In four swing states, Harris was even able to win more raw votes than Joe Biden did four years ago: Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Adjusted for population growth, that didn’t mean much in the first three states, and Black turnout was disappointing enough to Georgia Democrats that Sen. Jon Ossoff is calling for a change in party leadership. But there was no overall decline in Democratic votes.
There was one in uncompetitive states. Trump ran stronger with non-white voters in big cities than any Republican nominee in decades. That performance looks even stronger because so many Biden voters, in places where they knew she would win, didn’t come back for Harris.
Harris won 573,622 fewer votes in the city this year than Biden did in 2020. That wasn’t just about traditional Democrats switching to Trump. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers opted not to support Harris, some leaving the top of their ballots blank.
This batch of additional OC votes was won by Tran 511 to 361, netting 150 votes for Derek. There was also a small L.A. batch that had 61 Tran and 33 Steel, another 28 vote gain. !78 votes off the previous deficit of 236 leaves the margin at 58 votes. Damn!
The winning margins in these late batches are quite good for Derek Tran. I don't expect either county to update until Monday but might check OC tomorrow. I think the lead switches in the next update, whether it is tomorrow or Monday.
ME-02 - Golden has been declared the winner after ranked choice tabulations. I don’t see the exact numbers yet, but apparently his lead increased by a couple hundred votes.
He'd be a pain in the ass in the senate. He also would give us our best shot at taking her out, which would absolutely be worth him being difficult with us. I always prefer a "difficult" democratic senator than any republican; if the choice were that binary it would be simple.
On the other hand, he might be the only person still able to compete for that house seat, while there are people besides Golden that could make strong runs for that senate seat.
I doubt Golden challenges Collins for personal as well as political reasons: she first brought him into government by hiring him to the staff of the Homeland Security Committee.
That aside, while he'd likely be a strong statewide candidate provided he can make it through the primary (which may require two or more liberal candidates splitting the vote), I'd prefer it if he stays where he is. While he's not the only Dem who can hold that seat--particularly if the next couple of elections prove to be blue waves or close to it--he sure makes it easier, and he's certainly not the only one capable of winning statewide, at least in an open seat race (not sure if anyone can defeat Collins unless a right wing third party candidate siphons off a significant share of her vote, and even then RCV might save her). It isn't just him or a stereotypical "Portland liberal" (as if that's a bad thing?)
Yes, Jared Golden is a good fit for ME-02. Theriault was probably as good a candidate as the GOP could muster, and this was a challenging election for Dems. Very good that Golden survived, if by the skin of his teeth.
No. Far better for Democrats to choose someone in the mold of Angus King to run against Susan Collins. Even if he could win statewide, which is unlikely, Jared Golden would quickly become another Manchin-like senator. We can do better, but Collins will be difficult to unseat.
Golden would vote more like Angus King than like Manchin. If he voted like Manchin, he'd get primaried and any replacement level Dem would be favored to win the general.
If I was into boxing, I would probably have watched the Serrano–Taylor fight and then turned it off before the farce started. I understand the women boxers fought an excellent match.
It was a really good undercard, especially since the two fights before it were fine but meh (though it was cool seeing India’s first major pro winning a decision)
Yep; went to bed way too late staying up for that garbage. I knew Tyson would likely look old as the fight went on but didn't expect him to have absolutely no legs by the 2nd round.
Actually lots of rays of sunshine in NC. Won the four most important Council of State races(Gov, Lt. Gov, AG, Super of Public Instruction). Plus, two of the Republican wins (Ag, Insurance) are people who have done an excellent job and didn’t need to be replaced (I voted for both, my only Republican votes).
Lt. Gov is really important since unlike Gov. Cooper, Gov. Stein will be able to leave the state without having to worry about the Lt. Gov wreaking havoc! Both Forrest and Robinson were disasters.
WATN: Donald Trump picks Karoline Leavitt to be his propagandist stenographer to fill the White House Press Secretary job, and she becomes the youngest ever person to serve as the WH press spox.
We're basically always gonna be stuck with the election night narrative because the media has plenty of time to fill during election coverage and talks and talks and talks about the data in front of them.....and that's when virtually everyone is paying attention as well. It's assuredly below the radar of 99% of the population that Trump's "gigantic win" is down to 1.7% less than two weeks later, but unfortunately with the way the votes are counted, election night is always gonna look better for Republicans than it actually ends up being as days pass and more Democratic votes get counted.
I'll never forget how just before midnight on election night 2012 when Bob Schieffer was musing to his CBS News colleagues how it would be possible for Obama to interpret his governing mandate "having lost the popular vote" to Mitt Romney.
Another pet peeve: I do wish the news media would consistently use election maps where state sizes are adjusted according to population. Otherwise audiences easily get the bizarre idea that the USA is a Red country – or at least 80% Republican.
The Downballot gets this right! A very telling map at the top of their Tweet feed:
I watched CBS News this year, and they tilted their maps at an angle and used 3D models with vertical bars representing the population of counties. You'd see tall blue spikes surrounded by red.
