The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
1% Swing in Vote Would Have Changed Presidential, House Results
I expect this is obvious to most of our readers, but I thought I'd just flag it again, given the occasional talk of the decisiveness (or occasionally even "landslide" quality) of President-Elect Trump's victory: If 1% of voters nationwide switched from Trump to Harris,
- Harris would have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (where the margin of victory was under 2%), thus winning the Electoral College 270 to 268.
- The House would likely have gone 220 to 215 Democrat, as opposed to the current expected tally of 221 to 214 Republican.
- The Senate would have still gone Republican by 52 to 48, as opposed to the current expected tally of 53 to 47.
The 312 to 226 Trump victory in the electoral college is obviously enough for victory in this particular election. But it's easy to imagine how even slight changes in public attitudes, or slightly more or less appealing candidates, could shift the results radically in 2028 or, in the House in 2026. (Of course, the 2026 results will likely also be influenced by the usual tendency of the party in power to lose ground in midterm elections, and by the difference between the makeup of the electorate in Presidential-election years and in non-Presidential-election years.)
The shift from 2020, and the demographic shifts among particular groups, are certainly noteworthy, and suggest there's some amount of realignment of various groups around the parties. The Democrats are also understandably shell-shocked at having lost to a candidate who had so many obvious political liabilities. But I think it's important both for Republicans and Democrats (and others) to appreciate just how closely divided the country is when it comes to national politics.
(I don't put much stock in discussions that just add together the votes needed to swing the swing states—15K in Wisconsin, 40K in Michigan, a bit more than 60K in Pennsylvania, for a total of under 120K—since it seems unlikely that some circumstance would have swung only those votes and not votes in other places. That's why I'm envisioning some broader trend that would swing 1% of voters nationally from one candidate to the other.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Certainly I've heard Trump supporters braying about a landslide, and I strongly suspect that they will continue their braying after the numbers show it wasn't.
The closer this election was, the worse Democrats look for nominating a bar-exam-flunking affirmative action postergirl from single-party California.
Would VP Amy Klobuchar have made up that 1% difference? We'll never know since Biden just had to pick a black woman in 2020.
Biden never said he was picking a black woman for vice president. Just a woman. Klobuchar could've been picked. (People keep confusing that with his SCOTUS nomination, for which he did specify black woman.)
The push for Joe Biden to choose a black woman as his running mate, explained
I simply cannot imagine a white liberal female Senator from California getting the job. Harris' pigmentation made the identity-obsessed Democratic Party overlook her liabilities.
Before the one headline that David Lieporent depends on, there was https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html .
Um, that does not contradict anything I said.
After the one headline that David Lieporent depends on, there was https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html.
But he's still going to ignore the rest of reality in favor of his one preferred story.
1. “Joe Biden says he is considering four Black women to be his running mate” writes it's own jokes.
2. That’s his short list. Well into the selection process, and thus not a campaign promise.
You’re pushing a thesis so hard it’s made you dunderheaded.
You're giving Michael P too much credit. That wasn't Biden's short list. From his link:
(Emphasis added.) In other words, the article says literally the opposite of what Michael P claimed.
And he had reviewed four candidates.
I mean, it's possible that Joe Biden changed his mind twice. Or his handlers did. But the more parsimonious explanation is that the guy who needs step-by-step instructions on how to walk to a podium just forgot to fully qualify the token hire in March 2020.
the more parsimonious explanation
rofl. poor poor michael p, so many demons in his head
Do not forget that the same problems as with 2000 happened -- mail-in ballots being sent to people who didn't exist, etc.
So the margin of victory was actually greater because of the vote fraud.
I assume 2000 is a typo for 2020, and this is thus only half made up instead of all made up.
SRG2:
Indeed!
There is no exact definition for "landslide victory", so it's whatever anyone wants to claim it is. That said, if one evaluates the results in terms of votes acquired per dollar spent on campaigning...it was an extreme ass-kicking.
There is no exact definition for “landslide victory”, so it’s whatever anyone wants to claim it is.
Nope. We can be unsure where a barrier is, but that doesn't mean that there aren't locations where we can be sure the barrier isn't. 1% isn't a landslide.
Don't be silly. If California and New York had voted 100% for Harris, you'd be braying about a landslide popular vote. If red states had gone correspondingly more for Trump, so the totals were the same and the EC was the same, Republicans would still be shouting landslide.
It's entirely subjective.
Don’t be silly.
Tu quoque
If California and New York had voted 100% for Harris, you’d be braying about a landslide popular vote.
First, that would mean that Harris would have something like 86 million votes to Trump's 69 million, which would have been a landslide popular vote and would make the EC anomaly much clearer. Second, there is no reasonable hypothetical world where Harris gets all of NY and CA and doesn't pick up any other votes anywhere else.
Nope. We can be unsure where a barrier is, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t locations where we can be sure the barrier isn’t. 1% isn’t a landslide.
How about 16% (the electoral vote margin)? The EC margin is how "landslides" are usually framed.
Again, I'm going with the votes-per-billion-dollars-spent metric.
The EC margin is how “landslides” are usually framed.
To my observation people talk about landslides referencing both EC and popular vote. It’s perfectly possible to say X won by a landslide in the EC but not in the popular vote without any rational person complaining. The EC is the mechanism by which votes are translated into a presidential selection. It means no more than that when you’re talking about how the country as a whole thinks or feels, yet people braying landslide tend to be using the term to imply a large enough victory for a mandate, when it’s merely an artefact of the system. Trump had every right to be president in 2016 because he defeated Hillary on the EC. He had no right to declare that he had a mandate from the people to impose all his policies – whether he did so declare, I don’t know. and in any event he didn’t do everything he said he’d do anyway.
Again, I’m going with the votes-per-billion-dollars-spent metric.
That’s a measure of efficiency not of a landslide.
How about 16% (the electoral vote margin)? The EC margin is how “landslides” are usually framed.
Agreed, and 16% isn't a landslide.
Again, I’m going with the votes-per-billion-dollars-spent metric.
Which is pretty meaningless.
Again, I’m going with the votes-per-billion-dollars-spent metric.
Which is pretty meaningless.
Tell that to the donors. The DNC is going to find that the dollars-to-votes metric is VERY meaningful.
The EC margin is how “landslides” are usually framed.
I don't know how they are framed, but doing it by EC totals is spectacularly silly. Trump beat Harris by about 2% in PA, and that translated into a 19-0 EV win.
Similarly, 2%+ win in GA translated to a 16-0 EV win. So the EC totals hardly reflect public sentiment.
PA and GA voters, among others, slightly favored Trump. A win, but hardly a landslide.
I don’t know how they are framed, but doing it by EC totals is spectacularly silly.
Congratulations on demonstrating the same stupidity that the Clinton campaign did in 2016. Those in the D party truly do have a severe learning disability.
Fuck you. I'm talking about the meaning of "landslide," not arguing that the popular vote decides the outcome. (Though it should.)
Learn to read before calling people stupid.
Fuck you.
As always, I'm impressed by your intellectual response.
I’m talking about the meaning of “landslide,”
So am I. And given that the electoral vote is the only one that matters (which both you and the Clinton campaign fail/ed to understand), using that as the basis for determining landslides (which is most common) makes perfect sense.
Learn to read before calling people stupid.
Obviously my reading skills are just fine. Stop being stupid and people will stop calling you stupid.
The EC margin does not determine whether it is a landslide. The margin in the tipping-point state does.
The EC margin does not determine whether it is a landslide. The margin in the tipping-point state does.
