California only has 60% counted. Most people don't notice because it's one-sided presidentially. I don't think we have an inherent right to rapid results, only accurate ones. It's worth noting that none of the states are official yet, 'calling' is just media outlets following a confidence interval.

AZ is not called so we can be 145% sure that Kari Lake lost so we don't have to hear her bullshit for months.

lol

I'll give you right of Biden and maybe right of 2008 Obama, although that's debatable, but otherwise absolutely not.

The party is about to return to the 1990s, so you'll get to see how much further left they were.

This. Everyone on the right wants to brag about FL, but they have almost two weeks between election day and certification. They can only make super quick calls when the margin of victory isn't razor thin. If you have to wait for mail and provisional ballots to know the winner it's going to take time.

Potentially unpopular opinion: I think most if not all of the comparisons to 2020, while natural, are misplaced. COVID was a unique situation and emergency. Extrapolating those trends to elections afterwards is not reasonable, because some people motivated by that to vote are not going to behave the same way when there's nothing they see as a crisis of the same level of urgency.

I I think this line of thinking is really dangerous to Dems. It comes off condescendingly, and may make people in their college educated echo chambers feel morally superior, but end of the day 57% of the electorate doesn't have college degrees so you're drawing dead the more you make that education cut off the dividing line. It's not just a male thing either, white women who never went to college make up 20% of the electorate and went 65/33 Trump. I even disagree with Bernie when he says the Dems have abandoned "the working class" or "blue collar workers" with their policies but I think they 100% have with their rhetoric. There are racist sexist idiots out there but it's not 100% of Trump voters this cycle, painting every one with that brush is just hardening their support and making them less likelt to flip down the line.

Obama literally ran against Dick Cheney's policies. Kamala was touring with Liz Cheney and talking about building the wall.

Even Biden is wrong. He kind of ran a populist left campaign talking about a green new deal, student loan forgiveness, free pre-K, and being a safe place for asylum seekers.

You have to go back to 96 Clinton to find a campaign that was as far to the right as hers.

Obama ran as a guy above partisanship who could bring everyone together. He was against the Iraq war, but otherwise he was all about overcoming partisan debates and finding solutions everyone could accept. He certainly wasn't running a Bernie like campaign.

dola

It's just amazing that RFK Jr., who four years ago literally could not have gotten a single GOP confirmation vote, will now sail through with the GOP voting in lockstep for him. There really is nothing important to the GOP now other than loyalty to Trump.

I am sorry if you read it that way, and yes if the Democrats think that the majority of the voters are this way like you seem to be suggesting I meant then they would be in trouble. I was not in any way suggesting that the majority of anyone fits this description. There are people that have voted both parties that fit what I described, as much as there college educated and people that didn't finish middle school. I am describing people who do not care about politics, and there are a sizable number of them. I work with and meet people who fit what I described every day. It is not that can't educate themselves on the issues, it is they don't particularly want to. I mentioned my boss before. He a smart guy, and runs a business. He isn't spending his time watching Fox News, or reading political blogs. He couldn't name his congressman right now and he just voted for him. Most of his political views comes from his buddies that he camps with. He is the person that once said to me "I don't know what socialism is, but I don't want it." His vote counts as much as yours does.
If you don't believe there are people like this, there are a good number of people still to this day believe that schools installed kitty litter boxes in classroom for students who identify as a cat. And some of them vote.

I agree with what you are saying in theory. I ask this as a genuine question for everyone.

Why is it that painting all Trump supporters in a negative light does not work for the left while painting all Harris supporters in a negative light is at the very least effective for the right? Why does it feel more harsh for Dems to say it about the Repubs than it does for the Repubs to do the same to the Dems? Why does "Not all..." only seem to work for the right?

I don't mean this as an attempt to both sides the discourse either. Maybe I am wrong and there are Republican voices saying "Not all Dem..." to other Republicans. I just don't hear them.

Because we're punching down on the white trash instead of helping them up, even though the specifically refuse the help that's been offered and would rather just wait for a lottery and blame others for their shit existence while believing they can get away with being pieces of shit because they go to church.

Or that was just sarcasm... I don't know...

I don't really understand the DEI talk. She was selected to be the Vice President. They won. It worked. Maybe you could argue there was someone who would have helped them win by more but her resume is pretty good for a VP candidate. She was a Senator from the most populous state. And it helped she stood for nothing and would be malleable on the issues.

People are mixing that up with her being the candidate for President. That's Joe Biden and the party's fault. She was never supposed to be the nominee as she's not a good campaigner. It was basically thrust on to her because there were no other options. She ran a terrible campaign but she was also thrown into a campaign in freefall and had to use Biden's disastrous team for the campaign instead of her own people. And it sure seems like part of the deal to get Biden to step aside is she wouldn't criticize him which crushed her too.

Blaming her or some DEI nonsense is just some racist excuse for the party completely fucking this up.

He literally ran on a public health insurance option! Iraq was one of the primary issues along with the financial crisis in which he called for more regulation. Yeah he wasn't full on Bernie and he didn't accomplish much, but he did actually run on a pretty progressive platform if you look through it. This re-writing of history is not helping you or the party.

The main reason is because back when he was picking a running mate he didn't just say I'm picking Kamala because she is the most qualified. He led up to the announcement by talking about picking a minority and a woman. If he had just narrowed it down and picked her and said she was the most qualified it would be alot harder for it to stick, but at the time he wouldn't shut up about only considering minorities and women.

So it's just DEI when you say the quiet part out loud? I thought everyone kind of understood the deal with picking a VP.

I don’t think your average uneducated voter understands that at all.

Biden explicitly said he was choosing a woman to be his running mate. That's where the DEI talk comes in.

But why is it an issue now? I get not saying the quiet part out loud but how is that at all related to anything going on right now?

His healthcare plan was to the right of Clinton and specifically based on Romney's plan in MA.

But even so, Harris supports the ACA and wanted to expand upon it. She's to the left of Obama there.

That's just not true. The public option was heavily campaigned on in 2008. It was sort of supported by Clinton in 2016 and definitely supported by Biden in 2020. Harris cut it from her campaign when she got the nomination. Her plan was some convoluted tax credits.

Like I'm sorry your choice lost and your plan failed. But the lady who campaigned with the Cheneys, bragged about building a wall, talked up fracking, wars, and her gun was not running a campaign on the left like you think. You were alive in 2008 and I would hope remember what the opinion of many of those topics was (especially wars).

It was just low hanging fruit. It plays to the base. They remember it and believe it because they all laughed at it four years ago.

Obama ran to the right of Clinton on healthcare. Obama was anti-Iraq, but wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan. He certainly wasn't anti-all wars.

Not seeing home health care coverage as an expansion of healthcare is just not seeing the obvious benefit of that for millions of Americans.

SHE RAN A CAMPAIGN NEXT TO THE LADY WHO PROPPED UP THE BIRTHER CONSPIRACY. Holy shit no wonder you guys always lose.

So you're talking vibes rather than policy? So all of your previous complaints about policy don't really matter?

dola

At the end of the day none of this matters. The 2028 election will be a referendum on what happens over the next four years. The Dem nominee will have their own charisma or lack of it. The policy agenda will be focused on what has happened, not what anybody thinks about the 2024 election.
There won't be meetings over the next six months that make any difference on the next election.

I think Kamala Harris ran about as good as a campaign as she possibly could. In retrospect, it would have been incredibly difficult for any Democrat to win in this environment. That's what the Pod Save America Guys are saying anyways who worked for the Obama Administration and have been around campaigns.

I think she would have been a great president. I don't think blaming this result on her, Tim Walz, or her campaign team is remotely productive.

Here are some things I think that hurt the Democrats.

1. Most incumbents around the world have been losing their elections. Many people want someone to blame for their problems and will blame the party in power.

2. Many people resonate with Trump rhetoric because they are racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, and/or transphobic themselves and thus Trump says things they are already thinking themselves. These people aren't going to ever vote for the Democrats.

3. Republicans have built a media engine of Fox News and right wing podcasts that receive a lot of viewership. This is a very big engine to contend with and it has radicalized many Americans against the Democrats. The Democrats don't have anything comparable to these things.

4. Republicans have a pretty big electoral map advantage right now.

LMFAO.

My God, that might just be THE funniest thing I've seen in the entire election cycle.

They have the enormous majority of the media carrying their water for them.

Civil War II talk disappeared. I wonder why.

Apologies to GD for using his post as the jumping off point, but this is the exact type of counterproductive thinking and statements Dems need to avoid. Enough of those Trump voters elected D's and even women or people of color down the ticket in enough swing states to win in NC, WI, MI, I think/hope AZ/NV, and nearly PA. It's quite probable the headwind of being attached to the current admin was too strong, certainly so if she wasn't allowed to break from him more, but mostly she was an uninspiring candidate even compared to other D's in every single state that was remotely close.

It's not even that I disagree with the premise that there are sexists and racists and idiots, but a bunch of them used to vote Dem too and you kinda need some of them back and on your side to win elections.

Outside of the Times and maybe the Washington Post who are just rich coastal liberals, who is this majority? The biggest cable news network is right wing. Most of the local stations are now controlled by Sinclair, a far-right company. Private equity has gutted most local papers. All your American social media companies are owned by people on the right. They have a pretty strong presence on alternative media sites like YouTube.

Sure this was the case in the 90's or whatever when options were limited, but media now is so fragmented that I don't see how they have some kind of advantage. No one under 40 cares about the NYT or MSNBC.

Jon Truth #whatever:

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- gets elected without votes from a sizable contingent of rather complete idiots.

They're too big a percentage of the population now for 50%+1 to not include them.

That is one of the few Jon Truths that I actually agree with :D

It's absolutely non-partisan, and undeniable for pretty much anyone who ever leaves their house and ventures out into public.

I agree it's definitely counterproductive.

The fact of the matter is there is a bias against these groups in the United States. The MAGA movement would not exist if a portion of Trump's support were not these things.

To clarify, I used the word "many" because I don't know what percentage of Trump voters this time around are one or more of those labels. I avoided the words "majority" or "most" because those terms indicate more than half and that may not be the case.

There has been historic inflation around the world so most incumbents in recent races have lost. I think many people blame Biden and the Democrats by extension for this just as they probably did the Republicans for the Recession in 2008 when George W. Bush was leaving office.

For all of the talk about "the death of polling", I noticed that AtlasIntel was very accurate again this cycle, as they were in 2020. Here are their final 2024 polls:

National: Trump +1 (Probably close to that after all ballots are counted)
Pennsylvania: Trump +1 (Actual: Trump +2.1)
Michigan: Trump +2 (Actual: Trump +1.4)
Wisconsin: Trump +1 (Actual: Trump +0.8)
North Carolina: Trump +2 (Actual: Trump +3.3)
Georgia: Trump +2 (Actual: Trump +2.2)
Nevada: Trump +5 (Actual: Trump +3.8)
Arizona: Trump +5 (Actual: Trump +5.6)
Ohio: Trump+9 (Actual: Trump +11.2)

Virginia: Harris +5 (Actual: Harris +5.2)
Minnesota: Harris +2 (Actual: Harris +4.2)

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1854544657570492894

Yeah the polls actually got a little more accurate this cycle. It will always be an inexact science because you can't precisely predict turnout. I wish polls didn't exist. But their demise has been greatly exaggerated. They are far more accurate than any other method of prediction such as 'there's lots of lawn signs in my area' or 'the vibes are clear'.

Their internals are so crazy, though. It literally looks like they are just making up the numbers.

If this was their first time polling, I suppose the accuracy could be written off as a fluke, but according to 538, AtlasIntel was also the most accurate polling firm in the 2020 election.

Some guy on reddit took the vote totals from 2020 and 2024 (from CNN) and made the below map. It's not 100% accurate because not all the votes are in yet, but it's indicative.

The numbers behind the map appear to show the changes are more due to a softening of support for Harris (2024) vs. Biden (2020) vs. significant gains in absolute numbers by Trump.

But more to come I'm sure once all the analysis and counting is done.

https://i.redd.it/chtptwunqhzd1.png

I think they are herding and getting lucky. There's no way I believe they were getting 8000 responses in a single day and their percentages of voters are often way off. One of the late PA polls had over 80% white voters.

Harris lost votes in safe states, but she matched Biden overall in the battlegrounds. Trump just did a little better.

Yeah, I've been watching and voting in elections for over 30 years, and outside of some outliers, people generally get votes on party ID ("I've always voted Democrat and I'll always vote Democrat"), name recognition ("Susan Collins has been my Senator for decades, why would I vote against her?"), or charisma+vibes (if we throw out 2020 due to being a COVID outlier, then every POTUS victor going back to Kennedy has been the more charismatic candidate).

Throwing out 2020 as an outlier, the last two successful Democratic POTUS candidates were hugely charismatic vibes-campaigners who minimized talk of policy (especially detailed talk of policy) in favor of coming off as someone who was likeable, empathetic, and swathes of the electorate could convince themselves either would pursue ends they liked, or not aggressively pursue ends they didn't like.

Harris may have tried to campaign on vibes, but she didn't have the charisma to make it stick, especially in an anti-incumbent environment.


Now, you're thinking, Trump isn't any of those things. He's not likeable or empathetic, he talks about very specific policy details (even if they're factually incorrect or physically impossible), and he definitely will pursue ends that lots of people don't like.

Well, Republicans don't need the same type of candidate that Democrats do, because their base, and the part of the electorate who can be swayed to their side, are looking for other things. For evidence I put forward all of the nationally-elected Republican politicians now in the ascendancy.

So basically Democrats should run white male midwestern governors going forward.

Depends on who you ask.

I know a helluva lot of people who would readily take a bullet for the guy ... but the majority of them couldn't name an actual specific policy with any real level of detail.

For many, I believe he's the most relatable candidate in decades.

It’s funny because it’s true. In reality there are maybe 20 men in the county that can relate to Trump’s life but dudes of all incomes and lifestyles have convinced themselves they can relate to him because of….well…I’ll let everyone else fill in that blank.

He's relatable because he treats the system with the disdain many people already have for it. Sure, he's a pathological liar, but so is every politician. He's just more brazen and doesn't care about decorum when lying. He talks about other politicians the same way your friends and family would.

And there's a weirdly authentic vibe to him, even when he's breaking traditions. Leaving town and not attending the inauguration angered many but is relatable. Would you sit and watch a ceremony for the guy who just took your job? Would you leave a nice note like Obama did for him after he spent years making racist attacks? Of course not.

I'm not saying any of it is good, either. Just that I sort of get it. If you're angry with the system, watching someone act phony in support of that system will make you angrier. And at some point, you'll yearn for someone who wants to break the whole thing.

There are probably a lot of days that me & you ought to be separated by well-trained security, but when you're right, you're right.

You nailed the shit out of it.

And I think that's something that this board maybe doesn't quite get on the same level that exists "out in the world": the absolute disdain, nay, sheer hatred of "the system".

Trump picked the best person he thought would be a VP and it showed in the VP debate. Harris was picked because of identity politics. I’d argue that any time you don’t pick the best person but you want to pander it’s less qualifying.

Trump was more qualified in 2016 because he was elected as the Republican candidate. Harris was selected, not elected, as VP and then selected, not elected, as the Democratic candidate. One is qualified by the people and one is qualified by the party elites. We saw the result in 2016 and then again in 2024.

There is a chart in link that rates Left-Center-Right (can't embed, sorry). Take it for what it's worth ...

Just a moment...