Hopefully we’ll see some updates in House races today. Ideally, OH-09 and CA-45 will be called for Marcy Kaptur and Derek Tran, respectively. And I’m hoping Adam Gray closes the gap in CA-13.
Also hoping Riggs increases her crazy-small, 24-vote lead in the NC Supreme Court race!
People are so thirsty for a strongman, outspoken, politically incorrect anti-establishment figure they will vote for someone like Trump even though what comes out of his mouth is garbage.
The patriarchy is under threat in NY and NJ. Both old-school good Ole boy systems are being torn down. Democrats didn't have this issue until the void post-Cuomo in NY and Andy Kim demolished the old school Democratic system in NJ.
I can see how Trump may appeal to those seeking a male strongman type leader in both places.
So New Jersey's <6% margin was probably one of the most WTF results of the election (VA, MN and to a lesser extent NH reverting to closer margins was more expected, although I thought Harris would pull closer to 2020 margins in those).
Like NY, was it primarily due to large Dem vote drop-off?
Did Harris actually invest in a ground game for reliably Democratic states? I thought her ground game was focused mostly on the swing states, and there, it worked - she got more votes than Biden in NC, GA, WI, and NV.
It's just that millions of people who don't follow politics but were pissed off about inflation showed up to vote against the governing party.
Sure - but as you would expect in an election where the incumbent president is pretty unpopular, his low propensity voters were easier to turn out than ours.
Yes. In the city of Passaic in particular, which is my father's hometown, Hispanic residents represent the majority in terms of racial demographics in the city.
Before the current party system kicked in 1992, California, New York, and Illinois were all swing states, decided by 2-4pt in marginally competitive 1988. New Jersey was considered lean R.
While most observers knew Bush was losing 1992 election, when the lopsided results came in from what we call safe Blue states, didn’t people get the WTF feeling?
I was surprised by Virginia and New Hampshire. Both seemed uniquely suited to trend Democrat this year, especially Virginia. Even there I underestimated the nonwhite working class shift to the right. As for New Hampshire, Harris will be the first Democrat to lose Sullivan County since Al Gore in 2000.
Since votes are still being tallied, I haven't yet done comparisons to 2020 in raw vote totals yet, but it's probably a safe bet there was a turnout drop in some or most of these jurisdictions.
Which jurisdictions you are thinking? The turnout rate probably dropped, that is self evident as older voters exit, and younger voters enter the electorate and they are not voting at the same rate as the cohorts 4 year ago.
But so far the 7 certified states + WV which are done counting, only deep red WV/WY recorded a smaller than 2020 number of raw votes. (WV has a shrinking voting population.) NV/OK/SC/DE/SD/VT all recorded more votes than 2020. NH will absolutely have more votes as well. Virginia also has a higher number of total votes as of now.
The dark blue areas within dark blue states CA NY IL MD probably will see a drop of raw votes. But the numbers may not be as stark as the initial look the election night.
The Harris Campaign’s made a massive investment in ground-game. Unlike 2020, there was a huge number of volunteers and a vast network of activist organizations working on GOTV. I must admit I expected this to have a far greater – and decisive – impact.
Places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia only shifted a couple points to the right from 2020, I think you can easily argue that the campaign and GOTV operations are what stopped us from seeing the massive swings there we saw in places like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas.
Simon Rosenberg and a few other people have argued that the 2022 Midterms were actually two elections. I seem to recall that nationally/overall it was at least an R+3 election. Republicans improved their turnout in safely-Red and very-Blue states (i.e. a non-consequential Red Wave), while the Democrats had high turnout in competitive states and the vast majority of the districts that really mattered – i.e. no Red Wave whatsoever.
This seems to echo the points that you and NewEnglander are making about this 2024 Presidential Election.
FYI the election night count vastly overstated the degree of Illinois' shift. It was indeed a stunner when Harris was only ahead by 4 points in Illinois that Wednesday morning after the election and will regrettably remain a part of the storyline, but that margin has quietly increased to more than 10 points for Harris in the two weeks since. It's still a big shift the wrong direction but nothing like what it seemed.
did Harris actually invest in a ground game for reliably Democratic states? I thought her ground game was focused mostly on the swing states, and there, it worked - she got more votes than Biden in NC, GA, WI, and NV.
It's just that millions of people who don't follow politics but were pissed off about inflation showed up to vote against the governing party.
Sounds to me like those millions of people you're talking about that voted against the governing party are independents. Independents aren't by default always the most politically savvy group of voters and aren't necessarily beholden to any political party. They may not also tune in like Democrats, Republicans, etc. for races until later.
My guess is that Harris didn't give these voters (assuming they're independents) a compelling enough reason why she would need to be the next POTUS after Biden. As the voters weighed inflation and want to see who really is looking out for them, they needed to have a good reason to ensure that Harris was going to take care of this in her agenda.
A theory I have : because so much of GOTV work involves a continuity of voter files, the fact that we were largely out of action in 2020 with in-person GOTV really did set us back. 2022 being a midterm didn't make up the gap. The work this year caught us up to speed to some degree, but not enough to win. At least the strong work this year will help in the future, but it's a bad-tasting irony that 2020 netted us the Presidency while damaging the GOTV continuity.
What went wrong was that marginal voters were so angry about inflation that it would have taken a perfect storm for any Democrat to win, even against Trump. As others have noted, the Dem share of the vote slipped much less in the contested states than in the uncontested states, indicating that the Harris campaign was able to shift the baseline more than the Trump campaign was.
I hear you – but there is a vast gulf between the real economy and the "vibe economy". Here is a dramatic chart showing Republican voters suddenly feeling better about the economy, post-election, despite the reality not changing one iota.
The GOP base is unreachable. The task is to reach the marginal, mostly low-info, low-engagement voters who sat out 2016, turned on Trump over the pandemic and/or the economy in 2020, and turned on us over inflation this year.
I don't disagree but Republicans lying about their dissatisfaction with 2-3% inflation is separate from that discussion. The hope/expectation for the voters you mention is they bolt if/when Trump blows up the economy with his fixations on Tarriffs and mass deportations and other unworkable inflationary policies. We'll have a better idea of what to run on for the "low-info low-engagement" voter by the end of 25.
I think the outreach needs to start now (warning people about the Trump agenda on any outlet that will hear us out, etc) as opposed to waiting for people to see for themselves.
We arent getting through the next four years without a recession in all liklihood. So the sooner Trump takes ownership, the more blame he will get when that recession comes.
