Harris On Track for ~76M Votes, Trump for ~78.3M Votes (a Swing of ~4M to ~5M from Biden-Trump 2020)

The N.Y. Times reports that about 95.0% of all votes have been counted, with Harris at 71.7M and Trump at about 75M:

These 95.0% amount to 148.8M, so that means there are about 7.8M uncounted (that's 148.8M / 0.95 * 0.05), for a total number of about 156.6M. (All numbers are approximations.)

Most of those not yet counted votes are in California (4.2M there, since 25% of the votes there remain uncounted); quite a few are from Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. These on balance tilt Democrat; so far California and Washington have split roughly 60-40 Democrat, though the other states are closer to 50-50 (and Utah has been splitting 60-40 Republican). This suggests that the 7.8M will split roughly 4.3M Harris to 3.3M Trump or thereabouts. Put together that means a likely final total of roughly 76M Harris and 78.3M Trump or so, give or take a few hundred thousand. (Maybe 2.3M or a bit more will go to third-party candidates.)

Again, when thinking about the 2020-to-2024 vote gulf, it's important to compare the 2020 final results with projected 2024 final results (or just wait until the 2024 final results are in), rather than 2020 final results with early 2024 results.

Comments

[santamonica811]

Hate Trump as a political figure. But I'm actually happy he will win the raw vote this year. It's not a good look to lose the popular vote and win the election. It's a terrible look to lose the popular vote and somehow end up with an electoral blowout.

If Trump had lost the popular vote (let alone if he had lost it by +5,000,000 votes), then claims of a mandate would be bullshit. But, here, with his win, plus the pickups in the Senate (and almost certainly in the House as well), I think he can indeed say that he has a mandate.

Let him work his mischief. Voters will see the results over the next 2 years, and can reward or punish him in 2026.

We shall see.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The 2026 midterms depend more on the Democrats, I think. Their shrill pounding against nazi racists and for wokism and transgender mutilation turned a lot of voters against them. If they keep doing that, it may not matter what stupid things Trump does or says. I don't recall any other election where one party tried so hard to insult the voters they should have been courting. Joy, she said, then insulted wives as being afraid of voting the true Democrat way.

[loki13]

As they say, you break it, you buy it.

It's frustrating that we had this long buildup of Trump (and surrogates) saying that the vote was rigged in case he lost. Ugh. But karma doesn't work like that, and he won. So, have at it.

I really think that people won't be happy with what happens, but maybe I'm wrong. I certainly hope that his policies are good for America and there is no damage to the civic institutions and norms of democracy, and will root for him to do well until he proves otherwise.

[AmosArch]

The Jan 6th picnic happened due to the last minute mysterious Biden bump coupled with the general COVID malaise that also contributed to the BLM riots. You know that other thing nobody outside of conservatives talk about anymore than actually had its perpetrators inflict tons of deaths and far more destruction? Really nothing more to it.

If Trump had lost a few days ago yeah there would have been some people calling it rigged like every side does each election including some Dems this election. But I doubt it would amount to even the completely blown out of proportion J6 ‘insurrection’. Conversely the Dems probably would have done a BLM II if Trump had a last minute electoral bump in 2020.

[santamonica811]

Utter bullshit. Please send links for any actual Democrat* who is saying that Trump just won because of fraud or rigged. I've heard, by now, literally hundreds of Democrats (in politics and in the media) state clearly that Trump not only own; he won decisively.

*[Yes, I am sure you can find *some* people online who are saying Trump rigged the election. But, online, you can find *plenty* of Republicans/conservatives who blame the Jews for the 9/11 Twin Towers attacks. But since no serious Rep/Conservative says this, or said this, we don't blame Republicans for such horsecrap.]

[AmosArch]

Utter bullshit. Please send links for any actual Democrat* who is saying that Trump just won because of fraud or rigged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-proves-trump-was-wrong-mueller-was-right-ncna1237743

As you can see these aren’t just randos on twitter or reddit.

If you want to go even further in time. Heres even more Dem claims/insinuations of election rigging.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/was-the-2004-election-stolen

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-political-machine/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve heard, by now, literally hundreds of Democrats (in politics and in the media) state clearly that Trump not only own; he won decisively.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thats because Drumpf kicked their posteriors so throughly and they banged on the elections are bulletproof drum so hard so recently the party (leaders) have no choice but to adapt the position of ‘lets act like we’re better than him’. But as I’ve decisively shown this purely out of calculated strategy rather than any inherent superior nobility of Dems. They have no problem gumming up the works with suspect claims of election rigging when it suits them. Plus high level Dems are very clever in the propaganda department and often let surrogates do the dirty work for them godfather style.

[jb]

None of the articles about the 2016 election say that Trump didn't win the election, they generally say something along the lines of Russia illegally influenced the election. That's a very different claim from claiming that the actual votes cast were somehow changed or illegal.

The first 2004 article is a lot closer to the kind of argument that Republicans made about the 2020 election. But of course it also acknowledges that mainstream political thought--including by Democrats--dismissed such thinking as conspiracy theories. Which is basically the opposite of the Republican response to Trump's equally poorly supported 2020 conspiracy.

[John Rohan]

12 minutes of Democrats denying election results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX2Ejqjz6TA

[jb]

This is the exact same as the first set of articles from above. No one is denying the results; they are saying that Russia illegally influenced the election. Hilary conceded the election and no one filed dumb lawsuits saying that Russian interference meant that judges should overturn the results.