Biden had a mandate from 51.3% of voting Americans. Trump does NOT have a mandate from a majority of voters. This should be underscored again and again by Democratic politicians, by pundits, and by the news media – and Trump and his nominated Cabinet members should be confronted and asked what compromises they will make to ensure support from a majority of Americans.
I wonder if we ever really will? If "generational political talent with maximum tailwinds" (Obama '08) didn't do it, and none of Trump's shitshows did...
Landslides only happen with incumbent re-elections (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, FDR). The trend in recent decades has been towards more modest re-elections (Clinton '96, Bush '04) and then actual declines (Obama '12) and now defeats for the incumbent party. No one can predict the future but I doubt that Trump's term will set up Vance for a commanding victory in 2028. Being the party in power is a net negative now, not just during midterms. Can't imagine what political environment would permit something like '64, '72, or '84 again.
Given media bubbles I think a repeat of those elections is literally impossible. Even if you had one of the candidates caught skinning a puppy alive on video, >40% of the electorate would be convinced it was a deep-fake.
In the meantime, the puppy-killer / puppy-skinner is likely to be appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. With scant attention from voters and nary a protesting voice.
Depending on your definition, I think there are several change-of-party elections that could qualify as landslides: Harding 1920, FDR 1932, Ike 1952, and Reagan 1980 among them. Tellingly, though, the last such was 44 years ago. (Obama 2008 is probably the closest we've come to that since then, and at least historically that wasn't really a landslide.)
The old definition was a 10 point plus win. Which we haven’t had since 1984. 1988 was certainly an electoral landslide. Clinton in ‘96 came close both popularly and electorally.
That's at least a nice psychological threshold to cross. Republicans went on and on in the 1990s about how Bill Clinton never got a popular vote majority. Neither has Trump, after three tries.
For that matter, Republicans overall since the 1980s are now 1 for 9 on that score.
In ME-02, Jared Golden won the RCV runoff last night, as expected. Also last night, Jim Costa was declared the winner in CA-21. This brings the House to 218–212, with just five uncalled races remaining.
Derek Tran is looking increasingly good in CA-45, and Marcy Kaptur is all but certain in OH-09. That brings us to 214. In addition, I would love to see Adam Gray pull out a win in CA-13. Apparently Gray needs just 54% of the remaining votes to squeeze out a victory.
Bohannan needs the recount to go her way in IA-01, which seems unlikely. In Alaska, Mary Peltola needs John Wayne (Howe’s) votes to break strongly for her in the RCV tabulation. That’s a long shot, but stranger things have happened in Alaskan elections.
You’re right, but it depends how you count. When they’re charting the partisan split as a result of the election, I am not aware of any news network subtracting a seat after Matt Gaetz’s recent resignation.
"So basically the House will be either 220–215 or 221–214. Depending on when Stefanik and Waltz resign, and when DeSantis can schedule a special election in Gaetz’s district, it could be 217–215 (Rs will have zero votes to spare) or 218–214 (1 vote to spare) for a short time."
Senate Dems need to get on board to confirm Stefanik and Waltz as soon as possible and then Governor Hochul needs to drag out NY-21 special for as long as possible to keep the vacancy and then also give whoever the sacrificial lamb Democrat will be time to build a ground game and get some money.
The Senate should concentrate its time on confirming as many of Biden’s judges as possible. Spending any time on hearings for and debate on Stefanik and Waltz would detract from that. Let that wait until after New Year’s.
Every confirmed Biden judge is one less extremist judge from Trump. That really matters!
Of course that's what I mean. Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet anyway. Senate confirmation would come after that. Then Hochul needs to draw out the special.
Senate floor time and the Judiciary Committee’s agenda has only so much room during this session. There are 5 circuit judges and 12 district judges awaiting confirmation. as well as 12 more awaiting hearings and/or committee votes. And those 29 are only the ones already in the pipeline.
These confirmations, and at best a few additional ones, is all there is time for.
You might be able to walk and chew gum at the same time – but that is not the way of the Senate.
Agree. One circuit judge is to have a confirmation vote on Monday. The rest are pending in Senate. There is a time issue in that I believe it takes a day or two longer to bring a circuit judge to a vote than a district court judge.
I don’t know Senate rules, but I don’t understand why Schumer doesn’t file many more clotures: 5 or 10 at a time. He ought to also consider keeping the Senate working longer hours, Fridays or even weekends. And each vote doesn’t need to take an hour.
Schumer needs to bring those judges over the goal line!
Peltola is our only shot in Alaska against Sullivan but hard to see Murkowski endorsing her in the Senate race against an incumbent as it would also imperil her own majority status. House is one thing but Senate is another.
It isn't gone yet by any means. It's trailing, but only by 1600 votes with 16k votes remaining to count, many in "no" areas. I'd wait before making a premature declaration.
I agree with these assessments, but I am slightly bullish on Gray's chances, given where most of the outstanding votes are located and the general blue-ness of late counted votes in CA...
Either way you look at it, the election results are essentially a repeat of the 2022 election results so far as the numbers are concerned. Gray last time lost by 0.04% points so if he loses again, it may end up being by a similar, smaller or slightly higher amount than back in 2022.