You seem to think there is some official definition of and criteria for "landslide" WRT an election victory. There is not. But by convention, U.S. presidential election outcomes are most commonly described as landslides based on the lopsidedness of the electoral vote distribution. Tipping-point states have nothing to do with it.
U.S. presidential election outcomes are most commonly described as landslides based on the lopsidedness of the electoral vote distribution.
Citation and what EC vote margin is commonly considered a landslide?
Even if you were right, what is commonly thought makes no sense. Assuming reason and logic matter, tipping-point state margin would be the correct metric.
I agree that Josh's definition is not the sole objective definition of landslide. But (a) certainly electoral votes are not the only or best definition; and (b) even if one uses electoral votes as one's only standard, this was by no means a landslide.
But (a) certainly electoral votes are not the only or best definition
Well, given that I never claimed either of those things we can write that off as a strawman.
U.S. presidential election outcomes are most commonly described as landslides based on the lopsidedness of the electoral vote distribution.
Citation and what EC vote margin is commonly considered a landslide?
Citation that "the tipping-point state" (as though there is only one per election) has anything to do with determining a landslide victory? As for the EC in that role, read the many available lists of U.S. presidential election landslides. For instance:
https://www.history.com/news/landslide-presidential-elections
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/when-every-win-landslide
...etc. There are some that list and compare both popular and EC vote totals, but many cite only the EC. And I couldn't find any that based the determination on popular vote alone....and certainly NONE that had anything to do with "tipping-state" margins.
And why would I need to provide a cite for something I made no claim about (the EC margin commonly considered a landslide)? Those are all over the map.
You said, "using [the EC margin as the basis for determining landslides (which is most common) makes perfect sense." It does not make sense to anyone who is not innumerate. And, your link defined landslide based on popular vote margin.
You said, “using [the EC margin as the basis for determining landslides (which is most common) makes perfect sense.” It does not make sense to anyone who is not innumerate.
Yes, because why would anyone focus on the votes that actually determine who is going to be President?
And, your link defined landslide based on popular vote margin.
I would guess that your obvious illiteracy is the source of most of your problems. First off, there were 2 links, not 1. Secondly, the first link begins with…
“Some might argue that George Washington should hold the record for the greatest margin of victory of any American president. In the very first presidential election in 1789, Washington won 100 percent of the electoral college—all 69 votes. Washington had a distinct advantage, though. He ran unopposed.”
…then proceeded to describe the other landslides in the same terms. The 2nd link was similar…
“Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Nixon both recorded 23-point victories—the former in 1964 over Barry Goldwater, racking up 486 out of 538 Electoral College votes, the latter in 1972 over George McGovern, garnering 520 electoral votes. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the other two—an 18-point win over Walter Mondale in 1984, garnering 525 electoral votes, and by 10 points and with 489 electoral votes in 1980, en route to defeating President Carter.”
If you’re not illiterate, then you’re just an idiot in general. Oh, and...where is your cite for your assertion that it is "the tipping-point state" margin that determines a landslide?
The votes that determine who will be president is the margin in the tipping-point state.
The second link said, "Mandates are the product of landslide victories, a margin of 10 percentage points or more in presidential politics."
There is no cite for using tipping-point state. It's basic logic and reason that leads you there. The 1864 election (from your first link) makes the point. Yes, Lincoln won almost all the EC votes. But, he won the popular vote by 55-45 and the tipping-point state by 9%. Both are above average margins, but no way should Lincoln's victory be considered comparable to (let alone bigger than) Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984.
Traditionally, a landslide denoted winning 60% of the vote or more
The Wikipedia page on landslide elections in the US says it's "an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College". But the last they list as a landslide was 1988, with 426 electoral college votes ("only" 79.2%), and the last they designate with fewer than 400 was 1924, with Calvin Coolidge getting "only" 382, 71.9%. They exclude Clinton in 1996 with 379 and 70.4% (but only a plurality in the popular vote) and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 with 70.6% and a popular vote of 56.4%, so their standard appears to be 71%.
If your standard is 60% of popular vote, the last landslide was Richard Nixon in 1972; if your standard is 60% of the electoral college, then Barack Obama and Bill Clinton each had two landslides.
Mathematically defining a landslide is an interesting exercise. However, it's beyond the point here. Trump won because of inflation, as seen in similar elections around the globe. As the Financial Times reported, every single ruling party lost in '24 elections. Every single one. That it was so close here speaks to Trump's radioactive buffoonish sleaze, the very opposite of the sweeping mandate he claims.
And that's important. Because the deciding factor in the election were people who want a return to normalcy. It was pointless to tell them inflation was a worldwide phenomena or well past its peak, the Biden Administration was in power and got the blame. It was ever thus.
So when Trump treats his cabinet nominees as an exercise in absurdist trolling or talks of using the military inside the U.S. in massive roundups, he's seriously misreading the situation. Given he's a lifelong bungler who now shows signs of cognitive decay, we are seeing the lack of self-discipline that plagued his first term. Remember, he started his presidency then with days of bizarre lies about crowd size. And that was when he stocked the White House with adults who would tell him no. Our brat-child POTUS won't suffer that again.
So how quickly can a president make himself a toxic lame duck? We'll see.
Trump won because of inflation
This childishly simple-minded need by so many alleged adults to identify a single isolated cause for something more complex than that never ceases to amaze me. There were several factors that lead to Trump's (and other Rs') win, not the least of which was the fact that Harris was an utterly incompetent candidate. And even though she didn't play it up in the campaign itself (but did some during her tenure as VP), fatigue with the Democrats' general support for far-left woke bullshit, stupidity like police defunding, etc. no doubt played a part as well.
Some points :
1. Harris wasn’t an incompetent candidate. However she can accurately be described as a weak candidate. There is a difference.
2. No single answer explains all in a election. Inflation comes pretty damn close though.
3. “Far-left woke bullshit” barely earned Trump a single new vote. If you are braindead enough to believe that moronic gibberish, you were already safely in Trump’s pocket.
4. Likewise with “police defunding”, which (a) never happened, (b) was only advocated by a handful of pols, and (c) is yesterday’s made-up scandelette.
Are you trying to make my argument look good? You give a short list of “reasons” and half are laughable.
Harris wasn’t an incompetent candidate.
And this version of Joe Biden is the best version of Joe Biden ever!
“Far-left woke bullshit” barely earned Trump a single new vote.
Yes, because Latino men are famous for their far-left social cultural leanings.
Likewise with “police defunding”, which (a) never happened
Your head is so far up your own ass I can only wonder how you're enjoying the view from your navel.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
You just keep digging that hole deeper!
1. There is no example of “defund the police”. Sorry, but a reduction in the yearly police budget doesn’t cut it. Particularly when those reductions took place in the fiscal squeeze of the early pandemic :
https://jabberwocking.com/defund-the-police-hardly/
2. And those events were all pre-2020, which is when your little made-up scandelette reached full hysterical peak. Please note the elections between then and now. Somehow your joke issue didn’t get traction in any of them.
3. Likewise your “woke” bullshit and Latino men. The Right has been shrieking “woke” for over a decade now. It hasn’t convinced anyone, Latinos included. You need to explain why it suddenly did. Of course I provide the correct explanation and you’re welcome to adopt it. Give it a try. Thinking for once without slipping into wingnut hive-mind cliches would do you a world of good. You might find you like it…..
There is no example of “defund the police”. Sorry, but a reduction in the yearly police budget doesn’t cut it.
LOL! So reducing police funding and redistributing that money elsewhere does not count as defunding police?