[John Rohan]

They went WELL beyond that. They said the election was "stolen". You have Harris there on video agreeing with the statement that Trump wasn't really elected and isn't a legitimate president. You have Jimmy Carter outright saying it. You can't put lipstick on this pig.

[jb]

This is the exact same as the first set of articles from above. No one is denying the results; they are saying that Russia illegally influenced the election. Hilary conceded the election and no one filed dumb lawsuits saying that Russian interference meant that judges should overturn the results.

[AmosArch]

The difference is academic. You're still casting doubt and delegitimizing the outcome of the election and the processes that lead up to it. If I'm supposed to be paranoid over Russia 'hacking the election' by interfering with voters why can't I also be paranoid over them or some other party 'hacking the election' a couple steps further down the line.

Also I like how you completely dismiss the mainstream sources I provide on Diebold and glom on the muddled NYT statement that actually stirs the conspiracy pot as 'mainstream rejection'.

[Drewski]

If the difference were academic, the results would be identical. We didn't see Democrats storm the Capitol in an effort to overturn an election, but we did see that result from Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps the FBI had no motive to egg Democrats on to do that?

We did, in 2017, see Democrats rioting at Trump's inauguration. Want to bet they won't do it again?

[Josh R]

Mysterious Biden bump. What a load of crap.

Jan 6 happened because Trump is a man-baby who couldn't accept defeat. He provoked his supporters by lying to them about the election.

[AmosArch]

Its absolutely true. for a portion of election night Trump gained ground into an apparent superior position as the election bets show and many people went to bed thinking Trump would win. Only for the Biden bump to appear.

https://www.foxla.com/news/vegas-odds-for-presidential-election-turn-toward-trump

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Of course the MSM and the official 'canon' conveniently omits this portion of the story because the J6 picnic happening over an election that was never in doubt suits their narrative more than the truth of it happening after a rollercoaster election.

[jb]

Of course in Arizona (and I think Nevada?) the exact opposite happened--Biden started up way ahead and as they counted the lead decreased.

In both cases this came down to which set of ballots you counted first, in-person or mail in. So sure, if you wanted to ignore any evidence that went against your preferences and your theory, then it was easy to convince yourself that something nefarious was going on. Usually there are adults in the room (including gracious losers) who counteract these dynamics, but Trump either believed the same dumb conspiracy or at least decided it worked in his favor so he'd stoke it regardless of the impact on the country.

[Josh R]

What jb said, adding the effect was known before election night.

This is the type of bat-shit crazy claim which Trump perpetuated that make it impossible for reason to win over partisanship. Nixon would have gotten off scott free had Watergate happened in 2020 instead of 1972.

[AmosArch]

So I guess the betting markets didn’t know what was common knowledge among average democrats at the time who were such political supergeniuses but at the same time dumb for not making a killing off the rubes in the betting sites with their superior knowledge on election night?

[Josh R]

There were bets available on whether Democrats in PA (or Republicans in AZ) would have their votes counted last?

[Joe_dallas]

Neither side should get too excited about the drop in votes for Harris in 2024 vs Biden in 2020. 76m for Harris vs 81m for biden.

The battleground states were reasonably comparable in 2024/2020, while most of the drop occurred in heavily blue states and heavily Red states where the votes did not matter as much.

[FivebySixThree]

Taking out the distortion that is California pretty much shows the country is not as liberal as many believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's true that, if you leave out California, Republicans usually win the popular vote. It's also true, of course, that if you omit Texas, Democrats usually win the Electoral College...

[Darth Buckeye]

Dems have not yet decided on their means of attack. They will find some excuse to say the results were unfair.

[santamonica811]

Hypothetical imaginary dishonesty is the worst kind of dishonesty, yes?

Just because you have no ethical standards; you assume that the other side is as shitty as you. Thank God you're wrong about that.

[Darth Buckeye]

Have you ever been a whistle blower and reported misconduct to the proper authorities? I have. Have you ever advised senior government officials how to to take actions in a manner that courts will sustain? I have. Have you ever served as a magistrate-type official and been praised for your honesty and fairness? I have.

You know nothing about me other than that you don't like what I wrote. Your comment reflects poorly on you; I don't need to make any assumptions about you.

[Drewski]

*snorts derisively*

[George Grady]

Why aren't the people running these states embarrassed it's taking them this long to count their votes, when the vast majority of other states don't have this problem?

[dwb68]

They need to reform this, before reform is forced on them.

[ducksalad]

It's probably better to just force it on them regardless, and soon, so that next time there's no wiggle room.

Congress can't say how electors are chosen, but they do determine when, and Congress should specify a day for the final names of electors to be known. Leave it up to states how to meet the deadline - vote earlier, count earlier, count faster.

[Krayt]

That Florida was dragging ass too much in 2000, climbing too close to this deadline, figured heavily into the SC decision back then. It was starting to look more like a death penalty case dragging on for years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just like death penalty cases drag on because death penalty opponents get humored too much, Florida in 2000 dragged on because Gore got humored too much.

He actually lost on election night. Sure, the networks called Florida for Gore right after the polls closed in most of Florida, supposedly having somehow forgot that the panhandle was in a different time zone. Supposedly.

By morning they'd corrected their mistake, and Gore conceded. Then the manditory recount for close elections reduced Bush's lead a bit, and Gore decided to contest Florida after all.

