doesn't have enough food or fuel to survive NATO sanctions. Furthermore, Chinese tanks can never threaten Europe without Russia as an ally, rendering its "million man strong infantry" totally useless. In a purely naval war, America (plus Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Norway) smokes China. If a Chinese-Russian alliance creates a land war in Europe, the outcome is not as certain. A lot more people die."
d. All of my friends are like you: they ain't got time for all that. The benefit of having a private editor is to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong in public and being corrected. This is also costly because it alienates people with a low tolerance for bullshit. But I would rather have my views corrected ASAP rather than wait around for someone to spare me the embarrassment.
e. I don't feel that I am "already there." I am a perfectionist, which is why editing is difficult for me, because if I spend too long on an article, I get overly critical and never publish it. I have to do things quick and dirty or not at all. It's a weird emotional complex. My current goal is to write 1 million words and 365 articles by April 18th, and then transition to writing less.
c. The normie response to this is that the West should try its best not to incentivize Russia to throw in its lot with China, i.e. it's an argument for a peace deal.
At risk of sounding um akshually, I’d like to comment on 3b and say that the Korean War isn’t really analogous since it wasn’t fought to protect a recognized nation’s independence but to prolong the artificial partition of a country split as a result of Cold War geopolitics following decolonization. The Korean War is therefore most comparable to the Vietnam War, and the latter probably made more strategic sense as I argue here: https://open.substack.com/pub/scrupulouspessimism/p/the-illogic-of-americas-asian-wars?r=pbr3i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The other day DeepLeft said 10 million dead was a reasonable price to pay to overthrow the Russian government. The guys a loon.
I will repeat it here. You keep reading!
When a neocon has his eyes on the target, no price is too high to pay, because the cost of NOT paying it is too high for his ego to bear.
It's not about my ego, it's about the fanatical inheriting the Earth. Go be a moderate loser somewhere else.
I'm fine with inheriting my portion of it and not giving much of a shit what some washed up has-been society does in its portion.
You are a jew???
TLDR
The correct response is that:
1) The Ukranians are worthless Slav trash and their fate is unimportant because they re worthless from birth.
I of course would not mind if we stopped sending them to die in their equivalent of the 10th battle of the isonzo for no good reason, but my overall attitude is like Bismarks about the value of the Balkans.
2) Avoiding war between Great Powers is the only thing that matters for human flourishing.
It's not clear to me that "Smart People" have processed this. They are just emoting or running scams for their own personal advancement. I don't want to die in nuclear fire because people think Putler hacked the voting machines to elect Trumpler.
I didn't mention Israel because while it's obvious they are the good guys, they are also perfectly capable of handling things themselves. All we need to do is get out of their way.
You didn't sufficiently argue the 'value of Ukraine in a larger struggle with China.'
If Ukraine is so important for the struggle in countering China, why isn't China doing much more for Russia?
China is doing an enormous amount for Russia! Far beyond what anyone predicted! North Koreans don't go to Ukraine without Chinese permission, but most of it is economics.
What makes you think (or think that Netanyahu thinks) that the Russia-Iran relationship can be severed in return for Russia "winning" in Ukraine? Russia sees Iran as a strategic partner in its struggle against the US. It has since the early 2000s. And since Russia is now basically a unitary state, there is no great political cost to this grinding war of attrition - one that Russia seems likely to win (in terms of consolidating its gain in the East and Crimea). In terms of Ukraine vs Iran, it seems like Russia can probably get both.
Netanyahu knows that Russia has been arming, training, occasionally fighting alongside, and granting diplomatic cover to Iranian proxies for decades. Russia has acted continually in bad faith with Israel over Iranian power projection in Syria. Russia hosts Hamas. You seem to think that Netanyahu isn't wrong in thinking Russia could be wooed into containing Iran. Whether or not he does think that, you need to explain *why* he might think that. Again, this simple quid pro quo does not seem realistic. Perhaps the need for favorable resolution in Ukraine is more dire and time sensitive than it seems. But Putin does not face the same internal political pressures as other leaders. If various smart commentators are correct, the war in Ukraine, as militarily disastrous as it has been, has boosted regime security. And abandoning Iran would only happen if Putin were genuinely confident in productive partnership with the US-led West. Which, since he's a paranoid and conspiracy brained, seem unlikely.
The whole aid-competition angle seems like a red herring. Israel competing with Ukraine for aid does not explain why Netanyahu would think that Russia would completely abandon its Middle East policy in favor of Israel in return for an influence campaign to do something that was already part of the platform of the insurgent wing of the GOP in America.
If anything any influence campaign in the insurgent isolationist space is to carve out a special exception for Israel. It would still explain the stances of the various people you listed and it makes more sense from Netanyahu's perspective. The personal relationship between Netanyahu and Putin does remain something of a mystery here. Is there anyone else advancing the theory you're putting forward?
Ukraine is more important than Iran. Putin is willing to make a deal. There is a huge cost to the war. My theories will be tested over the next year, and we will see what happens.
Very interesting analysis, but aren't the isolationists making such a deal with Putin less probable? If Putin sees support for Ukraine coming to an end, why would he make any deal? The correct strategy would be a credible stick and carrots approach, not premature unilateral abandonment of Ukraine.
I agree, and if you look at actual aid to Ukraine, this is exactly what is happening. We have to disaggregate public support from financial support.
I'm flattered that you felt the need to write a post to respond to my comment. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but when I do, I will try to give more detailed thoughts.
I don't think it was necessary to give the whole I'm not an Anti Semite/self-hating confused jew disclaimer at the beginning. I never said that you are an antisemite, and I didn't even mean to imply it. I just meant that the correlations are so unsubstantiated, speculative and counterinitiative as to be on the level of lunacy that Anti Semites display when talking about Jews. (If there is a psychological dimension to a writer's thoughts, I prefer not to engage with it as its unproductive.)
Will try to engage points one by one. From what i read so far I even more shocked at how you are doubling down on this line of thinking. (Candice Owens is somehow a secret supporter of Israel now)
I never said Candace Owens is a secret supporter of Israel.
Ig he implies Candace is a usefull idiot for Netanyauhs personal interests.
Your machiavellian projection of Bibi and his influence over American politics is straight out of Nick Fuentes and John Mearsheimer's wildest fantasies
Not an argument. The idea that Netanyahu doesn't exert influence is ridiculous.
Republicans argue that Hunter Biden laptop suppression lost them 2020, and they claimed to have poll numbers from voters saying they wouldn't have voted for Biden if they knew. Was there a laptop story this cycle? I can't think of one in particular, but the Springfield Haitians comes to mind, alongside greater awareness of immigration in general. Then again, Republican turnout didn't increase -- Democrats just became demoralized. You could say they "lost Twitter" and dropped out as a result. The mail-in ballot change was huge, and maybe Twitter affected that. Another thing I would say is that Twitter put competitive pressure on platforms like Youtube to lighten up on the censorship, because people were being driven to Twitter.
So I checked Wisconsin, and Trump won 1.61m votes in 2020, compared to Biden at 1.63m.
In 2024, Kamala won 1.668 (!) and Trump won 1.697.
So while turnout was suppressed in deep blue states like California, New York, etc, turnout was actually higher in swing states, and that could be a Twitter effect, especially among voters 18-29. I should really write a full article on this.