With Trump’s announced policies, a recession (or depression) is all but certain. But I really don’t think a recession would be in the works had Kamala Harris won and been given Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Yep. I get pilloried on this regularly but I maintain this was a media-induced vibesession starting from earlier this year. I make a middle class salary and do most of the grocery-shopping for my family . . . .prices for me clearly fell over the past year. And like most Americans my income rose from pre-Covid times. This is seen in consumer spending-Americans are spending on vacations, dining out, entertainment more than they were in Trump's economy. If Americans were struggling so much from inflation a la 1977 you'd see it reflected in decreases in consumer spending, and that never happened even at post-Covid inflation's peak. Yes there were persistent price spikes for renters/those who took out big loans over the past two years, but that's far from a majority of the electorate.
It was a vibecession, but I dont know that it was entirely media caused. The reality is that prices did spike, dramatically, and while some good came down, alot of it didnt, and nothing that I know of has gone back down to 2019 levels - maybe gas in some places?
Didn't necessarily require a "perfect storm," but possibly an administration and campaign that tried to communicate effectively with the people directly on the issue.
That might have helped, but it would have had to start in 2021. Biden really only made a token effort at messaging throughout his term. Harris had just 3.5 months, which isn't nearly enough time to correct impressions formed over 3.5 years.
Precisely this! Because of the Biden Administration’s lack of effective messaging, the news media echoed three-and-a-half years of Republican shit-talking of the economy, thus creating a very negative "vibe economy".
Regardless of the positive reality, and positive measures for which Biden-Harris never received due credit, with regards to inflation and crime and the border, Kamala Harris was fighting a steep uphill messaging battle.
Again, the Biden Administration was out with positive messaging on the economy, IJJA, IRA, CHIPs routinely. Everyone wants a Monday morning whipping boy but there's no magic bully pulpit elixir Biden could've unleashed if the media-who wanted Trump back bad for revenues-didn't want to cover it.
I think the problem with saying that inflation is down is that doesn’t mean that *prices* are going down - it just means they aren’t going up fast. People are still in sticker shock about what things cost these days, and they aren’t really placated by “Well, it’s not getting worse…”
True, lots of people improvement requires prices to come down, i.e. actual deflation. Many might also be ignoring that their own salary has grown at a higher rate than inflation. But somehow lots of Republican voters believe, that after Trump won, the economy is now magically better. (Look at the Axios chart!) Go figure!
You are vastly overestimating how much "I feel your pain" is a good message when you are in charge of causing the pain.
Sure we could have done more to blame various people who werent Democratic politicians, but then the question, as Trumps people put it is - if you could do something about it, why havent you.
It strikes me as reductive in assuming that "anger about inflation" was the singular motivation for the Trump surge voters. If our only takeaway from November 5 is that Democrats caught a tough break that inflation didn't go down quickly enough, we can probably look forward to a lot more November 5ths.
I think Dems should do a lot of things differently, but if we have normal inflation from 2021 to 2024 and everything else is the same (including real income growth, as wages would be proportionately lower) I think Harris wins.
If you want to go there, you'll have to explain why a lot of those same voters (Latinos in particular) had no problem voting for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Not the same electorates. 2024 voters have been subjected to 8 years of Trump and Trump's supporters misogyny and racism. It's been normalized in a way it hadn't been before, at least among the voting population.
Yep I think it amounts to cope. Countries with far worse inflation have managed to beat away the far right the past two years, and they had candidates without Trump's baggage.
It wasnt just inflation. Inflation was just the most visible factor.
BIden was elected on a promise to return things to normal. But they didnt. Prices were still up. The Afghanistan withdrawal was chaos. New wars started that threatened to embroil the US. Trump was still around. Crime spiked (including notably stuff like car thefts that affect normal people in the suburbs).
I would put it another way - if Trump had won in 2020, and each side had the exact same level of everything else (money, GOTV, ads, non-paid messaging, etc), we would be talking about something approaching an 2008 level blowout where Biden was easily elected to a second term with something like 54 senate seats and a safe House majority.
Because the chaos was basically built into the post-COVID recovery and whoever was in charge.
Sure we need to be aware that the GOP is now free of the fetters of being the establishment and thats a major danger for Dems as the now establishment party going forward. But thats not why we lost in 2024.
Good points. This is the second time in the last half century that Democrats had really bad timing for their narrow win....with 1976 being the other time. And of course, if they'd won in 1988 and especially 2004, they'd really have had a bloodbath for the next few cycles.
The simplest answer is lack of time. Harris had less than 4 months just to build her campaign up from the ground. Worse yet, she had to separate herself from Biden while also establishing name recognition and a platform. Obviously, it doesn't help that her policy platform wasn't nearly as strong as it could have been, but time was the ultimate enemy. We also must consider that the incumbent president and party were unpopular due to high inflation and a weak job market. To be clear Harris, did close the gap significantly in swing states, but she still started far behind Trump and less than four months isn't enough time. Moral of the story: next time nominate your candidates formally and normally via the presidential primary, where they have over a year for the voters to be exposed to them.
Same with high inflation - that was in the past - it was around 2.5% on election day . The past inflation wave still hurt her. Trump has no inflation mitigation concepts - he may actually achieve the opposite.
He ran on an overtly inflationary, anti-growth platform. Tariffs are directly inflationary and will also drive up business costs. Deportations will drive up business costs by creating labor shortages, and also dissuade future immigration, exacerbating the labor shortage. Massive tax cuts will drive up demand while his other policies restrict supply. Perfect setup for double-digit inflation. The only way we'll avoid another bout of inflation is if he doesn't do what he ran on.
The business community seems to be counting on that. Ultimately, I suspect Wall Street gets its way. Tariffs and deportations will be limited, but Trump will do just enough to get credit with his blue-collar base.
I think one of the biggest problems we're going to be facing is that inflation has indeed quieted tremendously and Trump is going to be able to crow about lowering it, because no one remembers anything, apparently.
The market movements seem to indicate that they expect tax cut extensions and deregulation but not tariffs or deportations. Wall Street got almost everything it wanted the first time, but this admin seems to have a lot more nationalist zealots and fewer Wall Street types.
Unemployment rate is quite low, but you also gotta factor in the fact that this doesn't include the people that don't report. Also many people are still not making enough money to keep up with rising cost of living from inflation. There's also the fact that increasingly more Americans work multiple jobs now just to make enough to keep up. Hell in STEM there's been over the past few months mass layoffs. Granted, Biden has managed to stem much of the layoffs somewhat, but not nearly enough to help Harris eke out a win.