But never forget that Florida had figured out the winner within a couple days of the election, all the delays after that were due to Gore's efforts to undo his loss.

[David Nieporent]

That's not really accurate. Florida was initially 'called' by the networks for Gore on election night, but then a couple of hours later that was retracted. Then they called it for Bush, and Gore immediately called Bush to concede. But then the networks took back the second call, and so Gore retracted his concession. Because of the margin of victory, a machine recount was automatically triggered. Gore then asked for a hand recount in four counties as provided for by state law. And there were many more legal maneuverings before SCOTUS eventually cut off recounts, but at no point before that had Florida "figured out the winner." That was the whole point: the result was so close that the winner was uncertain.

That's in contrst to 2020, where the winner was 100% certain, and that's why Trump needed to have votes fabricated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Gore then asked for a hand recount in four counties as provided for by state law. "

Waiting until the last moment, so that Bush wouldn't have time to respond in kind, and I've previously explained the dishonest nature of that rule gaming.

But Florida still HAD counted the votes almost immediately, unlike California. All the delay was due to Gore's futile efforts to reverse the election night outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

You're mad about the timeline because you think it wasn't fair.

You cite no law; no evidence for any untoward intent here. Just that it wasn't fair.

You're acting like a child.

[David Nieporent]

He did not in fact wait until the last moment. Why do you make shit up? He requested the recount immediately, on November 9, when the election was on November 7 — or in other words, one day after we first learned of the situation.

[Don Nico]

Brett, S_O, David, it is what it was. Give it up

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? Looking it up, you're right about that timing.

[Riva]

100% certain? As certain as some ad hoc, national mail in, drop box harvested mess of an election with multiple jurisdictions imposing last minute rule changes eviscerating ballot verification and security rules, pauses in counting, followed by late night extended counting, with a smattering of excluding observers, covering up windows, and pipe leakages, can be. One can recount unverified or fraudulent ballots forever, you’ll still get the same total.

What 2020 tells us, as the demcrats well know, is that there really are no effective means to correct election fraud in the courts after the election. Which is why we need measures in place to secure the conduct of the election and why democrats want to constantly undermine those measures.

[Kazinski]

The only call of a race that really matters is the secretary of state certifying the results.

Calls by the media, or concessions by the candidate have no legal force, they are for informational purposes only so people have a good idea of what the result will be when the election is certified.

Say after the called it for Gore conceded, and even said he wouldn’t accept the office if the vote count changed in his favor.

Does Gore then become President? No, Dick Cheney does, because Gore didn’t win the majority in the EC.

[Lennyk78]

You are right, but Congress can declare ballots for federal elections to be nonmailable matter. The states can still choose to overutilize these ballots, but they'll have to find a way to distribute them other than by using the U.S. mail.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really want to encourage ballot harvesting?

Under its 'time, place, and manner' authority, Coungress could mandate that only ballots that arrive by the close of the polls on election day may be counted in federal elections. And should.

[jb]

I don't think the problem is late-arriving ballots, there's not very many of them. The actual problem is that California allows for ballot-curing for mail-in votes where there's problems.

I guess Congress could try to prohibit that too, but other than people being impatient, what's the problem with waiting ten days for definitive results in some cases?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I say elsewhere in this thread, two problems.

1) It's the sort of thing that gives the loser an excuse to think they were cheated.

2) If you're still counting ballots after everybody else has reported in, you know how many ballots you need to find to swing the election, and that's a temptation we should spare the people running elections, even if you do think they're saints.

I really don't see a problem with saying, "On election day, that's it, the ballots on hand are the only ones that will be counted, as they are." People know years in advance when election day is, they can plan accordingly.

[jb]

2) If you’re still counting ballots after everybody else has reported in, you know how many ballots you need to find to swing the election, and that’s a temptation we should spare the people running elections, even if you do think they’re saints.

Sure, but as long as the electoral college is in place, who cares if all of California and Arizona is slow, but all of Florida is fast. This only matters if the things causing the slowness are different in different parts of the state. I think this did happen in Pennsylvania in 2020, when some Republican counties decided not to allow ballot curing while most counties did allow it, but that seems fixable just by having a consistent procedure within a state.

Also, there’s tons of checks and failsafes to prevent the sort of manipulation you’re talking about. You don’t need everyone to be a saint for election integrity to work–you just need to be able to observe facts like how many ballots were issued, received, etc. Fraud is occasionally identified these ways, and some of the claims Trump et al were making in 2020 relied on this sort of data, but on closer scrutiny they all turned out to be bullshit.

I really don’t see a problem with saying, “On election day, that’s it, the ballots on hand are the only ones that will be counted, as they are.” People know years in advance when election day is, they can plan accordingly.

You keep saying that, and whatever–I don’t think it’s a big deal one way or the other–but it’s not what is causing the delays.

[Brett Bellmore]

It expressly is: The delays are due to ballots arriving and/or being 'cured' after election day.

[jb]

No. Only a tiny fraction of the ballots are arriving after election day.

It's mostly curing ballots that arrived on or shortly before election day. In Arizona in particular it's literally people dropping off early ballots on election day that are the biggest slow down. Arizona doesn't allow ballots to be counted if they're received after election day, and they're still very slow. In contrast, Pennsylvania allows ballots to be received for up to 3 days after election day and they've been done for a while.