The Right has been shrieking “woke” for over a decade now. It hasn’t convinced anyone
Refer back to what I said about your head being so far up your own ass.
https://gazette.com/news/wex/democrats-must-move-away-from-woke-agenda-to-gain-back-working-class-sanders/article_ae934081-97e2-5b54-b451-cde01000de60.html
https://www.newsweek.com/james-carville-harris-loss-woke-politics-1982035
There are many, many more.
You really are a clown…but without the talent.
Correct. Did the police still have funds? Then they weren't defunded.
Correct. Did the police still have funds? Then they weren’t defunded.
Your TDS has turned you into a dishonest asshole...and you're not even good at it in this case. As you well know, the phrase "defund the police" did not mean "completely eliminate police departments by stripping them of ALL funding". It meant to reduce their funding and redirect those funds to other uses, which is consistent with the definition of "defund":
"to stop providing money or as much money to pay for something"
Take your clumsy attempt at pedantic bullshit somewhere else.
As I well know, that's the excuse that the Defund the Police crowd used after the backlash against them: "Oh, despite our slogan we don't want police abolition; we just want to spend a bit of their budget on social services instead." And the people attacking them laughed and said, "Nice try at a retcon, but that's not what you meant at all." Which is true, because if that's all they meant then their position wouldn't have been controversial. But it was controversial, because everyone understood that slogan to mean that police should be eliminated.
The subject is what was actually done, not what you or anyone else interpreted the phrase to have meant originally. Keep trying. I'm sure someone appreciates your pedantic bullshit.
If you bothered to read your own sources, OLD, you'd know that neither article claims that Harris lost because of the Democrats' (nonexistent) "woke agenda." Rather, they claim that she lost (in part) because MAGA has successfully conned people into thinking that the Democrats have a "woke agenda."
Much like you're doing here, with a bunch of lies.
Both Sanders and Carville are lamenting the Democrats' seeming inability to defend against those lies.
Well, when you have commissioners in recorded meetings admitted they know they are breaking the law by recording illegal votes for the vote count, that vote count becomes a lot more suspect doesn’t it?
I believe that is what's considered the actions that produce the "cleanest election in history" by our resident leftists and academics, no need to audit results or investigate odd vote spikes as long as they get their way.
But its also true about the 2020 election, but that didn’t stop the Democrats from claiming they had a landslide and a mandate.
Biden won by a much narrower margin than Trump:
10k in Arizona .31%
11k in Wisconsin .24%
and 20k in Georgia .53%
Thats 37 EV, and Biden won by 36 EV.
I don’t remember the Democrats ever stopped braying either, such is politics.
And 2016 was just as close.
The tipping point state in 2020 was Wisconsin, which Biden won by 0.63%. It was again Wisconsin in 2016, Trump winning by 0.77%. In, 2024 it was Pennsylvania which Trump won by 2.1%.
All close, no landslides. The winner always claims a mandate.
A mandate is fine.
The problem is the idea the winner acting like they're allowed to start targeting the losing side.
Ok, that's funny 🙂
The winner always claims a mandate.
Just so. But I'm still looking forward to Time's "Trump Mandate" cover :
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/255504380980
You won't get that. But, Trump will be the Person of the Year.
1) Biden won in 2020 by 7 million votes.
2) "The Democrats" did not claim that they had a landslide and a mandate.
How many bills they pass with 50 votes in the senate, and a tie breaker from the VP for how much money?
They wanted to get rid of the filibuster, and pack the Supreme court so badly they drove Kyrsten Sinema out of the party because she wouldn’t go along.
That’s certainly governing like you think you had a landslide and a mandate.
And we all paid the price.
I had forgotten, but was reminded a day or two ago, that in January 2022, except for Manchin and Sinema, EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR (plus Bernie and King), voted to nix the legislative filibuster.
I feel sure that the GOP Majority will give them another opportunity to vote. It will be fun to see the Chair’s ruling on the legislative filibuster confirmed 100-0.
They absolutely should. The filibuster benefits Republicans, even when they're in the majority. I hope Trump stupidly pressures them to eliminate it.
How does the filibuster benefit the GOP when they hold the majority in the Senate?
Most of the GOP’s appeal is in grievance-mongering. Their actual policies are unpopular. I think voters feel like they don’t need to take MAGA 100% seriously because the Democrats will prevent the really bad stuff anyway. And then Republicans get to complain that Democrats are obstructionists. Remember, no matter what happens or who’s in power, it’s the Democrats’ fault.
Without the filibuster, Republicans wouldn’t have any excuse not to do something. And whatever they do will be fantastically unpopular.
We already got rid of the filibuster on the important things (nominations and spending). Policy is the least of our worries. At the highest level of generality, Democrats are pro-change (progressive) and Republicans are anti-change (conservative), so the filibuster aligns with the Republican mindset by making it too hard to get anything done.
By your theory, the Democrats should vote to end the filibuster. It would keep Democrats from being blamed as obstructionists and put all the blame on the GOP for passing unpopular stuff.
That makes no sense to me. And, I doubt it makes any sense to Chuck Schumer.
It would be good for Democrats on the whole. But I agree, it would require the Democratic Senators themselves to surrender some short-term power, so they're unlikely to go along.
You can have some sugar with it if you want, but you will be taking your medicine regardless.
I agree that the margin of victory is surprisingly close given that the Dems essentially just threw the closest random person in as a last minute replacement after running a corpse. I don’t agree with the you people and the broader leftosphere narrative of acting like this is an illegitimate victory because Trump didn’t win by enough of a margin for your taste. Essentially this lame excuse is the 2024 equivalent of 'Russia hacked the election for Trump' in 2016.
Rather this speaks more to a broader division rather than about any particular candidate. IE the Republicans probably could have run George Washington against a potato and I wouldn't be surprised if it was still close.
She was the opposite of a random choice, which was their problem. The VP has dibs on the next open election.
Anyway, the Republican met their goal of silencing the complaints about popular vs. EC legitimacy. This landslide stuff is kind of goofy. It’s a welcome return (so to speak) to normal (so to speak) where all this super close blabber by the power hungry justifying immediate needs falls back into the asinine background where it should be.
She was a generic Dem, neither good nor bad, with the exception of being tied to Biden’s unpopularity.
I don’t see much complaining this is not legitimate for Trump. And the winner always claims a mandate no matter what, and acts like they have one to get as much done as they can (risking blowback in the midterms).
Oh they won’t outright say his win is illegitimate (except when they do) but ‘Trump didn’t win decisively’ is a Ctrl-F Ctrl-V replacement for ‘Russia hacked the election’ in election conversations between Dems. Obviously a cope mechanism to minimize and delegitimize Trump’s victory in their minds and they hope the minds of others.
Oh they won’t outright say his win is illegitimate (except when they do)
Well, except for the BlueAnon nut-jobs claiming that Musk somehow used StarLink to hack the voting machines.
"Trump didn't win decisively" is far, far different than "Russia hacked the election." Both are accuarte, but only the latter was used to (incorrectly, in my opinion) delegitimize the victory.
"Both are accurate"
Depends on what you mean by "hacked". Dems pols claimed this ad nauseum, causing two thirds of Dem voters to believe that Russia tampered with vote totals.
Of course no vote totals were changed. Russians hacked DNC computer systems and gave stolen information to WikiLeaks.
Amos, you are just looking for stuff to be mad at.
Dems have acted by and large calmly and with respect for rule of law even when the consequences seem dire to them.
At least for now, this has left hateaholics like you with some pretty bitter dregs and a lot of molehills to insist are the mountain you were predicting.
It is probably wishful thinking on my part but I’d like to think there are some number of Trump voters who are very disappointed and disturbed by the fact that Harris and the Dems conceded so quickly. I mean it probably sucks to throw your lot in with a lying asshole on the theory that the other side is exactly the same if not worse only for them to prove you wrong. And to prove it through magnanimity and graciousness in defeat. To prove it, dare I say it, through virtue! The thing you think is only a false act.
All argument about landslides aside, Trump won decisively enough, all the expected close states, that it was pointless for the Democrats to claim they'd been cheated.
But I still expect some rioting at Trump's inauguration.
I still expect some rioting at Trump’s inauguration
I expect you'll take a very well covered garbage can fire and declare you were right all along.
I expect windows will be broken and shit will be set on fire, and you'll declare, "That's not a riot!" just like you do every time you want to pretend a riot was really just a protest.
Sarcastr0's well covered garbage can
This is you admitting you will declare stuff that isn’t a riot to be a riot.
What you describe is vandalism. Most riots include that, but not all vandalism means a riot.
You also don’t limit the location or timespan.
If you are so confident, why are you hedging your bets three different ways?
You just dismissed a car set on fire as "a well covered garbage can", and you're criticizing me?
"You also don’t limit the location or timespan."
"At Trump's Inauguration" would seem to specify both the place and the time. Though I suppose if the riot happens a half mile away, you'll dismiss it as unconnected.
1. A car set on fire isn't a riot.
2. I didn't click on your link, because I knew it would still be you trying to define riot down.
3. You're working very hard to define riot down, which shows you no longer believe your prediction about Dem riots.
You should probably click on the link before dismissing it. The lede graph: "Protesters registered their rage against the new president Friday in a chaotic confrontation with police who used pepper spray and stun grenades in a melee just blocks from Donald Trump's inaugural parade. At least 217 people were arrested for rioting while a burning limousine sent clouds of black smoke into the sky during Trump's procession."
A car set on fire isn't a riot in the same way a thrown punch isn't a fight.
Not enough, Sarcastro. He will claim that "the left" was behind it and Harris and Biden encouraged the whole non-thing.
It was pointless for Trump to claim he was cheated! And yet, he did. And you threw your lot in with him. Only to be shown that Dems weren’t who you believed they were and in fact were the better people all along.
Remember the pre-election MAGA meme that the loons were using to justify their past and future bad behavior, predicting that Democrats would riot if Trump win?
Newsflash: Trump won, and the Democrats didn't riot.
Remember the pre-election MAGA meme that the loons were using to justify their past and future bad behavior, predicting that Democrats would riot if Trump win?
Newsflash: Trump won, and the Democrats didn’t riot.
Well, the last time they waited until the inauguration...at which point they most certainly did riot. Are you under the impression that the opportunity for them to do so this time has already passed?
Unlike in 2020, the losing candidate will not provoke any riots by spreading lies about how she lost due to fraud.
Your goalpost moving isn't the impressive feat you think it is.
No goalpost was moved. David referred to bad past behavior. Namely, Jan 6. The riot provoked by Trump's lies.
No goalpost was moved.
It most certainly was, and you’re the one who moved it.’
David referred to bad past behavior. Namely, Jan 6. The riot provoked by Trump’s lies.
Are you completely illiterate? He was talking about predictions regarding Dems and rioting. His exact words, since you seem to have missed them the first time:
Remember the pre-election MAGA meme that the loons were using to justify their past and future bad behavior, predicting that Democrats would riot if Trump win?
Newsflash: Trump won, and the Democrats didn’t riot.
Hence my reference to the previous rioting in Jan. 2017, and the fact that it didn’t occur until the inauguration. Was that really so difficult for you to follow?
Repeatng what David said with a different emphasis:
You're either as dumb as a post, or are approaching Sarcastr0 levels of dishonesty...or both. The reference to Jan. 6 was not the main subject. The main subject was rioting in response to Trump's win.
Your idiocy is extremely tiresome.
Dems have acted by and large calmly and with respect for rule of law even when the consequences seem dire to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1SdMN1HwEg
Very calm. Indeed. 🙂
WTF are you talking about? Is this even about the US?
And a few people being upset hardly matches Jan. 6. Is this where you get your news?
It was a pretty disappointing link; the left just can't match the hysterics and crazy conspiracy theories of the right. I hope that "insider threat" Hegseth does sue people over his white supremacist tattoo. RFK Jr's wacky claim that there are only three ingredients in Canadian Froot Loops was indeed wrong as stated; his sanewashed interest in a ban on food dyes in the US sounds like rampant regulation, and will probably get him sidelined quickly, like Christine Todd Whitman and carbon dioxide regulation.
Seriously. First one fired. Can you imagine President McDonalds allowing his HHS to come for Americans’ Froot Loops?
I bet Trump already has the letter written. He'll use it as an opportunity to smear Democrats by casting RFK as a "fascist Democrat" at heart.
She was a generic Dem, neither good nor bad, with the exception of being tied to Biden’s unpopularity.
I don't know what you're referring to by her being "neither good nor bad", but she was an absolutely terrible candidate.
Yeah, but I know what he means. She was intended to be a generic Democrat, a sort of “None of the Above”, which always polls well. Precisely because actual candidates have actual flaws. Virtuals and generics don’t.
But in the end, they decided that they couldn’t keep her in the basement until Nov 6 and she’d have to open her mouth at some point. Whereupon she demonstrated the wisdom of the old saying about it being better to remain silent and be thought a fool.
All the same, she did succeed in the sense that her VP pick showed that there were even dumber Dems than her.
She was intended to be a generic Democrat, a sort of “None of the Above”, which always polls well.
Except that she wasn't a generic Democrat, and was roundly regarded as the most far-left member of the Senate when she was there.
Roundly but not IMHO convincingly. She’s a kamaleon. (Sorry about that – she’s a chameleon.) When trying to win a primary in the Senate, her skin changed to batshit crazy prog color. Cos that’s what works in a California Dem primary.
Chameleons aren’t particularly bright, but they are able to adjust their skin to the background color.
However, it’s a bit unfair if cruel folk videotape the California Senate candidate wearing the california-crazy colored skin, and then show these videos when the kamaleon is wearing her middle of the road Dem Presidential candidate skin.
Roundly but not IMHO convincingly.
It's the "roundly" part that matters when you're deciding whether or not a candidate is a "generic" one wrt public perception.
It's been a pretty common tactic that Presidential candidates from both political parties run to the left or right in the primaries, and back to the center in the general election. Harris didn't stand out in that particular way.
I don't think the explanation needs to go much beyond the fact that she was a terrible campaigner who generated no excitement or likability. I'm not even convinced this result was due to substantive issues, at least real ones. The Democratic Party have put forward three dogshit Presidential candidates in a row, in my opinion. So have the Republicans, the same one in fact, but he's managed to win twice.
It’s been a pretty common tactic that Presidential candidates from both political parties run to the left or right in the primaries, and back to the center in the general election. Harris didn’t stand out in that particular way.
What are these "primaries" of which you speak? I don't recall Harris running anywhere during any "primaries". And I specifically referred to her time in the Senate, not during the election. During the latter she pretty much avoided talking about anything of any substance with any specificity, so it would be difficult to pin her down as having gone left, right or anywhere.
You don't remember 2020? Too much drug and alcohol abuse?
While both party candidates move to the center for the general election, Harris was very unconvincing away from her progressive foundation
she was a terrible campaigner who generated no excitement or likability
I don't think this is true. She was an infinitely better campaigner than either Hillary or Joe. She generated a lot of excitement and likability. She beat Trump handily on those dimensions.
She had two enormous liabilities that she couldn't overcome. 1) The Biden Administration's baggage. 2) A lack of charisma.
Trump's got a lot of baggage too. That probably ended up being a wash... whereas it was really what Kamala needed to win. Because Trump cannot be beat on charisma. He's a cult leader after all. It's the only thing he's got going for him. (It's also why MAGA will start falling apart on Jan 20, 2025. Charisma isn't something that can be emulated by a successor, as we saw with weirdo DeSantis and will see again with weirdo Vance. No one will be able to follow Trump.)
I disagree. She ran an OK campaign. She had positive messages but was hampered by being unable to run away from Biden. A no-name Democrat would likely have lost just the same.
It seems a number of people in here think any number of Democrats could have beaten Trump. I can't think of any not named Obama (or someone else with special celebrity status such as Oprah).
OKAY campaign? spending $100M/week and losing the trifecta.
Sound incompetent to me.
Campaign spending isn't as important as it used to be. Given the internet, a minimum amount will do.
Who would have done better?
Campaign spending isn’t as important as it used to be. Given the internet, a minimum amount will do.
Uh....no.
Money is the Mothers Milk of politics -- Rep Jesse Unruh
Nah, Josh is right, I've seen studies on this: Once you get over a threshold level of spending per voter that's enough to get your message heard, the amount spent stops being very influential, and it comes down to candidates and issues.
That's why limiting campaign spending was considered such an important part of campaign finance 'reform': If incumbents could keep challengers below that threshold, they were safe, just being the incumbent would get them across the finish line.
"Campaign spending isn’t as important as it used to be. Given the internet, a minimum amount will do."
So by that argument, the fact that she blew over a billion dollars in three months when campaign spending isn't that important would seem to say she didn't run an "okay" campaign but a spectacularly inept one.
The amount spent...and how it was spent...are just two of the several things that just scream, "She ran a spectacularly inept campaign".
At least as important as how much one spends is what one spends it on.
If Harris was generic, neither good nor bad, then so was Trump.
I can understand voting for Harris because of TDS. I cannot understand thinking Harris was anything but a disaster.
This exactly describes the view of most people like me who voted against Trump three times now. I can understand, but disagree with, the view that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I cannot wrap my head around the opinion that Trump is anything but a venal, lying con man, nothing but a disaster.
Hopefully, the country will continue to muddle through, no matter who the President is.
She's not a generic Dem, she refused to speak to Joe Rogan. If they'd nominated Kennedy, he'd have spoken to Rogan.
It's as close to a landslide as we'll see these days. A lot of the swing voters who voted for Obama in 2008 won't do so again, as the Democrats have shown that they govern as far leftists once they get into office.
The country is too divided. 45% will vote for the D no matter what. 45% will vote for the R no matter what. It's all about the remaining 10%.
If Biden had stayed in this race, I suspect that would have been "closer" to a landslide than this was - esp. if he had another "bad day" in the next debate (which was very, very likely).
But still not a "landslide" - just a little closer to one.
What's impressive is that, back in the real world, Trump beat Harris despite being hugely out-spent, AND being saddled with extensive lawfare against him. She was just that bad. Without the lawfare and with equal spending? Might have been a total blowout.
There were undoubtedly candidates the Democrats could have run who could have beaten Trump handily. And candidates the Republicans could have run who'd have beaten them handily in turn. But neither party could bring itself to run those candidates.
For the GOP I can understand this: Trump had been, as far as Republicans were concerned, a successful President, and the party (stupidly, IMO) rallied behind him as a result of the lawfare.
The Democrats have to do some serious reflection on why they nominated somebody as awful as Harris. It's something deeper than just historical contingency, her being selected as Biden's VP despite no indication at all of national level political competence was an unforced error.
I think the answer to that is rather obvious. The Democratic Party has left white voters behind, outside of the elites that operate on Wall Street, in academia, and in the media.
That means that they only need a small percentage of whites to win, as they traditionally get nearly all of the black votes, and a solid majority of Asians and Hispanics. Hispanic men going to Trump in 2024 was an anomaly.
Because they get most of their votes from non-whites, they owe non-whites a lot. That's why they can't bring themself to not appoint non-whites.
The Democratic Party has left white voters behind
And more than a few minority voters.
Hispanic men going to Trump in 2024 was an anomaly.
How do you know? If Vance is the Republican nominee in 2028, the same Hispanics who voted for Trump this year would likely vote for Vance at that time.
I suppose it depends on how horrific life gets for Hispanic-looking people over the next four years.
It's already happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/20/florida-migrant-solitary-confinement-abuse
You know Brett? I don’t think you are the one I’m going to ask to review the Dems candidates or issues.
No, you'll ask the guys who thought Harris was a shoe-in, and wonder why you have trouble beating people you dismiss as morons.
Or perhaps I won’t exclude the middle between you and the Khive.
Or more likely the actual causes won’t be figured out by anyone for years and the political lay of the land for 2028 is utterly unknown. Narritivising now is tempting but useless.
Who thought Harris was a shoe-in? People thought she was a) better than Biden and b) the only option given how long Biden waited to drop out.
The problem was that Biden decided to run at all. Given that, there was nothing else “the guys” could do other than finally convince him to drop out and then replace him with the VP.
You are bad at understanding the left, Brett. Haven't you figured that out by now? For example, where's all the violence, lawsuits, and claims of a stolen election that you've been predicting for four years?
What’s impressive is that, back in the real world, Trump beat Harris despite being hugely out-spent, AND being saddled with extensive lawfare against him. She was just that bad. Without the lawfare and with equal spending? Might have been a total blowout.
What's impressive is that Trump managed to draw an unusually partisan judge to toss out a slam dunk case on a Blackman fever dream.
Lying to your own Lawyers in order to hide documents requested in a subpoena? A ham sandwich for a prosecutor could win that case.
For whatever it’s worth, Judge Cannon very much did not adopt Prof. Blackman’s theory on Jakc Smith’s appointment.
She did, however, do all she could, and more, to kill the case against Trump.
You've totally missed by point, which is that you ran against a guy with a felony conviction, continually embroiled in legal battles, who had a fraction of the campaign funding, and got beat anyway. That's how bad a candidate Harris was.
And I'm NOT saying Trump was a great candidate. I'm saying both parties have gotten into a pathological state where they're both running Presidential candidates who are so bad that the only reason they've got a shot at it is that the other party is also pathological.
That’s how bad a candidate Harris was.
Or how strong the Trump cult, of which you are a member, is.
Or how effective the endless, absurd, stream of lies, stupidity, and maliciousness coming from Trump and Vance was.
That’s how bad a candidate Harris was.
Or how strong the Trump cult, of which you are a member, is.
Yes, minorities crossed over to vote for Trump in record numbers because they're part of a cult. Are you really this stupid, or is it just some sort of bizarre act?
Or how effective the endless, absurd, stream of lies, stupidity, and maliciousness coming from Trump and Vance was.
You mean like the claim that Trump wanted to put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad? Oops, no, that was the other side. Maybe this one: "Four years ago, when we came in, we came in during the worst unemployment since the Great Depression." No, wait..that was Harris. Or maybe the claim that she referred to white nationalists as "fine people". Oops, again, the other side did (and still does) repeatedly peddles that one.
And on, and on....
Shorter Bellmore: Now that Trump has won, it's doubly important to yell Trump was a victim of lawfare. To face that evidence against Trump came mostly from people who tried to support him is too damning.
I mean, all the history books will record is that all of this happened and Trump won anyway. The whole "convicted felon" thing didn't play.
The convicted felon thing would probably have worked if they'd convicted him of a crime that wasn't such bullshit. But that would require evidence that he'd committed a crime that wasn't such bullshit.
Brett Bellmore : ” … evidence that he’d committed a crime that wasn’t such bullshit.”
Want to know the funny thing? Even the most abject bootlicking right-winger generally concedes Trump is a criminal. There’s really no way around it. He did commit large-scale systematic fraud in his NY business dealings, overvaluing his assets to multiple banks to a grotesque degree and then undervaluing them to the state to a likewise extent.
Right-wingers just don’t think that crime should count. Likewise with the document case where his criminality was pervasive. As above, he lied to his own lawyers to hide documents requested in a subpoena. He treated those docs like the pea in a shell game, shifting them from location to location to avoid detection. At one point he and his flunkies were worried the Mar-a-Lago security cameras might provide evidence of the crime. He was offered over two dozens opportunities to defuse the situation without criminal charges but stiffed them all.
But right-wingers don’t think that crime should count either. There they pretend others (Biden, Pence) did the same thing, but that’s just a crude obvious lie. Hell, even in the one case that can legitimately be call “lawfare” – the Stormy Daniels Farrago – Trump still committed a crime. It’s just that folk I’ve heard across the ideological spectrum think the matter would have typically been resolved short of criminal charges. Of course the same is true for Hunter as well.
That leaves Trump’s criminal conspiracy to overturn the election results in 2020. But it’s hopeless to bring that up. Brett Bellmore doesn’t give the slightest shit about our country or its democratic institutions, so Trump gets a free pass there too. There's nothing Trump can do Brett won't excuse.
He did commit large-scale systematic fraud in his NY business dealings, overvaluing his assets to multiple banks to a grotesque degree and then undervaluing them to the state to a likewise extent.
Your abject ignorance on this topic is exceeded only by your zeal for blind regurgitation of left-wing propaganda about it. The appellate court does not appear to share your defects in that area.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-ask-new-york-appeals-court-toss-nearly-500-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-09-26/
I don't believe the Appeals Court has passed judgement yet. I expect them to share your scepticism, but we'll have to see.
I don’t believe the Appeals Court has passed judgement yet. I expect them to share your scepticism, but we’ll have to see.
If you'd watched/listened to the oral arguments (which are readily available on YouTube) you wouldn't have to wait to see. Their skepticism was on display and very clear.
No, no one agrees that Trump committed any crimes. Articles on this subject are not able to say what was criminal. You say "fraud", but no one claims that anyone was defrauded. You say he lied to his lawyers, but that is not a crime. You say Stormy Daniels, but you cannot say what was criminal.
I don't think people re saying that it was an "illegitimate victory." Just that it was a very narrow one, not a "mandate" as his more enthusiastic supporters have claimed.
Kind of pointless to talk about what is and is not a mandate when you have given a party used to exercising power from a minority position control of all three branches of the federal government through a popular vote win.
Pretty clear we’re going to get the government we deserve here.
If Harris had won, even by a comfortable margin, it's a sure bet Trump would say the victory was "illegitimate" and once again we would see violence from his supporters.
Trump was saying that for months before the election!
He was saying it during the vote counting as he was winning.
But now, magically, our elections are legitimate and honest. That's the benefit of bad faith arguments. Just drop them when they aren't useful any more.
Nah, not legitimate and honest. Just not quite bent enough to affect the result in this Presidential election.
Really? How much would have Trump won by had the election been legitimate and honest?
Who can say ? That’s kinda the point of loosey gooseying with the rules.
JFC. Stop with the bat-shit crazy conspiracy crap already. Sounds like you think 2020 was stolen from Trump. Do you really want to be known for believing the lies that Trump tells?
LOL he thinks 2020 AND some unknown substantial margin in 2024 were stolen by the Dems.
He probably cried FRAUD!! back in 2008.
There's a type that is consistent only in thinking their prefered side cannot fail, only be failed.
Oh Lee, do you think it's better to be a bad-faith soldier or a bona fide lunatic?
If Trump had won the Election Day votes, but Harris claimed victory based on dubious late vote counting, then Trump would say that it was illegitimate.
No doubt he would say that, and anything else he could think of. That wouldn't make it true.
Nothing "dubious" about late votes coming in, except in the Trump-addled brains of the cultists.
I have not heard any serious person claim that this was an illegitimate win.
I think you are making shit up.
Of course, had it gone the other way, I have no doubt there would have been howling and screaming to the heavens - not to mention the courts - about fraud, etc.
the broader leftosphere narrative of acting like this is an illegitimate victory
Who's acting like this is an illegitimate victory? I don't see anyone doing that. Just more fantasy Democrats for you to agonize about I guess.
That 1%-swing would also have resulted in Harris winning the popular vote by about 0.5%-points. Note that the electoral college advantage for the GOP was only 0.5%-points, down from the 4%-points in 2020 and 1.5%-points in 2016. I think that was because Trump did much better in NJ and NYC.
The Democrats could indeed take advantage of the midterms if Trump is unpopular, especially because Trump likely attracted less-engaged voters who won’t vote in the midterms or perhaps not vote for anyone but Trump. On the other hand, the Senate is out of reach until at least 2028. Only ME and NC are likely doable for the Dems (assuming they hold GA and MI).
Also note, the same 1%-point shift would have resulted in Kerry winning in 2004. And we know what happened in 2006 and 2008.
It also looks like the advantage that the GOP had in the House elections in the 2010s has more than disappeared. They’re currently about 4.5% ahead of the Dems in House races (which will come down when California finally finishes counting in a year or so.)
But they’re only just going to squeak a small majority.
Obviously the Dems did redistricting better after the 2020 Census.
(They also did the Census itself better, of course.)
The Cook Political Report had a little engine where you could (for the Presidential race) fiddle about with how different demographics might vote. It was surprising how little difference changing the Latino and Asian American vote made. Whereas the While-educated demographic mattered a lot. I suspect that's why the GOP is not getting its money's worth in the House - losing support amongst the White -eds seems to have a significant effect in the swingiest districts.
The GOP could easily net 10 seats from the 2030 Census. Of course, maybe red states will be undercounted again.
I'm curious what the election outcome would have been this year if the Census hadn't made those mistakes that increased the representation of 'blue' states.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/census-bureau-errors-distort-congressional-representation-the-states
This suggests that without the Census "errors" the following States would have received more or less Congressional representation as follows :
Florida + 2
Texas +1
Colorado -1
Minnesota -1
Rhode Island -1
So for House purposes it looks like the GOP would be plus 3 and the Dems minus 3, compared to where they are now. However, I think Florida did a pretty effective and somewhat risky gerrymander, so it may be that squeezing both extra Districts into the gerrymander would have been a bridge too far. So let's say the Ds would have won 1 of the extra Florida Districts. So plus 2, minus 2, and 220-215 might be 222-213.
More significant, IMHO, is the effect on EVs, where it would clearly be a straight plus 3 for the GOP, and minus 3 for the Dems.
In that scenario, Trump would not have needed to win ANY of the "Blue Wall" States. Compared to 2020, all he would have needed was to retain North Carolina, and win Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. That would have made Georgia the tipping point State. And since we're on a "just 1% would have swung it the other way" thread, well, 1% would not have swung it. Trump would still have won Georgia with a 1% swing.
The same obviously applies in 2028.
Well… that all depends on thinking the PES is more accurate than the Census itself, which is… dubious… to say the least.
You can blame it all on Trump’s petard anyway. Here’s the most plausible source of error described in the article:
An innovation of the 2020 Census that was directed by former President Donald Trump “was the use of administrative records,” i.e., existing records on the public in federal agencies and departments, such as the Social Security Administration and the Department of Agriculture.
Funny how no one here is mentioning how Philadelphia and some of the surrounding counties are counting illegal ballots, trying to find enough to give Casey the win.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/absolute-lawlessness-gop-blasts-pa-dems-recount-effort-casey-senate-loss
Funny how you didn't bother to check the Monday Open Thread before bitching.
FOAD
Yes. Still, a much bigger margin than 2016, and 2016 was a bigger margin than 2020. Not sure how 2012 and before stack up.
How do you figure the 2016 margin was much bigger than the 2020 margin?
"If 1% of voters nationwide switched from Trump to Harris,"
I could be wrong but I think that is usually referred to as a "2% swing," referring to the difference in margin. If a poll goes from 50-45 to 49-46, the margin has gone from 5 to 3 so they call it a 2% swing.
The premise of the OP is that all of the votes cast and counted were legitimate.
Right. It's quite possible that the GOP were far less successful at fixing votes this time.
I don't think it's valid to assume that votes for Harris instead of Trump automatically translate into an equal number of votes for down-ticket Ds instead of Rs, especially in an election where some in AOC's district cast their votes both for her and Trump.
Reagan famously had surprisingly weak coat tails.
It appears to me that Trump's margin of victory is larger than Biden's margin in 2020. The Democrats have spent 4 years telling us that the 2020 election was not close. So I think it is fair to say that Trump won by a landslide.
Dems have spent 4 yrs telling you the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, not that it wasn’t close.
By winning in 2024 instead of 2020 Trump gets to be president for:
United States Semiquincentennial
The 2028 LA Olympics
The 2026 World Cup.
The victory makes total sense when you realize we’re just in some weird simulation where Trump is the main character.
Furthermore, 4 years out of office has allowed Trump to learn some valuable lessons about the Deep State, DoJ, and news media. He has also learned that generals cannot necessarily be trusted. And a few other valuable lessons. He is better prepared to be President.
I wouldn't characterize the lessons learned on who will blindly kiss his ring to be valuable to the nation. But for sure, Trump will find them valuable.
Yeah it taught him there are literally no consequences for anything he does. He always wins no matter what. Hence he’s learned he’s the main character in the weird simulation we’re all in.
Trump's just this guy, you know?
This is a silly argument - you cannot just pick the 1% to change and say that it was a close election; there are priors on the tendencies of people to vote one way or another.
If the Pope were Jewish, there would be many more Jews in the world.
AtR: I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not "pick[ing] the 1% to change"; I'm saying that, if 1% of the voters (all over the country, not just in a few states) voted Harris instead of Trump, Harris would have won. Wouldn't that be a pretty sensible way of deciding whether this was a close election?
No ... you have to consider the likelihood of those 1% changing their vote as well.
For example, if the Supreme Court voted 6-3 strongly along party lines on a highly partisan issue, you could say that two votes would have changed the result, but that would be meaningless because it would highly unlikely for those two votes to change.
If inflation rose to 6% instead of 9% it is not hard to believe 1% would have switched their votes.
Of the 49 elections starting in 1832, this was the 12th closest as measured by the margin in the tipping-point state.
There is a little more to it, Professor Volokh. Mathematically, that is. I think you know that, too. What was the likelihood of either candidate sweeping all seven battleground states, all greater margins than this 1% margin you are talking about?
Statistically close overall, yes. When you get granular and actually look at the returns data by county and precinct, a very different picture emerges. There are huge swings at that level, and the direction of the swing was unmistakable. That wasn't close at all.
Certainly if the trends seen in minority voting continue in that direction, rather than their voting habits reverting, the Democrats are in really bad trouble, because they have long relied on getting incredibly high percentages of minority votes to compensate for routinely losing the white vote.
So it's up to the Republicans to show minorities that it was worth voting the Republicans in. Not by emulating Democratic racial quotas and preferences, but by delivering on the issues that had caused that shift.
The GOP has about 1-1.5 years to prove that they can deliver, and if they don't do it, Democrats will at least take control of the House.
You missed Eugene’s point and don’t understand the math.
Nate Silver gave Trump a 20% chance to sweep the seven swing states and Harris a 16% chance. Those were (by far) the two most likely outcomes (out of the 128 possibilities). The reason is a little swing across the board in one direction both makes a big difference (Eugene’s point) and is more likely to happen than you thought (your misunderstanding of the mathematics of correlation).
Nate Silver, with his cherry-picked aggregation and black box calcs? Yeah, uh no. You missed the thrust of the argument. My fault for not being clear. Let me try it this way.
The 1% swing on 160MM voters is the aggregation of 51 swings (each state, DC), that in turn is made up of 3,147 swings by county, and north ~40K swings by precinct. It is not as simple as saying, "Geez, 1% swing would have changed the result". No, it would not have.
That doesn't negate the point Professor Volokh made that the polls generally had the election as a statistical tie. It was.
As you might recall, I told you when we hit the inflection point, and when PA moved (and why it moved, as a bonus). Then I told you that Pres Trump would win 5 of 7 battlegrounds (I was wrong, he won them all), 53 senators (dead on), and 227 House (I was wrong, it was a few less).
Josh R, I think I know the data. It isn't rocket science. 😉
FFS. Silver does not cherry pick.
And you are factually in error. A 1% swing uniformly across the country would have changed the outcome, which was Eugene's point (he made no point about the polls)
We did not hit an inflection point. Harris dropped steadily in late September to early October, but for the last two weeks there was no movement. The aggregation of the polls was always about 2%-points (1%-point swing) too high for Harris. The most likely cause was (as in 2016 and 2020) Trump attracted less engaged voters who don’t answer polls.
And no, it isn’t rocket science. But, you demonstrate a level of innumeracy nonetheless.
It might be sensible if one shows that previous elections were not decided by similar margins. It would be more convincing if the threshold was not set based on just three states, one of which features politicians counting invalid ballots and another featuring a mid-night ballot dump. It would be more relevant if it was not a reversal of a trend that the losing party had been trumpeting as inevitable and irreversible for the last 25 years. It would look less cherry-picked if it considered that switching votes from one major party to another is not as likely as staying at home or protest voting.
Party affiliation has become very entrenched, to the extent that less than 40% of voters are really open to being convinced to vote for either party. That fraction is unevenly distributed across the country (for example, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/independent-voters-trump-harris-state-florida-texas-b2610298.html). A better way to judge the margins is to look how those middle voters broke, and they went very strongly for Trump.
Cherry picked? As compared to your janky analysis here?
I think this is all paying too much attention to the second hand on the clock, but the headline isn’t deceitful or anything; it means what it says.
What janky analysis?
I'm not the one who claimed that people voting for Harris rather than Trump would have affected the results of House races.
On the whole, Harris did worse than down-ballot Dems, so there are some other assumptions going on in EV's post in an effort to discount Republicans broadening their House majority.
Your asks:
1. Compare to previous elections
2. Make it based on...not three states.
3. Also what about election fraud.
4. Also what about election fraud again.
5. Also what about the trends.
6. Also what about the Democratic expectations.
7. Also what about somehow upweighting counting vote switches over staying home or voting third party.
8. What about limiting your set to the 'convincible voter'
Michael, your preferred metric seems to be a dog's breakfast.
You have, as usual, totally failed to make an argument. Why are any of those worse metrics than pretending a nationally uniform 2% swing is the right threshold for “close”? We have more than three states.
Most of them are not gettable metrics.