We have other metrics that measure those people and they are all pretty much showing a super strong economy. Workforce participation for prime age workers is at levels we have only seen in the late 90s.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is and even if we do accept the economy has been doing well, which I think it has been, you still have to factor in inflation being at an all time high. It can simultaneously be the case that the economy is thriving and people are still struggling to make ends meet. Clearly, this was expressed by more blue collar workers across all races and younger folks entering the job and housing market. I do suspect it was inflation ultimately that sunk Harris. It's not unprecedented either. Stagflation was largely credited to Carter's defeat in 1980 alongside high gas prices. Fairly or unfairly, the party in power tends to pay dearly when you have a significant economic turmoil. If Trump was president presiding over high inflation, I'd suspect he'd lose too. In fact I'm willing to bet that inflation will worsen under him and by 2026 and 2028 voters will make him and the GOP pay heavily for it.
We dont have stagflation. If the people voting now had lived through that they would have largely scoffed off the 2021-2023 bout of inflation.
But yeah - it was inflation. The underlying economy sans the inflation is basically as good as it will get - 1999 levels. If we didnt have inflation we'd be due for a half a dozen movies about how the worst thing that could happen to a man is to have a good paying office job that is simply unfulfilling.
At the macroeconomic level, we do have a growing economy.
However, whether it be what I get in my LinkedIn newsfeed or reports I read, there are regular layoffs happening. They are mainly in tech companies, but not for reasons showing we're in a recession (we are not). It's because running business while companies can still grow has been made harder because of inflation. AI developments and tech companies are having to restructure and streamline operations all the time. Even large consulting companies (my industry) have had to deal with more than typical layoffs and that's in direct proportion due to the over investment during the pandemic. It's led to many complications.
Also, in 2024 it's become much harder to land a job quickly because of the fierce competition. It may differ from company to industry but I have heard many horror stories posted on LinkedIn about people taking longer than typical to get hired. Plenty of companies go through excessive rounds of interviews for candidates beyond what is typical.
The economy will likely cool down and get to a sense of normalcy once interest rates get lower but for now, it's still a complicated picture.
I think a lot of people here are overanalyizing. It's very simple. Trump quenches the thirst of those lowkey mad at the establishment. That's why Fetterman and Sanders appeal to people so much. Unfortunately Sanders message comes in a package that has always been anti-Democratic party which of course does little to motivate people to vote for it.
I think this is pretty definitive proof of the research suggesting that a ground game can be worth 2-3%. Thats about what she got when you compare the swing state swing from 2020 compared to the national swing.
Could an even better GOTV effort, perhaps with better and more up-to-date databases, have netted more? Say an addition 2–3% in the swing states, thus winning the Electoral College?
My guess is no. Like many things, there is diminishing returns (logarithmic curve) so each additional dollar will only lead to a smaller marginal gain.
You have two members of Congress with strong support, the mayors of New Jersey’s two largest cities, the head of the teachers Union, and former senate President. Sweeney, the former senate President is the only candidate from south Jersey.
Barring a later entry of a previously unconsidered strong candidate on either side, this sets up Abigail Spanberger (D) vs. Winsome Earle-Sears (R) for governor, thus assuring the state's first female governor either way.
I feel pretty good about our chances in an off year in Virginia with a Republican president and a high-propensity Democratic coalition. My prior is Spanberger wins by Northam 2017 margins. Doesn't mean we don't have to work hard - that's just what I guess will happen.
Spanberger should be an interesting gubernatorial candidate. She’s got crossover appeal in VA that Terry McAuliffe didn’t have when he ran for another term back in 2021.
Lavar Stoney, former mayor of Richmond, is probably the favorite. He dropped out of the Gov race to pave the way for Spanberger. He has a dual-endorsement from McAuliffe. More compelling to me is State Sen Aaron Rouse, a former NFL player representing Virginia Beach. He's 40 and Stoney is 43.
I'm not so sure that Stoney is the favorite to win the LG nomination. There's another candidate running for LG from the Richmond area (state Senator Ghazala Hashmi), and I wouldn't be surprised if they split the vote in the Richmond area. Babur Lateef and Aaron Rouse are the only LG candidates from their respective regions of the state, so my early guess is that one of them will win the primary.
Should you even indicate "swing towards Trump" for states, e.g. California, where there is such a vast number of votes to count? Yes, I realize you post a caveat... Seems to me we should wait.
It’s not too dissimilar to the news media and pundits that posted the "popular vote margin" when it was more than twice what the final figure will be.
This isn't a specific knock on anyone here - but in reading some of the comments here today and in various diaries over on Daily Kos, it really does seem to me to be almost impossible for a Democratic president to make people happy. Or for them to stay happy I guess. Record low unemployment is basically deemed as meaningless, short term inflation that fades is a crime, etc. And this is from a bunch of people who are deep partisans for the Democrats! My strong advice to any (hopeful we'll have one!) future Democratic presidents is to ignore good policy (it gets you nowhere) and focus on good vibes.
My point is largely that the people here and on DKOS, who already know the truth and are deep (sometimes crazy)partisans are basically not happy with with through the basement unemployment and better than basically any other developed nation levels of inflation. Yes, Biden and his administration sucked at communication, but the people who didn't need to be communicated to are still unhappy.
I mean I was very happy with the Biden administration my income quadrupled under it and I got into the lower middle class, eggs being a dollar more really didn't compare to that increase. If he wasn't 81 with a stutter and a perception by three-quarters of the country believing that he was too old I would have been fine with him running again. Democrats offline can be just as bad though but Trump being in office focused them last time.
On the contrary. You need good policy, but you also need a clear strong slogan and message for it to resonate and be heard. You can't dismissively tell people just to look at your policy on your website like Clinton did, or explain how you're not a socialist like Sanders. In Harris' case, she was stuck trying to distinguish herself from Biden. For all his faults, Trump has simple effective slogans and policy. "Build the wall", "tariffs" and "make China and Mexico pay". He's also built up a (false) persona as a savvy businessman in large part due to The Apprentice. Obama himself built up a charismatic and cool persona and had his own effective slogans and policy. "Change we can believe in", "yes we can" and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and universal healthcare which to his credit he delivered. Now I ask you, can you summarize to me in a sentence or 2 what exactly Harris' policies were? Because I will tell you now that the average voter sure as hell could not and that's a major problem.