I estimate that there are about 35K votes left to count in CA-13, which means that to win, Gray needs about 53% of what is left. It will be close but I'm betting on Gray.
There's a good opportunity right now to start investing in rural states. Since most of these places have smaller media markets and much less people, investments tend to be far less expensive and can go further than they would in bigger and more expensive markets in bigger states. For places like Iowa, we also already have a good pool of credible candidates, many with good name recognition and at least in Montana, fair redistricting reform at the state level has allowed Ds to gain more seats. Obviously this is all long term investment that won't likely pan out overnight, but we may start reaping some rewards in places like Iowa as soon as 2026, given how bad and toxic the environment will be for the GOP by then.
Yes! Invest and build up the state-level party organizations, each of them attuned to that state’s electorate and needs. Obviously North Dakota is going to be very different from New Mexico, and Colorado different from California. In other words, a modern 50-State Strategy.
From now on, we must put forward a candidate in every race. This election, Democrats failed to challenge more than a thousand state legislative seat! (Never mind that Republicans left even more unchallenged.) That’s political malpractice and its intolerable!
Yeah, people forget how quickly things can change. It’s not all that long ago that all four Dakota senators were Democrats!
I was talking to a younger friend recently and pointed out that in summer of ‘96 several highly respected national columnists were predicting that Clinton would finish 3rd and combined with three straight 400+ EV wins by Republicans that the Democratic Party would soon cease to exist. Of course, after Clinton got 370 EV that fall, that talk quickly disappeared.
I know that now it seems like the sharply divided country will continue forever, but every “forever” in the past has failed to endure. None of us know what event(s) will makes things change, but they will.
In the unlikely event that subsidized corn crops for ethanol production are eliminated, that is something I would actually support. Seriously, we ought to get rid of ethanol in gasoline altogether.
I'm referring to cutting out high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, which is something I see them tinkering with. Yes, it's a good thing to do away with, but Dems should make hay on its impact to farmers regardless. That's good political acumen.
Yeah if RFK is really allowed to "go nuts on health", one of the first targets will be the processed garbage we put into our bodies that's almost all chock full of corn. It would be good public policy (and the one thing RFK has been a good voice for) but would send shock waves through the farm markets....not to mention hefty inflation at the supermarket that makes the 2023 price of eggs seem frivolous by comparison.
My assumption is that RFK Jr will fail to implement any of the rare good ideas he might have and will spend all his time on the craziest, most unacceptable policies instead.
John Fetterman says Democrats need to stop freaking out about everything Trump says.
Fetterman and Dan Osborn are the ones we need to be listening to in middle America. Dan Osborn had a former Bernie Sanders advisor working for him too.
In case you hadn't noticed, Fetterman won Pennsylvania, the tipping point state in America, in 2022 while Harris and every other statewide Dem lost it this year. Clearly we do need to listen to him.
This is a bit of a non sequitur. Yes, Biden would've lost by a larger margin than Harris if he hadn't dropped out. But I'm not sure what that has to do with Fetterman.
All to do with Bidens relationship with PA. It's not about candidate choice anyway its about messaging. And he knows how to message. He is not scripted and comes across as very regular. That's the point here. Not who he endorsed.
You want someone who knows how to message? Bernie Sanders has been out there for years pushing the economic populist message Democrats used to push. Before they embraced neo-liberal Clintonism.
The reason for this isn’t just that John Fetterman was an advocate for Biden but he likely also saw that from a manufacturing standpoint Biden really stimulated the economy in the rust belt. Biden also connected with union voters better than Harris.
Fetterman also endorsed and advocated for West Virginia Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott for similar reasons that he supports Biden for: Revitalization of economies that have been depressed or lacking for some time. Elliott didn’t win but he happened to be a Mayor of Wheeling, where he did work across party lines to get the city into a growing economy where it was lacking before.
I mean . .it's impossible to know the counter-factual right now. I think you're probably right, but one can argue Biden could've had a little juice in the Blue Wall to pull it out. We'll never know.
Biden right before and after the first debate was polling near where Hardis ended up polling-wise the last two weeks (he was ahead in the June Fox News poll); he only got in the hole after 3 weeks of intra-party civil war.
Yes the age thing may have crippled turnout even more but at the same time the misogyny and "woke" attacks wouldn't have landed as well either.
No, the internal polling wasn't showing anything like Harris numbers. He was losing New York, NJ, etc. we might have been left with 3 west coast states, Colorado, CT, CT and Rhode Island. We would have almost certainly lost four more Senate seats and who knows how many house seats.
What are you talking about? At his absolute nadir the worry was he'd lose MN, NH and VA. No-one ever had him losing NY or NJ let alone 45 states . .that's insanity.
We wouldn't have lost THAT many states. This isn't 1980, and Trump isn't Reagan.
But Biden would probably have lost more than Harris did. My guess is that he might have lost most or all of MN, NM, VA, NJ, NH, ME statewide (probably holding onto ME-01), and maybe one or two others, while probably losing more decisively in several states where Harris barely fell short. Which leaves him with probably a near-irreducible minimum for Dems today. And we'd have probably dropped several (many?) more House and Senate seats, as well as more offices downballot.