You have a thing you care about and don't like. That's fine. But don't try to pretend that's the thing that's causing the delay in counting ballots, especially in states that don't even allow it!

[Lennyk78]

The problem is not when they're received, but that there are too many. Every registered voter gets a mailed ballot, so people who would otherwise have waited in line and voted correctly don't vote that way.

[Lennyk78]

It seems that the reason they take so long is that they have too many mail-in-ballots that they allow to be mailed back or dropped off.

Either them to people overseas, while making sure that you have enough time for early voting, or require that they be dropped off in person and fed into a machine, as though you had just voted there.

[F.D. Wolf]

I remember Obama-mania at its height in 2008 when Barack Obama received 68 million votes. I thought that number wouldn’t be surpassed by a Democrat for a while, and indeed it wasn’t, until the dynamic, electrifying Joe Biden received a whopping 81 million votes in 2020. Had Obama-mania really been Biden-mania all along? Perhaps the Democrats can nominate Biden again in 2028 and recapture the magic.

[Area Man]

Jimmy Carter is still eligible too. Biden/Carter 2028?

[F.D. Wolf]

I think that is a fine idea.

Like most Americans, my heart swelled with pride and joy when, for Jimmy Carter's 100th birthday, his loving family rolled the near-comatose former President, mouth agape and eyes blank, out onto the lawn so onlookers could gawk and take photos of him as if he were a sideshow attraction.

We just went through four years of the Weekend at Bernie's presidency. Why not Weekend at Bernie's 2?

[Lennyk78]

My best guess is that 5-8 million of Biden's ballots were completely fabricated.

[Krayt]

At some point, it's like claiming the moon landing was faked. 10,000 people would have to be in on it, with not a soul cracking.

[Social Justice is neither]

You mean like Biden coming out and proclaiming they had the greatest election fraud machine in history and our totally non-biased media coming out to proclaim that's not what he really meant, now ignore those 2am ballot dumps for Biden once Republican count watchers were forcibly ejected?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah. I mean, there are probably some fabricated ballots in the mix, relaxing chain of custody and security pretty much guarantees that, especially the ballot harvesting. But opsec on 5-8 million would be unworkable.

I'd be more concerned, actually, about Republican ballots going missing in areas Democrats control.

But mostly they do it by massive GOTV drives to get marginal voters to actually vote, which is why they treat even the slightest inconvenience in voting as an existential threat: It IS such a threat, when you're dependent on the votes of apathetic people.

[Sarcastr0]

Can’t stop fabricating fraud stories even if your guy won.

You have a problem. And it’s getting worse not better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, if you relax ballot security far enough, you're guaranteed to get sporadic fraud, normally not at a level high enough to change the outcome unless the election is REALLY close. Why are you so driven to deny that fraud happens AT ALL? No election above the level of dog catcher is genuinely free of all fraud.

Well, it's because your party IS existentially reliant on apathetic voters, which means that the least inconvenience in voting is a threat to you. And, of course, doing anything at all to secure elections against fraud is going to make voting a bit more inconvenient.

So you want to pretend there's simply no fraud at all, so that you can justify no security at all.

The problem is that this causes people who don't start out assuming that Democrats are honest to assume that you oppose measures against fraud because you rely on fraud to win. Generating that perception is unavoidable when you oppose all forms of ballot security.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you so driven to deny that fraud happens AT ALL? No election above the level of dog catcher is genuinely free of all fraud.

Allowing for hyperbole, that's pretty much 100% backwards: all elections above the level of dog catcher are free of fraud. One can steal a very low-level election with a relative handful of fraudulent votes, and there's unlikely to be much scrutiny over such elections. Once you start getting above the hyper-local level, it's much too hard to affect the outcome to make fraud worthwhile. A guy returning a single ballot on behalf of his recently-deceased wife just provides no benefit to anyone (other than a psychological benefit to the widower), and an operative submitting tens of thousands of fake ballots is going to be caught.

Well, it’s because your party IS existentially reliant on apathetic voters,

Nope. That's the Trump GOP. The parties have flipped.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're tacitly defining "fraud" as "successful fraud". Or assuming that it doesn't count unless the campaign itself is behind it. But that widower you mentioned doesn't cess to exist just because his efforts fail to be decisive.

Every large election involves at least some fraud. It's just not usually decisive fraud.

You have a point about the parties having flipped, but a lot of people are still operating on the old assumptions.

[Sarcastr0]

That you stand on this kind of pedantic quibble shows how little you care about the actualities here.

Also, too, "Every large election involves at least some fraud" is not established.

[Don Nico]

C'mon. Any time there is opportunity to cheat in any endeavor, some will try to cheat.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're declaring the truth to be pedantic, and claim *I* don't care about the actualities?

[Sarcastr0]

You're arbitrarily setting the level of ballot security below which you decide there's fraud.

To the point you just weave full-on stories of what's going on.

These multistate massive fraud systems are so well done that no one leaks, and they've remained secret to all but you for at least 8 years.
And yet they didn't deliver the election to the Dems at all.

You have no evidence, just vibes that you think security is too low.

And you have the gall to go after me as harming our civic fabric for pointing out you're making stuff up.

Brett, you HATE our civic fabric. You say it all the time. You hate and distrust all our institutions, public or private.
Absent making you king, you will never think anything is legitimate.