I still remember back when President Obama was in office in his first term and the excitement over him back in 2008 had fizzled due to him not satisfying those who wanted major change beyond epic proportions.
Donald Trump picks Fox Business host and former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy to serve as his DOT Secretary. He is married to Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy.
I always did suspect that efforts to prematurely declare ranked choice voting dead in Alaska were too premature, especially given the margin and how many outstanding ballots remained. You gotta let the ballot counting fully play out.
I’m not talking about this regarding the next Governor on the Democratic side who ends up replacing Governor Andy Beshear but rather talking about Beshear as touting his accomplishments.
Frankly, I think he’s cut out for the Senate but as a Democratic Presidential Candidate I don’t know. I know some people here and in DKE in the past say Beshear won’t make an effective Senate candidate. However, he’s been very effective in getting real stuff done in KY.
The doubt isn't about his ability to be a great candidate. It's about the ability of Kentucky voters to elect a democratic senator.
Things change, our politics are not static. That said... we've been down this path before in Kentucky. Highly touted candidates get sent to the buzzsaw and lose by an undeniable margin after extraordinary fundraising hauls, all regardless of the electoral environment.
I'd rather he try than not, but even putting it out Likely-R would feel generous absent some extraordinary circumstances. Which, to be clear, can and do happen. We have to try every chance we get if we are to hope to take advantage of those situations, but that doesn't mean we should be too hopeful about them most of the time.
Right now, given 2026 is a long way away, I'm not making any assessment as of yet about the KY-SEN race. However, my overall point is that Beshear has the personality that's suitable for Congress, not necessarily for being POTUS.
On the other hand, I would say Beshear might have an easier time running for POTUS than running in the KY-SEN race simply because of the facts that you provided.
I would like him to play a more prominent role in the Democratic Party regardless of what direction he decides to go after he's termed out of office as governor. He's only in his late 40's and has a bright future ahead of him.
I frankly don't think even Beshear could be elected to the Senate from Kentucky at this point. Even with his personal appeal, a presumably open seat, and possible anti-GOP midterm backlash the state's probably just too red. See Bullock, Steve; Bredesen, Phil; or from the other party Hogan, Larry.
That said his political career shouldn't necessarily end with his governorship. He could plausibly be a credible presidential candidate or VP nominee (Harris of course considered him), or end up somewhere else in the next Democratic administration.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, yes, Beshear would be an effective choice in the next Democratic POTUS administration.
These days, it's much easier for Democrats in red states to be elected to statewide office instead of federal office with the exception of certain blue/swing districts in the respective states. I'd rather not risk Beshear as the only Democratic Senate Candidate if he is in fact being touted as such a candidate.
We have updates on the California undecided House races. Tran has added a bit to his lead, up to 102 votes by my count. Today from L.A. were 260 more votes : T 134, S126, adding 8 votes to the lead. OC counted 1360 votes: T 709 S 651, so 58 votes farther ahead. By my unofficial count Derek Tran should be ahead by 102 votes. Woo Hoo, triple digits!
The news from NorCal is not as good. Adam Gray is now 2281 votes behind in CA-13, having lost a bit of ground in the last two updates. This is going from the SoS website; I am not going to track down five different counties to verify it, lol. Maybe Gray can still win if some super Stanislaus batches come in, but it hasn't happened yet.
I just looked at the Unprocessed Ballots Status page on sos.ca.gov. There are more ballots left to be counted in Adam Gray's stronger counties (Stanislaus and San Joaquin) than in Duarte's best ones (Fresno and Madera). It is never over until it is over...
Hopefully we’ll see some updates in House races today. Ideally, OH-09 and CA-45 will be called for Marcy Kaptur and Derek Tran, respectively. And I’m hoping Adam Gray closes the gap in CA-13.
Also hoping Riggs increases her crazy-small, 24-vote lead in the NC Supreme Court race!
She has! Riggs now leads by 34 votes! This is a 0.00065% advantage on 5,538,970 votes counted. Crazy close race!
People are so thirsty for a strongman, outspoken, politically incorrect anti-establishment figure they will vote for someone like Trump even though what comes out of his mouth is garbage.
The patriarchy is under threat in NY and NJ. Both old-school good Ole boy systems are being torn down. Democrats didn't have this issue until the void post-Cuomo in NY and Andy Kim demolished the old school Democratic system in NJ.
I can see how Trump may appeal to those seeking a male strongman type leader in both places.
She’s now up by 70 votes.
That’s a 190% increase from her previous 24-vote lead. ;)
Tran now up by 102.
So New Jersey's <6% margin was probably one of the most WTF results of the election (VA, MN and to a lesser extent NH reverting to closer margins was more expected, although I thought Harris would pull closer to 2020 margins in those).
Like NY, was it primarily due to large Dem vote drop-off?
Did Harris actually invest in a ground game for reliably Democratic states? I thought her ground game was focused mostly on the swing states, and there, it worked - she got more votes than Biden in NC, GA, WI, and NV.
It's just that millions of people who don't follow politics but were pissed off about inflation showed up to vote against the governing party.
Trump had no ground game in reliable states either (outside of his rallies in places like NYC and NM if you want to count that).
Sure - but as you would expect in an election where the incumbent president is pretty unpopular, his low propensity voters were easier to turn out than ours.
Yes, a 300,000 to 400,000 drop off. Plus, Latino switches in places like Passaic and Hudson counties.
Yes. In the city of Passaic in particular, which is my father's hometown, Hispanic residents represent the majority in terms of racial demographics in the city.
Don’t assume the past hold for the future.
Before the current party system kicked in 1992, California, New York, and Illinois were all swing states, decided by 2-4pt in marginally competitive 1988. New Jersey was considered lean R.
While most observers knew Bush was losing 1992 election, when the lopsided results came in from what we call safe Blue states, didn’t people get the WTF feeling?
I was surprised by Virginia and New Hampshire. Both seemed uniquely suited to trend Democrat this year, especially Virginia. Even there I underestimated the nonwhite working class shift to the right. As for New Hampshire, Harris will be the first Democrat to lose Sullivan County since Al Gore in 2000.
Since votes are still being tallied, I haven't yet done comparisons to 2020 in raw vote totals yet, but it's probably a safe bet there was a turnout drop in some or most of these jurisdictions.
Which jurisdictions you are thinking? The turnout rate probably dropped, that is self evident as older voters exit, and younger voters enter the electorate and they are not voting at the same rate as the cohorts 4 year ago.