The difference would primarily be that Trump was campaigning all over the place throughout most of this election. Fetterman had to leave most of it to his social media.
Problem is, he said that in the context of Trump nominating Gaetz. If we can't even call all out an AG who is very likely to be a sex predator ...wtf? Fetterman may have a point that's applicable somewhere, but from this instance, it's making me question his motives.
Assuming Peltola loses, anyone wanna tank a guess what her future will be? I highly doubt she just straight up retires and fades into obscurity. She's young and still very popular and odds are better than good that 2026 will be a great year for Democrats. It's just a question of whether she chooses to run for senate, governor or her house seat once more. There's also the question of which other Democrats in Alaska may run at that time.
Casey just closed the gap another 2,400 votes and the spread is now about 18,800 votes. Looks like the latest batch came from Montgomery County according to NBC.
Seriously, if NBC's website is right and the estimated number of remaining votes in Philadelphia, Allegheny, Chester, Delaware, Erie, and Lackawanna counties is as listed, this gap is closable. The 8,000 remaining votes listed in Westmoreland County could be a problem though.
I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but one thing I noticed is how well we held up in the Richmond area of Virginia, where I live. In terms of vote share, Harris only underperformed Biden '20 by 0.3% in Henrico County and by 1.3% in the City of Richmond. She actually outperformed in Chesterfield County by 1.1% in terms of vote share. This year was actually the first time in modern history that Chesterfield County has voted more Democratic than Virginia as a whole.
When VPAP and/or DRA update their district data with the 2024 results, I'll be curious to see the numbers in HD-57, HD-73, HD-75, HD-82, and SD-12. These are all Republican-held state legislative districts in the Richmond area that are potentially winnable later this decade. Of these districts, I'd say HD-57 and HD-82 are not only the most winnable but will also be our best pickup opportunities in the entire state in 2025.
In four swing states, Harris was even able to win more raw votes than Joe Biden did four years ago: Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Adjusted for population growth, that didn’t mean much in the first three states, and Black turnout was disappointing enough to Georgia Democrats that Sen. Jon Ossoff is calling for a change in party leadership. But there was no overall decline in Democratic votes.
There was one in uncompetitive states. Trump ran stronger with non-white voters in big cities than any Republican nominee in decades. That performance looks even stronger because so many Biden voters, in places where they knew she would win, didn’t come back for Harris.
Harris won 573,622 fewer votes in the city this year than Biden did in 2020. That wasn’t just about traditional Democrats switching to Trump. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers opted not to support Harris, some leaving the top of their ballots blank.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/15/2024/democratic-turnout-plummeted-in-2024-but-only-in-safe-states
CA 45: Steel’s lead down to 58 votes.
This batch of additional OC votes was won by Tran 511 to 361, netting 150 votes for Derek. There was also a small L.A. batch that had 61 Tran and 33 Steel, another 28 vote gain. !78 votes off the previous deficit of 236 leaves the margin at 58 votes. Damn!
The winning margins in these late batches are quite good for Derek Tran. I don't expect either county to update until Monday but might check OC tomorrow. I think the lead switches in the next update, whether it is tomorrow or Monday.
OC's website indicates they will update at 5 pm on Saturday. I agree with your guess that Tran will be leading Saturday night.
I believe the small LA section of the district updates at 4 pm.
Now down to 36 votes!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/results/2024/11/05/california-house-district-45/
ME-02 - Golden has been declared the winner after ranked choice tabulations. I don’t see the exact numbers yet, but apparently his lead increased by a couple hundred votes.
And AP declared Harder the winner in CA 9. A little late.
Do we want him to run against Collins in 2026?
He'd be a pain in the ass in the senate. He also would give us our best shot at taking her out, which would absolutely be worth him being difficult with us. I always prefer a "difficult" democratic senator than any republican; if the choice were that binary it would be simple.
On the other hand, he might be the only person still able to compete for that house seat, while there are people besides Golden that could make strong runs for that senate seat.
I doubt Golden challenges Collins for personal as well as political reasons: she first brought him into government by hiring him to the staff of the Homeland Security Committee.
That aside, while he'd likely be a strong statewide candidate provided he can make it through the primary (which may require two or more liberal candidates splitting the vote), I'd prefer it if he stays where he is. While he's not the only Dem who can hold that seat--particularly if the next couple of elections prove to be blue waves or close to it--he sure makes it easier, and he's certainly not the only one capable of winning statewide, at least in an open seat race (not sure if anyone can defeat Collins unless a right wing third party candidate siphons off a significant share of her vote, and even then RCV might save her). It isn't just him or a stereotypical "Portland liberal" (as if that's a bad thing?)
Completely agree. I think we have like a 40/60 shot at best of holding that seat if he left. Best for him and for us if he just stays put.
Yes, Jared Golden is a good fit for ME-02. Theriault was probably as good a candidate as the GOP could muster, and this was a challenging election for Dems. Very good that Golden survived, if by the skin of his teeth.