You will never be a net gain on our civic fabric. Which is fine - our fabric can take it. But don't pretend that by not kowtowing to your delusions I'm the one not engendering trust.

You call it distrust, but it's really just that you think disagreeing with you is illegitimate.

[Don Nico]

What is the actual argument? Brett already admits that whatever cheating exists is almost never enough to matter in the results. (Unless the margin is smaller than paper thin.)

[Brett Bellmore]

My actual argument is this:

The winner of an election will always think the outcome legitimate, they're not who you worry about. It's the loser you have to convince that the outcome was legit, and they have a psychological resistance to concluding that, so you need to go above and beyond what a perfectly objective observer might require to think that.

And, yes, you really do need to convince the losers they genuinely lost. That's how you get civic peace. The losers aren't a small enough minority that they can't cause trouble if they think you cheated.

I keep hammering on this theme: If you refuse to let the cards be cut, the guy who loses the hand IS going to think you stacked the deck, and it doesn't matter one tiny bit that you know you didn't. So, let him cut the deck!

You think non-citizens aren't voting, you think there's no impersonation voting fraud, you think ballot harvesters are the very salt of the earth, honest as the day is long? That delays in counting aren't shady?

So freaking what? You're not the one who needs convincing. And every time you object to a ballot security measure, the other side just gets more convinced that you're cheating, why else wouldn't you want secure ballots?

So we really do need to go heavy on ballot security, no matter how much Democrats protest that it isn't needed. We really do need voter ID, citizenship confirmation, chain of custody, election observers, OCD level compliance with all laws, all that stuff Democrats think just gets in the way of making voting easy.

We need it so that, when people lose elections, they genuinely believe they lost, that they weren't cheated. A lot depends on people thinking that.

[DaveM]

Exactly this. Election integrity benefits the losing side most. Who is going to play the ballgame where the refs don't call things square? Who's going to accept a loss from a game that is rigged?

In America, there's no shame in a fair loss. We love nothing more than a "comeback". Strict fair play is the only thing that brings the losing team back to the plate.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Brett already admits that whatever cheating exists is almost never enough to matter in the results.

You forget that you're dealing with Strawman_0. What anyone actually said is irrelevant.

[David Nieporent]

My best guess is that 5-8 of Biden's ballots were completely fabricated.

[hobie]

I think the Times reported that the Trump media-scape was shouting rigged election until about 10pm when things began to look favorable, then suddenly stopped parroting the rigged election malarkey. Heh...we're gonna be ruled by angry children for 4 years

[loki13]

I wish that would make a difference with the usual suspects, you know, a moment of actual self-reflection and realization that Trump just lies, and for Trump it's always, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Back in the '80s, he used to call different media outlets (using a pseudonym, John someone or other) and it was an open joke. Worse was that he would call them as John to tell them about his affairs.

I still am in disbelief that the same person that we all knew was an inveterate liar and venal scumbag back then is President.

Again.

[Bwaaah]

I've encountered triumphant Trump supporters since the election. I've been through the following scenario three times now in the past few days, and it has played out the same way each time.

They gleefully start talking about what Trump is going to do once he's President.

Very shortly after they start, I try to clarify. "You don't know what he's going to do."

Continuing their vibe, they cocksurely chortle back, "Oh yes I do!"

I look them straight in the eye, and I say, "It's Donald Trump. You can't tell me what he will do. You don't know. Nobody knows."

They hesitate for a moment and watch to see if I intend any humor in my point. I do not.

Their faces quickly turn to a look of admission, and then acknowledgement. They immediately withdraw their argument as they consider the fact that they don't really know what Trump will do. They smile. They savor that fact.

That is the look of his sword. You don't know if it will be drawn, when it will be drawn, upon whom it will be drawn, why it will be drawn. It is a fearsome force set at a fearsome stance.

If you believe Donald Trump intends to protect the people of the United States, then it's easy to see benefit in that fearsome stance. But if you don't believe he holds the interests of the people of the United States at heart, then that stance becomes a mantle of tyranny; his sword may be turned against you or yours.

Trump appears to have a narcissistic personality. It's easy for him to not care about others because, as the pathology goes, there are no others; there is only number one. But the motivations aren't that simple. There is pride, and selfish preferences, and the story in his head of himself as a man ("the man"). He has a wife and children, as many narcissists do, and he is often doting and flaunting of those people in his life. The narcissist selfishly covets these characters in his life, and his position among others.

My point here is that if you think Donald Trump doesn't care about others, I think that's not quite right. I think he care's not with the same emotions that most other people care, but he cares very much, especially about the look, of the characters in his life, and his position among others.

Donald Trump very much gets the storyline of his life. He knows that being President of the United States *is* the job of protecting the interests of the people of the country. The country's citizens, like his children, are major characters in his self-centered world. He wants to be the man. He intends to be the man. I believe he will try to be a President who takes care of his people.

That's what I think. And that's why I want him to assume the stance he has taken, as an unpredictable competitor in an extremely competitive world. That's a helpful stance. I hope he uses it well. But I don't know what he will do. I don't believe anybody knows what he will do.

(And I don't dispute your characterization of him. I just add to it.)

[ducksalad]

But I don’t know what he will do. I don’t believe anybody knows what he will do.

For his more rational supporters, it's more about things they believe he won't do, that Harris would. Climate change regulations, gun control, more woke stuff in schools, for a few examples. I think they're mostly correct in their assessment.

The more rational ones also say he's more likely to keep us out of wars. I think Trump does want to stay out of wars, and thinks unpredictability is a great deterrent. It mostly worked during his first term; he did less initiation of military action than Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. The problem is it's a risky strategy that depends on the other side not miscalculating. Yeah, we can say he made the Iranians/Russians/North Koreans back down, but if they hadn't the ensuing war could've easily dwarfed anything his predecessors did.

[santamonica811]

I think that's an interesting, and accurate, analysis. A president's refusal to do 'bad' things (which, of course, is usually in the eye of the beholder) is probably just as important as the good things he affirmatively tries to do.

I'm quite curious about what Trump will do re electric vehicles. He's flip-flopped on this a lot. But I think he will end up doing what he did regarding the selection of judges in his first term. It's something he really doesn't care about, it's something his most rabid followers care A LOT about, so he's perfectly happy to read the tea leaves and give his supporters what they want. Like farming out judicial vetting to one or two far-right organizations.

Because Trump is now so indebted to Elon Musk, and because Musk, of course, cares A LOT about EVs; I am reasonably confident that Trump will do whatever he can to advance Musk's interests (and, conversely, will oppose things that would otherwise impede Musk's interests). This first year of 2025 will be fascinating. Not fun for proponents of civil rights, women's rights, the environment,etc. But terribly fun for those pro-gun, pro-life, pro-drilling in protected nature, etc..

As they say; winning has consequences. 🙁

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a bad analysis.

Republicans have long experience with office holders who care deeply about topics where they disagree with their own voters, and who are willing to take a political hit by doing things their voters oppose. Trump, lacking strong convictions on a lot of topics, is blessedly free of that impulse; He will do what his base approves of to gain their approval. Indifference to details combined with a great concern for reputation combines to form a peculiar type of reliability.

I agree that Trump owes Musk a considerable political debt, as well as being reliant on X as a platform that won't censor him. But I don't think that debt will be paid through EV mandates; That's an expensive way to pay it, given how many of Trump's supporters bear the cost of those mandates in higher prices for conventional vehicles. And it's not as valuable to Musk as you might think; Tesla is the least dependent on mandates EV company around.

He'll pay it by getting the regulators out of Musk's way on space, cryptocurrency, and other endeavors where Musk needs them cleared from his path. Musk's plan to make X an everything app, that you can communicate with, do financial transactions, earn money market rates of return, web search, you name it, is going to need somebody shutting down the regulatory opposition.

[Absaroka]

I kinda wonder how long the Musk-Trump bromance will last. Neither have personalities that are very easy to get along with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personalities aside, they both need each other. Biden proved to Musk that he can't afford to ignore politics, and Trump knows he needs at least one major platform that isn't hostile, so he can get his message out.

[Don Nico]

"re electric vehicles."
The new generation of batteries, including TESLA's Al-graphene batteries promise ranges of several hundred miles per charge an ver little deterioration with use. That is likely to markedly change the public attitude toward EVs even for people who do not own a home. So intervention by Trump may be unnecessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once the tech is there, EVs will naturally be adopted without mandates. The problem all along has been the conviction that mandating their sales will somehow result in the tech showing up early. And so they force manufacturers to subsidize the EVs by dumping the cost of them on ICE purchasers, and the lots fill up with unsold EVs anyway.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The new generation of batteries, including TESLA’s Al-graphene batteries promise ranges of several hundred miles per charge an ver little deterioration with use. That is likely to markedly change the public attitude toward EVs even for people who do not own a home

Graphene-based battery chemistry does indeed offer some very significant improvements over current mainstream ones (LiON, etc.) However, it’s still far too early to conclude that it is “likely” to do anything, given the current state of the art. Like most new technologies that are still in their experimental phase, there are several significant obstacles (manufacturing costs, safety issues, etc) that need to be overcome before it sees practical widespread commercial applications.

[Krayt]

I have to keep pointing out preparing to claim problems is standard operating procedure and not new.

My wife volunteered to watch for intimidation at polls several cycles back. The Democratic party gave her a phone to call a roving lawyer if she saw anything. She didn’t, and at 8 pm they declared the election fair because in that state, the winner was obvious, Obama. Of course, it was prep work to beat the drum as failsafe, so talking heads could have a field day with it.

Yeah, new.

[dwb68]

It's embarrassing and ridiculous that CA (and AZ and WA) have not counted their votes yet. There is no legitimate reason for it, and it fosters distrust in the process.

[Lennyk78]

I mentioned this up above. They need to severely curtail mail-in voting.

[David Nieporent]

This isn't about mail in voting; other states with mail in votes don't have the same problem. It's about letting ballots arrive so late after Election Day (as long as sent before Election Day, conspiracy loons) and still counting them. Florida, for instance, has tons of mail-in voting, but the ballots must be received by poll closing on Election Day. California allows ballots that are received up to a week after Election Day to be counted. (No, that's not unique to California. Heavily Republican Utah does the same.)

[Brett Bellmore]

If a ballot arrives on election day you KNOW it was mailed on or before election day. Unless somebody invents a time machine, anyway.

If it arrives after election day, you must hope that your efforts to exclude ballots mailed after election day worked. That's a fundamental difference.

There is also the issue that, if you're counting votes long after everyone else has reported in, you know how many votes you need to change the outcome. That's a temptation best avoided.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a temptation best avoided.