But so far the 7 certified states + WV which are done counting, only deep red WV/WY recorded a smaller than 2020 number of raw votes. (WV has a shrinking voting population.) NV/OK/SC/DE/SD/VT all recorded more votes than 2020. NH will absolutely have more votes as well. Virginia also has a higher number of total votes as of now.
The dark blue areas within dark blue states CA NY IL MD probably will see a drop of raw votes. But the numbers may not be as stark as the initial look the election night.
Turnout in New Hampshire was higher this year than in 2020. My ward alone saw 250 more voters this time.
And Hillary didn't win Sullivan County in 2016 either.
Damn you're right. Forgot that Hillary lost there as well.
The Harris Campaign’s made a massive investment in ground-game. Unlike 2020, there was a huge number of volunteers and a vast network of activist organizations working on GOTV. I must admit I expected this to have a far greater – and decisive – impact.
What went wrong?
Places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia only shifted a couple points to the right from 2020, I think you can easily argue that the campaign and GOTV operations are what stopped us from seeing the massive swings there we saw in places like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas.
Simon Rosenberg and a few other people have argued that the 2022 Midterms were actually two elections. I seem to recall that nationally/overall it was at least an R+3 election. Republicans improved their turnout in safely-Red and very-Blue states (i.e. a non-consequential Red Wave), while the Democrats had high turnout in competitive states and the vast majority of the districts that really mattered – i.e. no Red Wave whatsoever.
This seems to echo the points that you and NewEnglander are making about this 2024 Presidential Election.
FYI the election night count vastly overstated the degree of Illinois' shift. It was indeed a stunner when Harris was only ahead by 4 points in Illinois that Wednesday morning after the election and will regrettably remain a part of the storyline, but that margin has quietly increased to more than 10 points for Harris in the two weeks since. It's still a big shift the wrong direction but nothing like what it seemed.
As I replied to the comment that you deleted,
did Harris actually invest in a ground game for reliably Democratic states? I thought her ground game was focused mostly on the swing states, and there, it worked - she got more votes than Biden in NC, GA, WI, and NV.
It's just that millions of people who don't follow politics but were pissed off about inflation showed up to vote against the governing party.
Sounds to me like those millions of people you're talking about that voted against the governing party are independents. Independents aren't by default always the most politically savvy group of voters and aren't necessarily beholden to any political party. They may not also tune in like Democrats, Republicans, etc. for races until later.
My guess is that Harris didn't give these voters (assuming they're independents) a compelling enough reason why she would need to be the next POTUS after Biden. As the voters weighed inflation and want to see who really is looking out for them, they needed to have a good reason to ensure that Harris was going to take care of this in her agenda.
A theory I have : because so much of GOTV work involves a continuity of voter files, the fact that we were largely out of action in 2020 with in-person GOTV really did set us back. 2022 being a midterm didn't make up the gap. The work this year caught us up to speed to some degree, but not enough to win. At least the strong work this year will help in the future, but it's a bad-tasting irony that 2020 netted us the Presidency while damaging the GOTV continuity.
What went wrong was that marginal voters were so angry about inflation that it would have taken a perfect storm for any Democrat to win, even against Trump. As others have noted, the Dem share of the vote slipped much less in the contested states than in the uncontested states, indicating that the Harris campaign was able to shift the baseline more than the Trump campaign was.
I hear you – but there is a vast gulf between the real economy and the "vibe economy". Here is a dramatic chart showing Republican voters suddenly feeling better about the economy, post-election, despite the reality not changing one iota.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/13/consumer-sentiment-republican-democrat-switch
How many Republicans are going to be celebrating 2-3% inflation in January?
The GOP base is unreachable. The task is to reach the marginal, mostly low-info, low-engagement voters who sat out 2016, turned on Trump over the pandemic and/or the economy in 2020, and turned on us over inflation this year.
I don't disagree but Republicans lying about their dissatisfaction with 2-3% inflation is separate from that discussion. The hope/expectation for the voters you mention is they bolt if/when Trump blows up the economy with his fixations on Tarriffs and mass deportations and other unworkable inflationary policies. We'll have a better idea of what to run on for the "low-info low-engagement" voter by the end of 25.
I think the outreach needs to start now (warning people about the Trump agenda on any outlet that will hear us out, etc) as opposed to waiting for people to see for themselves.
By mid-late spring we will inevitably see the media do an about-face and start heralding the "historically strong Trump economy."
I'm already pre-annoyed.
We arent getting through the next four years without a recession in all liklihood. So the sooner Trump takes ownership, the more blame he will get when that recession comes.
With Trump’s announced policies, a recession (or depression) is all but certain. But I really don’t think a recession would be in the works had Kamala Harris won and been given Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Yep. I get pilloried on this regularly but I maintain this was a media-induced vibesession starting from earlier this year. I make a middle class salary and do most of the grocery-shopping for my family . . . .prices for me clearly fell over the past year. And like most Americans my income rose from pre-Covid times. This is seen in consumer spending-Americans are spending on vacations, dining out, entertainment more than they were in Trump's economy. If Americans were struggling so much from inflation a la 1977 you'd see it reflected in decreases in consumer spending, and that never happened even at post-Covid inflation's peak. Yes there were persistent price spikes for renters/those who took out big loans over the past two years, but that's far from a majority of the electorate.
It was a vibecession, but I dont know that it was entirely media caused. The reality is that prices did spike, dramatically, and while some good came down, alot of it didnt, and nothing that I know of has gone back down to 2019 levels - maybe gas in some places?
Didn't necessarily require a "perfect storm," but possibly an administration and campaign that tried to communicate effectively with the people directly on the issue.
That might have helped, but it would have had to start in 2021. Biden really only made a token effort at messaging throughout his term. Harris had just 3.5 months, which isn't nearly enough time to correct impressions formed over 3.5 years.
Precisely this! Because of the Biden Administration’s lack of effective messaging, the news media echoed three-and-a-half years of Republican shit-talking of the economy, thus creating a very negative "vibe economy".
Regardless of the positive reality, and positive measures for which Biden-Harris never received due credit, with regards to inflation and crime and the border, Kamala Harris was fighting a steep uphill messaging battle.
Take a look at the Axios chart to which I linked!
Re the chart, that happens every time. The right-wing media report only good news when the GOP is in charge and only bad news when Dems are in charge.