Because you're throwing chaff because you don't carefor EV's statement.
I don't really care much about close or not - as I said the immediate upshot is baked in and the legacy is very much not, so I don't care about this particular stripe of analysis either way. I just don't care for your abuse of both statistics nor for your sophistry.
Bullshit that they "are not gettable". The only one that requires more than trivial consideration is the first one, which is also the one that absolutely should be done if one argues that a margin just under 2% is small.
And yes, we understand that you are all in favor of special pleading and electoral fraud when YOUR side does it.
The states aren’t cherry picked. it’s an objective calculation.
You first need to find the tipping-point state. To find this state, list the states from the one he won by the largest margin to the one he lost by the largest margin. Start counting his electoral votes from the top until he reaches 270. The state that puts him over the top (the tipping point) was Pennsylvania which he won by 2%-points. That determines the shift required to change the outcome (1%-point shiftiing from Trump to Harris). The other two states (WI and MI) come along for the ride because Trump won them by less than he won PA.
Also as I noted above, this was the 12th closest election out of 49 since 1832 as measured by the margin in the tipping poiint state (it was the 9th closest in popular vote margin).
If you pick the votes to change, the margin is a lot less than 1%.
I saw multiple news outlets on election night say that all of Trump's sycophants were screaming that the election was rigged and corrupt, but by about 11pm they all went silent. It amuses me that you deplorables fall for this. I mean, really, you actually fell for it!
The election was rigged, but Trump's landslide overwhelmed the rigging.
Fuck off, asshole.
If you really believe that (which you obviously don’t), why isn’t anyone going after the fraudsters? It's still illegal, and it still surely would've impacted some down-ticket races, right?
You remind me of when OJ was acquitted and someone asked him what he would be doing to find his wife’s true killer. Deer in headlights. It hadn’t even crossed his mind… for obvious reasons.
A statistic less impressive than it appears, as a mere swing of 44,000 votes in three states, or about .03% of the total votes cast in the election, would likewise have flipped the 2020 presidential election (or at least have resulted in a tie in the electoral college.)
Kamala Harris in 2024 underperformed Joe Biden in 2020 in every single county in this country.
F.D. Wolf is predictably full of it.
Put in perspective 1% of the people is about a million fucking people. How many of you jerkoffs have 1M followers on social media? That's how hard it is to swing 1% of the vote. None of you are even entertaining enough to get them to click "Subscribe".
“…the difference between the makeup of the electorate in Presidential-election years and in non-Presidential-election years.”
The definition of “electorate” is usually taken as those eligible to vote, rather than those eligible who chose to vote. The makeup of those who bother to vote in off-years is indeed significant.
Contained within this 1% margin of victory is the fact that the ENTIRE COUNTRY shifted rightward. I live in Virginia, which has been solid 65/35 Blue for two decades at the Federal level. In this election, the Democrats still won, but only by 51/46. Virginia is no longer a solid Blue, in my opinion, it only leans that way.
That kind of “red shift” happened everywhere, and was strongest in Blue strongholds such as New York.
I think this more than justifies the Republican Party’s claim to have a mandate. People wanted change, and they’re about to get it, as they say, “good and hard” (looking at the recent cabinet appointments.)
Any reason you feel the need to make shit up?
Virginia in 2020 was 54-44. 2016 was 49-44. 2012 was 51-47. 2008 was 52-46. 2004 and 2000 Virginia was red. That takes us back the "two decades" you mention. It wasn't even 65-35 in LBJ's landslide in 1964. The last time a Democratic presidential candidate got 65% of the vote in Virginia was 1940.
A “red shift” happened everywhere… in a year when a Republican beat a Democratic incumbent?
How is that remotely interesting? Of course it happened everywhere. What would be weird is if it didn’t happen everywhere. What would explain that?
I’m sure in 2020 there was a “blue shift” that “happened everywhere.” Oh my god.
What might be slightly interesting is to compare 2024 to 2016. But no one’s doing that for some reason.
Would slam dunk Trump convictions in the Capitol case and the documents case have had any election outcome effect? Was the Supreme Court's partisan protection for Trump decisive? I have no idea, but I would be happier if I did not have to speculate.
No. For reasons obvious to people who aren't lobotomized by TDS.
YOu write too much, you need a contemplative break.
Volokh you get more and more using contrafactuals to argue against 'factuals' . See all those Trump dances goin on? Remember stadiums saying "F___ Joe Biden" ? The numbers are the TIP of an iceberg. Slow down you write too much
One, the election was not a landslide. Reagan in 84 and Nixon in 72 were landslides.
Two, the electoral result was decisive. Pres Elect Trump had enough coat-tails to get a unified Team R Congress elected with him.
The winner always has a mandate. They won. The question is whether they can deliver. Doesn’t always happen.
The Democrats got to run against the most unpopular candidate ever three times. I think I’d want to go better than 1-for-3 in those circumstances.
Right, that's my point: If you can't do better than 1 out of three running against Trump, while hugely outspending him, you've got a serious problem. Can the Democrats recognize that?
I'm interested in what Trump and Milei were talking about. My impression from him being the first foreign leader Trump met with is that Trump does not mean to make marginal changes in policy, he intends to go big, even if he has to do a lot of unconventional things.
His first term he played nice, and it got him nowhere. I think that's now the past.
Put an airbase on the Maldives. 😉
That's exactly right. Democratic leaders can be mad at Biden for not dropping out sooner, or any other stupid excuse they can think of, but they only have themselves to blame for the caliber of Presidential candidate they have been producing.
Those two things are related (Biden not dropping out and the caliber of Presidential candidate).
Even if Harris had won the primary, she would've been a higher-caliber candidate for it. Although I suspect she wouldn't have won.
Mr. Volokh offers a one-sided argument on his "1% hypothesis" as if there was only one-way it could break. There are two-ways the 1% could break. If it broke the other way then the House is 224 GOP to 211 Democrat. The Senate is 56 GOP to 44 Democrat and Trump wins the popular vote by a wider margin though the electoral college remains unchanged.
The coin has two sides to it.
What is the purpose of this response? If I say, "This football game was really close; if the loser had just 5 more yards on that last drive it would've won," does it really make sense to say, "This is one-sided. If the winning team had just 5 more yards on its last drive it would have won by even more"?
Your analogy doesn't really work because it makes no difference if the football team wins 34-14 or 27-14. Where with elections there's more than one game going on at the same time.
It does make a difference if the GOP wins the Senate 56-44 and the House 224-211, as against 53-47 and 220-215.
Bigger majorities make confirmations and legislation easier, and reduce the bargaining power of rebels. And 56 Senators would give the GOP a big advantage in 2026. They'd have to lose 7 Senators to lose the majority, as against 4.
In the other direction, it's a very fanciful to get to 60 in 2026 or 2028, from 53. Slightly less fanciful from 56.
OK. But, the fact that a 1%-point swing towards Trump would have made it easier for him to advance his agenda does not detract from Eugene's point.
Sure. I just feel a duty to point out Mr Nieporent's errors, though I don't have the time to point out every one.
I see him as the David Brooks of the Volokh community. Impeccably creased pants, and wrong on everything 🙂
It does to gamblers!
But your comment is irrelevant to the point anyway, which had nothing to do with whether the margin "makes a difference."
Basic, basic math !!!!!!!!!!!! A 1% swing is a 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% changes in votes.
If we both have $100 and I give you 1% ($1) we are now separated by $2 $2 $2 $2
I now have $99 and you have $101 --- a $2 difference
$2 on the original $100 is 2%
Shit, what is wrong with people,