Says a lot about your integrity. I very much hope you stay far far away from any kind of election-related volunteering.

And you continue to waive away the scaling issue.

[Don Nico]

"Says a lot about your integrity."
It certainly was that way in IL, when I lived there Cook County and Downstate took turns in being last to report.

[dwb68]

Fraud exists, people lie and shoplift, and can be bribed. the list of politicians hanging on and refusing to concede is long. why increase the risk of bad actors solving for an outcome.

[jb]

No it's not. Hardly any ballots come in after election day. Arizona doesn't allow for ballots to arrive after election day and is still slow.

Most of the delay is in signature verification and ballot curing. It also just takes longer when elections are close because every ballot counts, whereas in elections where the result is already clear regardless of outstanding ballots you don't need to wait to know who won.

[Dick King]

There were no statewide issues on the California ballot [senator, many ballot referenda, for example] that were close, even though the electors slates weren't?

-dk

[Lennyk78]

Except that those other states don't DEFAULT to mail in votes. California does.

[Longtobefree]

Surely the democrats did not send the suitcases of ballots via an airline that has lost the luggage?

[Lennyk78]

The Times had an article on California's process. The problem is that they mail everyone a ballot, and allow same day registration.

California defends the process for "Democracy," but the real reason is that making it easy for lazy, unmotivated, low propensity people to vote benefits Democrats.

It should be difficult to vote, so that only moderately competent people can figure it out, which rules out 98% of Democrats, who are not competent at anything other than killing babies and having gay sex.

[santamonica811]

What about smoking dope and rioting? I assume you think they are pretty good at those things too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, really determined rioters could have turned Democratic cities into smoking pits. They were violent enough, sure, but their technique and dedication were lacking.

[David Nieporent]

It should be noted that Nate Silver projects that Trump will finish with under 50% of the popular vote. (He will, of course, still have a plurality.)

[Frank Drackman]

OTOH, California still has 3 million votes to count (a week after the Erection, what da fuck?) so maybe "45/47" wins,
and since he's going to win the National Popular Vote, doesn't he get California's Electrical Votes under that stupid compact?
Why would anyone put any stock in what Nate Silverstein, who picked the 2016 and 2024 erections wrong (and I got them right, albeit underestimating “45/47″‘s Electrical Votes by 11(and I’m not counting Arizona’s until they’re counted in January)
So since you’re all into the numbers, how many more votes would Cums-a-lot have won if she’d picked Josh Shapiro instead of that Light-in-the-Loafers-Deployment-Dodging-Handles-a-Shotgun-worse-than-Dick-Chaney Poof from Minn-a-Soda???

Frank

[John Rohan]

Doing some quick math from the current official totals, that could maybe happen if and only if every single uncounted vote in California (with about 4 million remaining to be counted) from this point on goes to Harris, with none going to Trump. Highly unlikely.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't check his math; I just saw his tweet. But California, though the largest, is not the only source of remaining votes.

[John Rohan]

Every other state is well over 90% counted. And not as large as California.

[Lennyk78]

"Trump’s plans would add $7.75 trillion to the national debt over a decade, compared with $3.95 trillion under his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris, according to estimates from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Nearly two-thirds (65%) of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal recently said deficits would be higher under Trump than Harris.

“The lack of fiscal discipline is a concern,” Jeff Buchbinder, chief equity strategist at LPL Financial, wrote in a report Monday, adding that LPL doesn’t think rates will go much higher."

These left wing economics won't stop lying. It's just incredible, after the elites are thoroughly trounced, they continue on.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For some reason you ignore the possibility that you're a dipshit, and the historical evidence supporting your stupidity, and the consequences already proven from his last Presidency.

[Longtobefree]

They never include the massive CUTS proposed by Trump, do they?

[Brett Bellmore]

And they assume his de-regulatory efforts will have no economic effect.

[Frank Drackman]

"Cuts" which are only decreases in the rate of growth, like how Christ Christy isn't fat anymore because he's only 300 lbs instead of 400

[Lennyk78]

And they never include the spending increases, which are always underestimated, proposed by Democrats.

[SimonP]

Lenny, Republicans are already talking about the first legislative accomplishment they want to push through, during Trump's first 100 days - and it's a gigantic unfunded tax cut. You ask them how they're going to pay for it. They literally say, "Eh, it doesn't matter." Trump says the same things about the billions his deportation program would cost. "Price is no object."

It doesn't require wonkish spin to take these people at their word.

[Frank Drackman]

Letting people keep more of their own money, what a concept.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just how do you "pay" for tax cuts?
Hint, spend less.

[jb]

Yes, but you have to actually have a proposal for things to stop spending money on that offset the tax cuts. Otherwise, it's just the usual thing Republicans do is cut taxes, keep spending on everything except for minor domestic programs, and run up huge deficits in the process.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's highly promising that Trump is having Milei over for a discussion with him and Musk later this week.

Argentina's Milei to Meet With Trump, Musk Next Week in the US

It indicates to me that Trump is thinking in terms of dramatic reform, not slight changes at the edges.

So let me again say it: If that's what he wants, his first priority should be getting Congress to call a constitutional convention.

[Mr. Bumble]

Up next:
Registering all newborns to vote.

[Frank Drackman]

Where did all the Sleepy Joe Voters go?
4 years ago,
Where did all the Sleepy Joe Voters go?
November 5,
Where did all the Sleepy Joe Voters go,
turned into Nazi's every one,
OK, that's my extent of Pete Sieger for today

Frank

[Bwaaah]

The hippie folk sound...I wouldn't call it your forte.