Again, the Biden Administration was out with positive messaging on the economy, IJJA, IRA, CHIPs routinely. Everyone wants a Monday morning whipping boy but there's no magic bully pulpit elixir Biden could've unleashed if the media-who wanted Trump back bad for revenues-didn't want to cover it.
Stop blaming the media for Biden's empty pulpit.
I think the problem with saying that inflation is down is that doesn’t mean that *prices* are going down - it just means they aren’t going up fast. People are still in sticker shock about what things cost these days, and they aren’t really placated by “Well, it’s not getting worse…”
True, lots of people improvement requires prices to come down, i.e. actual deflation. Many might also be ignoring that their own salary has grown at a higher rate than inflation. But somehow lots of Republican voters believe, that after Trump won, the economy is now magically better. (Look at the Axios chart!) Go figure!
You are vastly overestimating how much "I feel your pain" is a good message when you are in charge of causing the pain.
Sure we could have done more to blame various people who werent Democratic politicians, but then the question, as Trumps people put it is - if you could do something about it, why havent you.
That’s not the message I’m talking about. And who cares what they say. The folks who blame everything on the deep state?
It strikes me as reductive in assuming that "anger about inflation" was the singular motivation for the Trump surge voters. If our only takeaway from November 5 is that Democrats caught a tough break that inflation didn't go down quickly enough, we can probably look forward to a lot more November 5ths.
I think Dems should do a lot of things differently, but if we have normal inflation from 2021 to 2024 and everything else is the same (including real income growth, as wages would be proportionately lower) I think Harris wins.
If we have normal inflation Biden probably doesnt leave the race if inflation is 2-3% in the post COVID period.
So what else were the motivations of the trump voters and those that stayed home?
Hmm...what was different about Harris than every other major party presidential nominee we've ever had? Just can't put my finger on it.
If you want to go there, you'll have to explain why a lot of those same voters (Latinos in particular) had no problem voting for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Not the same electorates. 2024 voters have been subjected to 8 years of Trump and Trump's supporters misogyny and racism. It's been normalized in a way it hadn't been before, at least among the voting population.
Yep I think it amounts to cope. Countries with far worse inflation have managed to beat away the far right the past two years, and they had candidates without Trump's baggage.
It wasnt just inflation. Inflation was just the most visible factor.
BIden was elected on a promise to return things to normal. But they didnt. Prices were still up. The Afghanistan withdrawal was chaos. New wars started that threatened to embroil the US. Trump was still around. Crime spiked (including notably stuff like car thefts that affect normal people in the suburbs).
I would put it another way - if Trump had won in 2020, and each side had the exact same level of everything else (money, GOTV, ads, non-paid messaging, etc), we would be talking about something approaching an 2008 level blowout where Biden was easily elected to a second term with something like 54 senate seats and a safe House majority.
Because the chaos was basically built into the post-COVID recovery and whoever was in charge.
Sure we need to be aware that the GOP is now free of the fetters of being the establishment and thats a major danger for Dems as the now establishment party going forward. But thats not why we lost in 2024.
Good points. This is the second time in the last half century that Democrats had really bad timing for their narrow win....with 1976 being the other time. And of course, if they'd won in 1988 and especially 2004, they'd really have had a bloodbath for the next few cycles.
The simplest answer is lack of time. Harris had less than 4 months just to build her campaign up from the ground. Worse yet, she had to separate herself from Biden while also establishing name recognition and a platform. Obviously, it doesn't help that her policy platform wasn't nearly as strong as it could have been, but time was the ultimate enemy. We also must consider that the incumbent president and party were unpopular due to high inflation and a weak job market. To be clear Harris, did close the gap significantly in swing states, but she still started far behind Trump and less than four months isn't enough time. Moral of the story: next time nominate your candidates formally and normally via the presidential primary, where they have over a year for the voters to be exposed to them.
Weak job market? That’s not accurate.
Same with high inflation - that was in the past - it was around 2.5% on election day . The past inflation wave still hurt her. Trump has no inflation mitigation concepts - he may actually achieve the opposite.
He ran on an overtly inflationary, anti-growth platform. Tariffs are directly inflationary and will also drive up business costs. Deportations will drive up business costs by creating labor shortages, and also dissuade future immigration, exacerbating the labor shortage. Massive tax cuts will drive up demand while his other policies restrict supply. Perfect setup for double-digit inflation. The only way we'll avoid another bout of inflation is if he doesn't do what he ran on.
The business community seems to be counting on that. Ultimately, I suspect Wall Street gets its way. Tariffs and deportations will be limited, but Trump will do just enough to get credit with his blue-collar base.
I think one of the biggest problems we're going to be facing is that inflation has indeed quieted tremendously and Trump is going to be able to crow about lowering it, because no one remembers anything, apparently.
The market movements seem to indicate that they expect tax cut extensions and deregulation but not tariffs or deportations. Wall Street got almost everything it wanted the first time, but this admin seems to have a lot more nationalist zealots and fewer Wall Street types.
There are way less Wall Street types around him this time though. We’ll see. That set still has a lot of influence with the Senate
Unemployment rate is quite low, but you also gotta factor in the fact that this doesn't include the people that don't report. Also many people are still not making enough money to keep up with rising cost of living from inflation. There's also the fact that increasingly more Americans work multiple jobs now just to make enough to keep up. Hell in STEM there's been over the past few months mass layoffs. Granted, Biden has managed to stem much of the layoffs somewhat, but not nearly enough to help Harris eke out a win.
We have other metrics that measure those people and they are all pretty much showing a super strong economy. Workforce participation for prime age workers is at levels we have only seen in the late 90s.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is and even if we do accept the economy has been doing well, which I think it has been, you still have to factor in inflation being at an all time high. It can simultaneously be the case that the economy is thriving and people are still struggling to make ends meet. Clearly, this was expressed by more blue collar workers across all races and younger folks entering the job and housing market. I do suspect it was inflation ultimately that sunk Harris. It's not unprecedented either. Stagflation was largely credited to Carter's defeat in 1980 alongside high gas prices. Fairly or unfairly, the party in power tends to pay dearly when you have a significant economic turmoil. If Trump was president presiding over high inflation, I'd suspect he'd lose too. In fact I'm willing to bet that inflation will worsen under him and by 2026 and 2028 voters will make him and the GOP pay heavily for it.
We dont have stagflation. If the people voting now had lived through that they would have largely scoffed off the 2021-2023 bout of inflation.