Troy Jackson is our best bet from Northern Maine as Golden has apparently said he won't run against Collins.
I hope Jackson finally goes for it.
No. Far better for Democrats to choose someone in the mold of Angus King to run against Susan Collins. Even if he could win statewide, which is unlikely, Jared Golden would quickly become another Manchin-like senator. We can do better, but Collins will be difficult to unseat.
He’s not as bad as Manchin. But Troy Jackson would be better.
Better, and less risky for the House seat. Plus, I don't think we can have someone in the race who won't take the gloves off against Collins.
Golden would vote more like Angus King than like Manchin. If he voted like Manchin, he'd get primaried and any replacement level Dem would be favored to win the general.
We take the lead in the NC Supreme Court race https://x.com/BryanRAnderson/status/1857593103575576937
If that holds it might be the most important late-counting lead-swap for us this cycle, unless Casey pulls off the same.
Forsyth county (Winston-Salem) is still outstanding, so there’s hope that the lead holds!
That is outstanding news!!
Good news.
Jeez! Riggs’ lead is now a mere 24 votes. Hope that holds and increases, otherwise we’re probably looking at a litigated post-election mess.
Any ray of sunshine (however faint) is welcome in this Darkest Timeline.
Spot on! May I propose this weekend be dedicated to good food, good intoxicants and long walks?
(also football, without the PTSD from battleground state political ads)
Speaking of football, I now have Clemson-Pitt, tOSU-Northwestern, Utah-Colorado, and Texas-Arkansas on my quad view right now. It's go time!
Weekend already off to a poor start after the huge waste of time that was the Mike Tyson v Jake Paul fight, though idk what I was expecting
If I was into boxing, I would probably have watched the Serrano–Taylor fight and then turned it off before the farce started. I understand the women boxers fought an excellent match.
It was a really good undercard, especially since the two fights before it were fine but meh (though it was cool seeing India’s first major pro winning a decision)
Yep; went to bed way too late staying up for that garbage. I knew Tyson would likely look old as the fight went on but didn't expect him to have absolutely no legs by the 2nd round.
Especially since he looked surprisingly sharp in all his training videos.
Well, the definition of a really good boxer or football player is one who is able to correct his or her errors on the instant replay.
/s
Actually lots of rays of sunshine in NC. Won the four most important Council of State races(Gov, Lt. Gov, AG, Super of Public Instruction). Plus, two of the Republican wins (Ag, Insurance) are people who have done an excellent job and didn’t need to be replaced (I voted for both, my only Republican votes).
Lt. Gov is really important since unlike Gov. Cooper, Gov. Stein will be able to leave the state without having to worry about the Lt. Gov wreaking havoc! Both Forrest and Robinson were disasters.
NC Board of Elections site shows Riggs with a 24 vote lead.
Decision Desk calls CA 21 for Costa. AP as well.
WATN: Donald Trump picks Karoline Leavitt to be his propagandist stenographer to fill the White House Press Secretary job, and she becomes the youngest ever person to serve as the WH press spox.
Leavitt previously ran for Congress in 2022.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/trump-karoline-leavitt-white-house-press-secretary-1236063554/
Trump has fallen below 50% of the popular vote. With 152.7M votes counted, he leads Harris 49.99%-48.22%.
https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1857627332107751787
Yes, but MSM is using the terms decisive, landslide, mandate. No, most Americans don't want a fucking fascist dictatorship.
We're basically always gonna be stuck with the election night narrative because the media has plenty of time to fill during election coverage and talks and talks and talks about the data in front of them.....and that's when virtually everyone is paying attention as well. It's assuredly below the radar of 99% of the population that Trump's "gigantic win" is down to 1.7% less than two weeks later, but unfortunately with the way the votes are counted, election night is always gonna look better for Republicans than it actually ends up being as days pass and more Democratic votes get counted.
I'll never forget how just before midnight on election night 2012 when Bob Schieffer was musing to his CBS News colleagues how it would be possible for Obama to interpret his governing mandate "having lost the popular vote" to Mitt Romney.
Another pet peeve: I do wish the news media would consistently use election maps where state sizes are adjusted according to population. Otherwise audiences easily get the bizarre idea that the USA is a Red country – or at least 80% Republican.
The Downballot gets this right! A very telling map at the top of their Tweet feed:
https://nitter.poast.org/downballotnews
I watched CBS News this year, and they tilted their maps at an angle and used 3D models with vertical bars representing the population of counties. You'd see tall blue spikes surrounded by red.
Biden had a mandate from 51.3% of voting Americans. Trump does NOT have a mandate from a majority of voters. This should be underscored again and again by Democratic politicians, by pundits, and by the news media – and Trump and his nominated Cabinet members should be confronted and asked what compromises they will make to ensure support from a majority of Americans.
Arguably, we haven’t had a real landslide since 1984.
I wonder if we ever really will? If "generational political talent with maximum tailwinds" (Obama '08) didn't do it, and none of Trump's shitshows did...
Landslides only happen with incumbent re-elections (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, FDR). The trend in recent decades has been towards more modest re-elections (Clinton '96, Bush '04) and then actual declines (Obama '12) and now defeats for the incumbent party. No one can predict the future but I doubt that Trump's term will set up Vance for a commanding victory in 2028. Being the party in power is a net negative now, not just during midterms. Can't imagine what political environment would permit something like '64, '72, or '84 again.
Given media bubbles I think a repeat of those elections is literally impossible. Even if you had one of the candidates caught skinning a puppy alive on video, >40% of the electorate would be convinced it was a deep-fake.
Depending on which half of the electorate, you could even see them come out in support of it.
In the meantime, the puppy-killer / puppy-skinner is likely to be appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. With scant attention from voters and nary a protesting voice.
Depending on your definition, I think there are several change-of-party elections that could qualify as landslides: Harding 1920, FDR 1932, Ike 1952, and Reagan 1980 among them. Tellingly, though, the last such was 44 years ago. (Obama 2008 is probably the closest we've come to that since then, and at least historically that wasn't really a landslide.)
Eh unless one has an unrealistically strict definition I'd call 1988 and 2008 landslides. I'll leave 1996 arguable given the unique Perot impact.
The old definition was a 10 point plus win. Which we haven’t had since 1984. 1988 was certainly an electoral landslide. Clinton in ‘96 came close both popularly and electorally.
yeah, I was thinking around 55% popular vote
From 1920-1984, 12 of the 17 elections were popular and electoral vote landslides.
I’d say ‘88, too. 400+EVs is pretty strong. But I agree none since then.
Is the MSM (by that I mean real sources like NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ etc.) really using those terms? I've yet to see it...
That's at least a nice psychological threshold to cross. Republicans went on and on in the 1990s about how Bill Clinton never got a popular vote majority. Neither has Trump, after three tries.
For that matter, Republicans overall since the 1980s are now 1 for 9 on that score.
the "999" aspect would maybe make Herman Cain haunt him. That would be fun.
In ME-02, Jared Golden won the RCV runoff last night, as expected. Also last night, Jim Costa was declared the winner in CA-21. This brings the House to 218–212, with just five uncalled races remaining.
Derek Tran is looking increasingly good in CA-45, and Marcy Kaptur is all but certain in OH-09. That brings us to 214. In addition, I would love to see Adam Gray pull out a win in CA-13. Apparently Gray needs just 54% of the remaining votes to squeeze out a victory.
Bohannan needs the recount to go her way in IA-01, which seems unlikely. In Alaska, Mary Peltola needs John Wayne (Howe’s) votes to break strongly for her in the RCV tabulation. That’s a long shot, but stranger things have happened in Alaskan elections.
Isn't it 217-212 since Florida already has a vacancy?
You’re right, but it depends how you count. When they’re charting the partisan split as a result of the election, I am not aware of any news network subtracting a seat after Matt Gaetz’s recent resignation.
"So basically the House will be either 220–215 or 221–214. Depending on when Stefanik and Waltz resign, and when DeSantis can schedule a special election in Gaetz’s district, it could be 217–215 (Rs will have zero votes to spare) or 218–214 (1 vote to spare) for a short time."
– Adam Carlson
Senate Dems need to get on board to confirm Stefanik and Waltz as soon as possible and then Governor Hochul needs to drag out NY-21 special for as long as possible to keep the vacancy and then also give whoever the sacrificial lamb Democrat will be time to build a ground game and get some money.
The Senate should concentrate its time on confirming as many of Biden’s judges as possible. Spending any time on hearings for and debate on Stefanik and Waltz would detract from that. Let that wait until after New Year’s.
Every confirmed Biden judge is one less extremist judge from Trump. That really matters!
Of course that's what I mean. Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet anyway. Senate confirmation would come after that. Then Hochul needs to draw out the special.
They can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Senate floor time and the Judiciary Committee’s agenda has only so much room during this session. There are 5 circuit judges and 12 district judges awaiting confirmation. as well as 12 more awaiting hearings and/or committee votes. And those 29 are only the ones already in the pipeline.
These confirmations, and at best a few additional ones, is all there is time for.
You might be able to walk and chew gum at the same time – but that is not the way of the Senate.
Especially those 5 circuit judges - there’s no bigger priority right now than getting them over the line
Agree. One circuit judge is to have a confirmation vote on Monday. The rest are pending in Senate. There is a time issue in that I believe it takes a day or two longer to bring a circuit judge to a vote than a district court judge.
I don’t know Senate rules, but I don’t understand why Schumer doesn’t file many more clotures: 5 or 10 at a time. He ought to also consider keeping the Senate working longer hours, Fridays or even weekends. And each vote doesn’t need to take an hour.
Schumer needs to bring those judges over the goal line!
Alaska: Decision Desk projects that Begich wins.
https://x.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1857814870655115338
Peltola is our only shot in Alaska against Sullivan but hard to see Murkowski endorsing her in the Senate race against an incumbent as it would also imperil her own majority status. House is one thing but Senate is another.
If only that was a headline from 10 years ago.
Also a problem that ranked choice is now gone in Alaska.
It isn't gone yet by any means. It's trailing, but only by 1600 votes with 16k votes remaining to count, many in "no" areas. I'd wait before making a premature declaration.
My mistake
House Update: Called Races NYT R218 D212 Leading Races R4 D1
Totals R 221 D213 1 vacancy
Most likely R 220 D 214 1 vacancy
#AK1 Begich leading by 9,434 Most Likely R
#CA13 Duarte leading by 2,004 Tossup?
#IA01 Meeks leading by 801 Most likely R
#CA45 Steele leads by 58 Likely D
#OH09 Kaptur leads by 1,193 Most likely D
I agree with these assessments, but I am slightly bullish on Gray's chances, given where most of the outstanding votes are located and the general blue-ness of late counted votes in CA...
Either way you look at it, the election results are essentially a repeat of the 2022 election results so far as the numbers are concerned. Gray last time lost by 0.04% points so if he loses again, it may end up being by a similar, smaller or slightly higher amount than back in 2022.
I estimate that there are about 35K votes left to count in CA-13, which means that to win, Gray needs about 53% of what is left. It will be close but I'm betting on Gray.
There's a good opportunity right now to start investing in rural states. Since most of these places have smaller media markets and much less people, investments tend to be far less expensive and can go further than they would in bigger and more expensive markets in bigger states. For places like Iowa, we also already have a good pool of credible candidates, many with good name recognition and at least in Montana, fair redistricting reform at the state level has allowed Ds to gain more seats. Obviously this is all long term investment that won't likely pan out overnight, but we may start reaping some rewards in places like Iowa as soon as 2026, given how bad and toxic the environment will be for the GOP by then.
Yes! Invest and build up the state-level party organizations, each of them attuned to that state’s electorate and needs. Obviously North Dakota is going to be very different from New Mexico, and Colorado different from California. In other words, a modern 50-State Strategy.
From now on, we must put forward a candidate in every race. This election, Democrats failed to challenge more than a thousand state legislative seat! (Never mind that Republicans left even more unchallenged.) That’s political malpractice and its intolerable!
Yeah, people forget how quickly things can change. It’s not all that long ago that all four Dakota senators were Democrats!
I was talking to a younger friend recently and pointed out that in summer of ‘96 several highly respected national columnists were predicting that Clinton would finish 3rd and combined with three straight 400+ EV wins by Republicans that the Democratic Party would soon cease to exist. Of course, after Clinton got 370 EV that fall, that talk quickly disappeared.
I know that now it seems like the sharply divided country will continue forever, but every “forever” in the past has failed to endure. None of us know what event(s) will makes things change, but they will.
That must have been 1992. Clinton was always the heavy favorite in 1996.
Right, I meant 1992.
I say they get ready to capitalize once Rs start moving to throw corn farmers under the bus.
In the unlikely event that subsidized corn crops for ethanol production are eliminated, that is something I would actually support. Seriously, we ought to get rid of ethanol in gasoline altogether.
I'm referring to cutting out high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, which is something I see them tinkering with. Yes, it's a good thing to do away with, but Dems should make hay on its impact to farmers regardless. That's good political acumen.
The tariffs would also kill Iowa's economy especially after foreign countries retaliate by putting tariffs on us.
Yeah if RFK is really allowed to "go nuts on health", one of the first targets will be the processed garbage we put into our bodies that's almost all chock full of corn. It would be good public policy (and the one thing RFK has been a good voice for) but would send shock waves through the farm markets....not to mention hefty inflation at the supermarket that makes the 2023 price of eggs seem frivolous by comparison.
Exactly. It’s the thing where, I hate to say it, he’s right on the merits but he’s also the last person I’d trust to implement such a policy
My assumption is that RFK Jr will fail to implement any of the rare good ideas he might have and will spend all his time on the craziest, most unacceptable policies instead.
Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, eastern Iowa, shoring up Minnesota and Wisconsin, inroads into Indiana...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-fetterman-says-democrats-need-stop-freaking-everything-trump-rcna180270
John Fetterman says Democrats need to stop freaking out about everything Trump says.
Fetterman and Dan Osborn are the ones we need to be listening to in middle America. Dan Osborn had a former Bernie Sanders advisor working for him too.
The last thing we need is to listen to John Fetterman.
In case you hadn't noticed, Fetterman won Pennsylvania, the tipping point state in America, in 2022 while Harris and every other statewide Dem lost it this year. Clearly we do need to listen to him.
Had we listened to him, Biden would have not dropped out and would gone down to a bigger defeat, possibly taking 3-4 more senate seats with him.
This is a bit of a non sequitur. Yes, Biden would've lost by a larger margin than Harris if he hadn't dropped out. But I'm not sure what that has to do with Fetterman.
Fetterman was insistent that Biden stay in. And attacked those who wanted him to drop out. And this is who we should be taking political advice from?
All to do with Bidens relationship with PA. It's not about candidate choice anyway its about messaging. And he knows how to message. He is not scripted and comes across as very regular. That's the point here. Not who he endorsed.
You want someone who knows how to message? Bernie Sanders has been out there for years pushing the economic populist message Democrats used to push. Before they embraced neo-liberal Clintonism.
The reason for this isn’t just that John Fetterman was an advocate for Biden but he likely also saw that from a manufacturing standpoint Biden really stimulated the economy in the rust belt. Biden also connected with union voters better than Harris.
Fetterman also endorsed and advocated for West Virginia Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott for similar reasons that he supports Biden for: Revitalization of economies that have been depressed or lacking for some time. Elliott didn’t win but he happened to be a Mayor of Wheeling, where he did work across party lines to get the city into a growing economy where it was lacking before.
I mean . .it's impossible to know the counter-factual right now. I think you're probably right, but one can argue Biden could've had a little juice in the Blue Wall to pull it out. We'll never know.
Polling this election was fairly accurate. And polling showed Biden getting creamed. We'd likely have lost 43-45 states.
Biden right before and after the first debate was polling near where Hardis ended up polling-wise the last two weeks (he was ahead in the June Fox News poll); he only got in the hole after 3 weeks of intra-party civil war.
Yes the age thing may have crippled turnout even more but at the same time the misogyny and "woke" attacks wouldn't have landed as well either.
That’s right. It was the “intra-party civil war.” Nothing else happened.
And Biden was trailing by an average 3 points in the national vote at the time he dropped out. Harris was running even.
No, the internal polling wasn't showing anything like Harris numbers. He was losing New York, NJ, etc. we might have been left with 3 west coast states, Colorado, CT, CT and Rhode Island. We would have almost certainly lost four more Senate seats and who knows how many house seats.
What are you talking about? At his absolute nadir the worry was he'd lose MN, NH and VA. No-one ever had him losing NY or NJ let alone 45 states . .that's insanity.
... It was Biden's internal polling, widely reported on last week. He was getting destroyed. The party didn't just overthrow Biden for nothing.
It was a completely unverified claim from Jon Favreau.
We wouldn't have lost THAT many states. This isn't 1980, and Trump isn't Reagan.
But Biden would probably have lost more than Harris did. My guess is that he might have lost most or all of MN, NM, VA, NJ, NH, ME statewide (probably holding onto ME-01), and maybe one or two others, while probably losing more decisively in several states where Harris barely fell short. Which leaves him with probably a near-irreducible minimum for Dems today. And we'd have probably dropped several (many?) more House and Senate seats, as well as more offices downballot.
I don't actually know if Fetterman won that election or if his social media manager did it for him.
Interesting. Although that is a bit like asking whether Trump won the election, or Elon Musk did it for him.
The difference would primarily be that Trump was campaigning all over the place throughout most of this election. Fetterman had to leave most of it to his social media.
Problem is, he said that in the context of Trump nominating Gaetz. If we can't even call all out an AG who is very likely to be a sex predator ...wtf? Fetterman may have a point that's applicable somewhere, but from this instance, it's making me question his motives.
Assuming Peltola loses, anyone wanna tank a guess what her future will be? I highly doubt she just straight up retires and fades into obscurity. She's young and still very popular and odds are better than good that 2026 will be a great year for Democrats. It's just a question of whether she chooses to run for senate, governor or her house seat once more. There's also the question of which other Democrats in Alaska may run at that time.
I think she’ll run next time. I would guess for the House because it’ll be an easier race. Unless Sullivan retires
Nothing to lose to run against Sullivan in 2026.
Yep if it's a strong blue year that race is winnable.
Who's easier to beat, Begich or Sullivan? That will be the biggest question on her mind for 2026.
Begich I would assume because she would also get Murkowskis endorsement. But an entrenched Republican in Alaska is hard to dislodge in either case.
Casey just closed the gap another 2,400 votes and the spread is now about 18,800 votes. Looks like the latest batch came from Montgomery County according to NBC.
Seriously, if NBC's website is right and the estimated number of remaining votes in Philadelphia, Allegheny, Chester, Delaware, Erie, and Lackawanna counties is as listed, this gap is closable. The 8,000 remaining votes listed in Westmoreland County could be a problem though.
The rest of Montgomery County comes in 2,511-1,220 Casey. McCormick's lead now down to 17,501.
I really appreciate how you're keeping track of this!
I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but one thing I noticed is how well we held up in the Richmond area of Virginia, where I live. In terms of vote share, Harris only underperformed Biden '20 by 0.3% in Henrico County and by 1.3% in the City of Richmond. She actually outperformed in Chesterfield County by 1.1% in terms of vote share. This year was actually the first time in modern history that Chesterfield County has voted more Democratic than Virginia as a whole.
When VPAP and/or DRA update their district data with the 2024 results, I'll be curious to see the numbers in HD-57, HD-73, HD-75, HD-82, and SD-12. These are all Republican-held state legislative districts in the Richmond area that are potentially winnable later this decade. Of these districts, I'd say HD-57 and HD-82 are not only the most winnable but will also be our best pickup opportunities in the entire state in 2025.
I noticed that too. Chesterfield County was one of the MVPs of the 2024 cycle.