[M L]

The default presumption should be that vote fraud happens to the extent it’s reasonably possible to do it; in other words, vote fraud happens unless there are systemic controls that prevent it or make it very difficult. Like exceeding the speed limit or fudging on taxes, people will do it if they can.

Also, unlike speeding or cheating on taxes, if people think they are fighting Nazis or something like that, they may deem themselves justified or even morally obligated in doing far more than election cheating, motivated by more than just mild self-interest and more willing to take risk.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

if people think they are fighting Nazis or something like that, they may deem themselves justified or even morally obligated in doing far more than election cheating, motivated by more than just mild self-interest and more willing to take risk.

"May"? I'd say that two attempts on Trump's life (that we know of) take that beyond the realm of mere speculation.

[jb]

This is roughly like saying Jodie Foster is responsible for Reagan getting shot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And by "roughly" you mean "not at all". Also, I said nothing at all about assigning responsibility for anything (that was the voices in your head). What I did speak of was the likelihood of a link between two things. I guess the distinction between those two...although blindingly obvious...was just too nuanced for you.

[Craig Johnston]

I feel obliged to point out that, while the total number of votes cast might have some value, the number cast for each candidate is as meaningless when the Republicans win as it is when they lose. It isn’t just that the numbers have no official purpose; it is that the numbers would be different if they had an official purpose. The campaigns would focus their energies differently and the voters would make the decision whether to vote differently. That last decision might affect the totals this year as well; a large number of people may have decided not to vote for Harris, but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's true. I've made the point myself, that if the popular vote actually mattered, both campaigns and voters would behave rather differently.

In this election, of course, Trump won both the electoral college AND the popular vote, so it seems rather unlikely that a change of strategy predicated on the popular vote mattering would have changed the outcome. But in elections where they diverge it might matter.

[DaveM]

California is the poster child of poor election process. There are several reasons why it takes 30 days (!) for the state to certify its votes.

First, California sends a ballot by mail to every registered voter. If you declare that you failed to receive your ballot, you may also request a SECOND ballot. In addition, you can show up at a polling location, declare that you didn’t receive any of those ballots, and get a THIRD ballot.

Well, guess who sorts all that out, should the voters submit multiple ballots, something that no doubt happens fairly often with this cockeyed scheme? The state, AFTER the election.

And what if you receive a ballot in the mail to your address, but it's to a former resident who has since moved? Nothing is stopping you from filling it out and sending it in. "Hopefully" the state will catch that, too -- but it's unlikely.

Second, the voter rolls even in tightly managed states contain a significant percentage of just plain bad, out of date, data. People come and go all the time, they don’t always let the state registrar that they’ve moved. So, mailing every single person a ballot just flat out guarantees that you’ll be “poisoning” the election with known bad ballots.

Well, guess who sorts all those possible bad ballots out? You guessed it: the state does, AFTER the election.

And to make matters even worse, ANYONE can submit as many voter registration applications as they want to. Every single person. This makes the registration data set, already strained, incredibly challenging to keep clean.

And, yes, who has to sort through all those citizen-gathered applications and get them sorted in time for an election mailing? The state.

And lastly, the USPS is the accepted carrier of all these millions upon millions of ballots. But the USPS is NOT a guaranteed delivery service, and it never has claimed to be. The error rate for nondelivery of first class mail is in the high single-digits in the few audits I’ve looked at. I would imagine the nondelivery rate for ballots in a state with such a mess of a records keeping chore on its hands could hardly be better.

So, there you have it: a recipe for a ridiculously long and error-prone election “season”. I’m sure I haven’t even hit half of the challenging issues California faces.

Don’t be like California.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The error rate for nondelivery of first class mail is in the high single-digits in the few audits I’ve looked at."

Are you mixing up late deliveries and non-deliveries? Because I see numbers more like 1%. Mind you, 1% of ballots going missing is still a disaster.

[Lee Moore]

For those who are on tenterhooks for the big election news :

If just 43 Trump Electors can be persuaded to flip their votes, it’ll be a 269-269 tie.

But Trump would still win. The GOP has a majority in 29 State delegations to the House, the Dems 18, with 2 even, and Alaska which could go either way.

The GOP hung on to its riskiest states from 2022 (in this game) – Arizona and Iowa. And it grabbed North Carolina from even (good quality gerrymandering*) and flipped Michigan and Pennsylvania from the Dems. The Dems lost Colorado to even.

The Colorado flip was by a guy called Gabe Evans. Through exceptionally talented avoidance, and by being out of the country for most of the election period, I managed to see just a single TV election advert, advising me that Gabe Evans is a ruthless misogynist extremist, eager to rope women up, then tie them down and force them to have babies against their will. It appears that the voters of that District are OK with that.

* but not the best. NC gerrymandered 3 flips from D to R. But they were beaten by NY who gerrymandered 4 flips in the other direction.

Last bit of trivia – the Ds seem to have done exceptionally well in the Wisconsin state Senate elections – regerrymandered this year by command of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In 16 races, the Ds won 5 (including two flips) with 53% or less. That is real class.

[Commenter_XY]

So....where did these 5 million voters go?

[David Nieporent]

Disneyworld?

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought only the winners went to Disneyworld?