But yeah - it was inflation. The underlying economy sans the inflation is basically as good as it will get - 1999 levels. If we didnt have inflation we'd be due for a half a dozen movies about how the worst thing that could happen to a man is to have a good paying office job that is simply unfulfilling.
Here's perspective:
At the macroeconomic level, we do have a growing economy.
However, whether it be what I get in my LinkedIn newsfeed or reports I read, there are regular layoffs happening. They are mainly in tech companies, but not for reasons showing we're in a recession (we are not). It's because running business while companies can still grow has been made harder because of inflation. AI developments and tech companies are having to restructure and streamline operations all the time. Even large consulting companies (my industry) have had to deal with more than typical layoffs and that's in direct proportion due to the over investment during the pandemic. It's led to many complications.
Also, in 2024 it's become much harder to land a job quickly because of the fierce competition. It may differ from company to industry but I have heard many horror stories posted on LinkedIn about people taking longer than typical to get hired. Plenty of companies go through excessive rounds of interviews for candidates beyond what is typical.
The economy will likely cool down and get to a sense of normalcy once interest rates get lower but for now, it's still a complicated picture.
And yet labor share of income is not so hot.
It looks a lot of the voters her campaign was reaching out to showed up for Trump instead!
I think a lot of people here are overanalyizing. It's very simple. Trump quenches the thirst of those lowkey mad at the establishment. That's why Fetterman and Sanders appeal to people so much. Unfortunately Sanders message comes in a package that has always been anti-Democratic party which of course does little to motivate people to vote for it.
I think this is pretty definitive proof of the research suggesting that a ground game can be worth 2-3%. Thats about what she got when you compare the swing state swing from 2020 compared to the national swing.
Could an even better GOTV effort, perhaps with better and more up-to-date databases, have netted more? Say an addition 2–3% in the swing states, thus winning the Electoral College?
My guess is no. Like many things, there is diminishing returns (logarithmic curve) so each additional dollar will only lead to a smaller marginal gain.
Eric Hovde finally concedes to Senator Tammy Baldwin.
https://nitter.poast.org/jrrosswrites/status/1858552547730166029#m
So now he will move back to Laguna Beach CA full-time?
If I could afford to live in Laguna Beach, I probably would. I'd stop pretending that I lived in Wisconsin.
Gotta imagine Sherrill is the frontrunner in NJ along with Fulop, no?
Hard to say at this point. Very fragmented.
You have two members of Congress with strong support, the mayors of New Jersey’s two largest cities, the head of the teachers Union, and former senate President. Sweeney, the former senate President is the only candidate from south Jersey.
And no county line this year.
It’s a robust field, that’s for sure
In NC Supreme Court race Riggs increases lead to 67 votes https://x.com/taniel/status/1858578867096629444?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Clearly this race goes to a hand recount, but you always want to be ahead before the recount (yes I know about al Franken)
Now it’s 66 votes per the NC State Board of Elections
https://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=11/05/2024&county_id=0&office=JUD&contest=0
(For some strange reason I prefer pretty much every other source over “X”!)
Thanks for the info👍!
Up to 623! This is starting to look good.
VA-Gov, AG: Attorney General Jason Miyares announces that he will run for reelection to his current post and not for governor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/18/virginia-governor-miyares-earle-sears/?itid=sf_local_top-table_p001_f002
Barring a later entry of a previously unconsidered strong candidate on either side, this sets up Abigail Spanberger (D) vs. Winsome Earle-Sears (R) for governor, thus assuring the state's first female governor either way.
I think our side sweeps all 3
Hopefully 2025 will be 2017 2.0 for Virginia. VA Democrats may get to work and make it happen.
Winsome Sears is basically the female Ben Carson and way too conservative to be Governor!! 💙🇺🇲
I feel pretty good about our chances in an off year in Virginia with a Republican president and a high-propensity Democratic coalition. My prior is Spanberger wins by Northam 2017 margins. Doesn't mean we don't have to work hard - that's just what I guess will happen.
Spanberger should be an interesting gubernatorial candidate. She’s got crossover appeal in VA that Terry McAuliffe didn’t have when he ran for another term back in 2021.
What’s the LG race looking like so far?
Lavar Stoney, former mayor of Richmond, is probably the favorite. He dropped out of the Gov race to pave the way for Spanberger. He has a dual-endorsement from McAuliffe. More compelling to me is State Sen Aaron Rouse, a former NFL player representing Virginia Beach. He's 40 and Stoney is 43.
I'm not so sure that Stoney is the favorite to win the LG nomination. There's another candidate running for LG from the Richmond area (state Senator Ghazala Hashmi), and I wouldn't be surprised if they split the vote in the Richmond area. Babur Lateef and Aaron Rouse are the only LG candidates from their respective regions of the state, so my early guess is that one of them will win the primary.
Biggest swings towards Trump, by state (w/ several million ballots still to be tabulated):
1. New York 11.5%
2. New Jersey 10.2%
3. Florida 9.8%
4. Massachusetts 8.7%
5. California 8.4%
6. Texas 8.3%
7. Mississippi 7.7%
8. Wyoming 7.3%
9. Rhode Island 7.0%
10. Tennessee 6.5%
New Jersey swing cut down a bit.
Newly tabulated ballots in New Jersey slightly narrow Trump's popular vote lead. Today's additions:
Harris 39,550
Trump 25,099
Should you even indicate "swing towards Trump" for states, e.g. California, where there is such a vast number of votes to count? Yes, I realize you post a caveat... Seems to me we should wait.
It’s not too dissimilar to the news media and pundits that posted the "popular vote margin" when it was more than twice what the final figure will be.
I’m quoting Dave Wasserman
Ah, I didn’t see any quotation marks, nor any reference to Wasserman. Anyways, I am trying to say: "No, we have NOT seen enough."
This isn't a specific knock on anyone here - but in reading some of the comments here today and in various diaries over on Daily Kos, it really does seem to me to be almost impossible for a Democratic president to make people happy. Or for them to stay happy I guess. Record low unemployment is basically deemed as meaningless, short term inflation that fades is a crime, etc. And this is from a bunch of people who are deep partisans for the Democrats! My strong advice to any (hopeful we'll have one!) future Democratic presidents is to ignore good policy (it gets you nowhere) and focus on good vibes.
Good policy without good communication is sort of like the proverbial tree falling in the forest.
On a more humorous note:
"If a man says something in the middle of the forest, and his wife isn’t there to hear it, is he still wrong?"
My point is largely that the people here and on DKOS, who already know the truth and are deep (sometimes crazy)partisans are basically not happy with with through the basement unemployment and better than basically any other developed nation levels of inflation. Yes, Biden and his administration sucked at communication, but the people who didn't need to be communicated to are still unhappy.
I mean I was very happy with the Biden administration my income quadrupled under it and I got into the lower middle class, eggs being a dollar more really didn't compare to that increase. If he wasn't 81 with a stutter and a perception by three-quarters of the country believing that he was too old I would have been fine with him running again. Democrats offline can be just as bad though but Trump being in office focused them last time.
On the contrary. You need good policy, but you also need a clear strong slogan and message for it to resonate and be heard. You can't dismissively tell people just to look at your policy on your website like Clinton did, or explain how you're not a socialist like Sanders. In Harris' case, she was stuck trying to distinguish herself from Biden. For all his faults, Trump has simple effective slogans and policy. "Build the wall", "tariffs" and "make China and Mexico pay". He's also built up a (false) persona as a savvy businessman in large part due to The Apprentice. Obama himself built up a charismatic and cool persona and had his own effective slogans and policy. "Change we can believe in", "yes we can" and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and universal healthcare which to his credit he delivered. Now I ask you, can you summarize to me in a sentence or 2 what exactly Harris' policies were? Because I will tell you now that the average voter sure as hell could not and that's a major problem.
I still remember back when President Obama was in office in his first term and the excitement over him back in 2008 had fizzled due to him not satisfying those who wanted major change beyond epic proportions.
Donald Trump picks Fox Business host and former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy to serve as his DOT Secretary. He is married to Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy.
https://deadline.com/2024/11/trump-sean-duffy-fox-news-secretary-of-transportion-1236180738/
And, as we were talking about over the weekend:
Nancy Mace is introducing a resolution to ban transgender women from using women’s restrooms in the U.S. Capitol.
https://x.com/liz_elkind/status/1858640270591414523
I suspect that many people are going to get an up close view of how hateful the GOP is on this issue.
I propose legislation to bar adjudicated rapists from using any bathroom in the White House.
I suspect that most people who don't already hate trans people just for existing will see McBride as harmless and her GOP tormentors as bullies.
🚨🚨BREAKING: With the latest tally of votes in Alaska, ranked choice voting repeal is now losing by 192 votes.
https://x.com/ElectionBen/status/1858663727043584235
Good. If the ranked choice voting repeal fails, then it can be easier to challenge Senator Dan Sullivan in 2026.
This is even better than the most recent update on Friday (56% no)
Looks like this drop was 1340 yes, 2427 no (64%)
Assuming there are still 5000 ballots to be counted, if they break 60% could pad our margin by another 1K.
So Michael Pruser was right this time: https://x.com/MichaelPruser/status/1857965887732723967
I always did suspect that efforts to prematurely declare ranked choice voting dead in Alaska were too premature, especially given the margin and how many outstanding ballots remained. You gotta let the ballot counting fully play out.
KY-GOV:
I’m not talking about this regarding the next Governor on the Democratic side who ends up replacing Governor Andy Beshear but rather talking about Beshear as touting his accomplishments.
Frankly, I think he’s cut out for the Senate but as a Democratic Presidential Candidate I don’t know. I know some people here and in DKE in the past say Beshear won’t make an effective Senate candidate. However, he’s been very effective in getting real stuff done in KY.
https://www.wkyt.com/2024/11/17/gov-beshear-gives-updates-economic-development-medical-cannabis-other-plans/
The doubt isn't about his ability to be a great candidate. It's about the ability of Kentucky voters to elect a democratic senator.
Things change, our politics are not static. That said... we've been down this path before in Kentucky. Highly touted candidates get sent to the buzzsaw and lose by an undeniable margin after extraordinary fundraising hauls, all regardless of the electoral environment.
I'd rather he try than not, but even putting it out Likely-R would feel generous absent some extraordinary circumstances. Which, to be clear, can and do happen. We have to try every chance we get if we are to hope to take advantage of those situations, but that doesn't mean we should be too hopeful about them most of the time.
Right now, given 2026 is a long way away, I'm not making any assessment as of yet about the KY-SEN race. However, my overall point is that Beshear has the personality that's suitable for Congress, not necessarily for being POTUS.
On the other hand, I would say Beshear might have an easier time running for POTUS than running in the KY-SEN race simply because of the facts that you provided.
I would like him to play a more prominent role in the Democratic Party regardless of what direction he decides to go after he's termed out of office as governor. He's only in his late 40's and has a bright future ahead of him.
I frankly don't think even Beshear could be elected to the Senate from Kentucky at this point. Even with his personal appeal, a presumably open seat, and possible anti-GOP midterm backlash the state's probably just too red. See Bullock, Steve; Bredesen, Phil; or from the other party Hogan, Larry.
That said his political career shouldn't necessarily end with his governorship. He could plausibly be a credible presidential candidate or VP nominee (Harris of course considered him), or end up somewhere else in the next Democratic administration.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, yes, Beshear would be an effective choice in the next Democratic POTUS administration.
These days, it's much easier for Democrats in red states to be elected to statewide office instead of federal office with the exception of certain blue/swing districts in the respective states. I'd rather not risk Beshear as the only Democratic Senate Candidate if he is in fact being touted as such a candidate.
Still worth a shot. There’s no one stronger and who knows what the atmosphere will be like in two years.
More news from California:
We have updates on the California undecided House races. Tran has added a bit to his lead, up to 102 votes by my count. Today from L.A. were 260 more votes : T 134, S126, adding 8 votes to the lead. OC counted 1360 votes: T 709 S 651, so 58 votes farther ahead. By my unofficial count Derek Tran should be ahead by 102 votes. Woo Hoo, triple digits!
The news from NorCal is not as good. Adam Gray is now 2281 votes behind in CA-13, having lost a bit of ground in the last two updates. This is going from the SoS website; I am not going to track down five different counties to verify it, lol. Maybe Gray can still win if some super Stanislaus batches come in, but it hasn't happened yet.
I just looked at the Unprocessed Ballots Status page on sos.ca.gov. There are more ballots left to be counted in Adam Gray's stronger counties (Stanislaus and San Joaquin) than in Duarte's best ones (Fresno and Madera). It is never over until it is over...
NC Supreme Court Riggs opens a 600+ vote lead https://x.com/taniel/status/1858694189845729427?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg