The News of the Day

As a reminder, we are breaking format today. We're going to run down the main news stories of the day in capsule form, then we'll have some reader comments on the election accompanied by responses from us. The headline theme will be back next week.

If you like, or dislike, the "In Conversation" approach (see below), you should let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. We might give over another day to it next week, and we might even consider making it a regular feature (just one "In conversation," though, not four like today).

And now, the news of the day:

• Trump Makes His Pick: Donald Trump has made his first important hiring decision, tapping campaign co-chair Susie Wiles as his chief of staff. On one hand, during his first term, Trump changed chiefs of staff frequently. So, maybe Wiles is not long for the job. On the other hand, during his first campaign, Trump changed campaign managers frequently. He didn't do that this time, so maybe Wiles is a Trump whisperer, and won't get cashiered after a little more than 6 months, the way Reince Priebus did last time (he made it 192 days, or 17.4 Scaramuccis).
  
  
• The Spoils of Victory? (Part I): Trump may have made one staffing decision, but from here, it gets harder. It turns out there are way more people expecting plum jobs than there are plum jobs. So, the war is already underway, and it's expected to be bloody.
  
  
• Stuck on You: One job that Trump apparently will not be filling is that of Chair of the Federal Reserve. Although the once and future president ran, in part, against the guy that he himself appointed to the post, campaign insiders say he's not likely to try to fire Jerome Powell. This is not surprising, since Powell has been pretty effective, and Trump would struggle to find someone better. Further, Powell can't actually be fired by the president, so there's also that.
  
  
• Casey Loses?: With 98% reporting, and David McCormick (R) up on Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), 49% to 48.4%, the Associated Press has called the race for McCormick. That said, Casey has refused to concede, and other outlets have declined to make a call. In still-uncalled Arizona, Ruben Gallego (D) is up on Kari Lake (R), 49.8% to 48.1%, with 76% reporting. In still-uncalled Nevada, Jacky Rosen (D) is up on Sam Brown (R), 47.8% to 46.5%, with 96% reporting.
  
  
• The House Is Still in Doubt: At the moment, 212 House seats have been called for the Republican Party, while 200 have been called for the Democrats. It takes 218 to control the chamber, so the GOP is much closer to the promised land. On the other hand, the Democrats had a pretty good day yesterday, flipping three seats (to zero for the Republicans). So, the current total is six flips for the red team, five for the blue.
  
  
• They Are Still Counting: We had numerous readers who wrote in and took us (angrily) to task for writing about the gap between Kamala Harris' vote total and Joe Biden's vote total, since not all of the 2024 ballots have been counted. As of this writing, Donald Trump is a bit over 73 million votes, while Kamala Harris is a bit over 69 million votes. Even once all the votes are counted, Trump is going to be in the ballpark of his 2020 total, while Harris is going to lag Biden by at least 5 million votes, and probably more.
  
  
• A New Breed: San Francisco mayor London Breed has conceded, meaning she lost to a moderate Democratic nepo baby with no political experience, Daniel Lurie (heir to the Levi Strauss fortune). It is a very clear indication that this was a "throw the bums out" election, and not a good time to be an incumbent.
  
  
• Declarations of Independence: In a first for a presidential election, the number of independent voters exceeded the number of registered Democratic voters, and tied the number of registered Republican voters. What, exactly, this means will be a question of much interest over the next few years.
  
  
• The Spoils of Victory? (Part II): Very soon, Donald Trump will have to start dealing with the difference between "campaign promise" and "reality." Already, his stance on immigration is getting mushy. On one hand, he says the deportations will go forward, and he doesn't care about the price tag. On the other hand, he now also says that "We want people to come in," presumably having noticed that the economy, and the businesses of many of his donors, depend on immigrant labor. Oh, and not caring about the price tag might sound good, but might not fly, given cost estimates between $300 billion and multiple trillions.
  
  
• The Spoils of Victory? (Part III): You might think a Trump victory would be good news for Big Oil. And you might well be wrong. Despite Trump's promises to "drill, baby, drill," and his claim that he would reduce gas prices by 50%, the fact is that petroleum producers are already, of their own volition, reducing production. Demand for oil is trending downward, and they don't want to flood the market. The industry also worries that Trumpy tariffs could cut into profits and could cut off access to some foreign markets.
  
  
• The Race Has Begun: Yesterday, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) called for a special session of the California legislature to "Trump-proof" the state's laws regarding things like the environment, immigration and reproductive rights. This is basically political theater that reminds us of two things: (1) California is going to position itself as headquarters of "the resistance," and (2) Newsom is running for president in 2028, and has already commenced his campaign.
  
  
• The Hard Truth: Truth Social still offers the opportunity for Trump fanboys and fangirls to "own" a piece of their hero, the same way the Green Bay Packers sell "stock" in the team when they need to make improvements at Lambeau Field. Truth Social "investments" also potentially allow for people who want to "influence" Trump to (sort of) give him money in a way that is ostensibly legal. Nobody can know how those dynamics will play out over the next 4 years. On the other hand, Trump wants to make money from his DJT stock. It closed at $27.69 yesterday, down from $54.68 as recently as Oct. 29, 2024. How is he going to sell millions of shares without the stock collapsing completely? Does he care more about attention or money? Tough question.
  
  However, one thing that is clear is that the platform's core business, to the extent that it has a core business, is about to take a big hit. Donald Trump's agreement with Truth Social exempts "political communications" from the requirement that the platform gets "first dibs." As of Tuesday, everything he sends out is "political communications." And there is no doubt he will shift over to his buddy Elon Musk's platform, since that is a MUCH louder megaphone. Since Trump is Truth Social's only real product, it is soon going to be a ghost town.
  
  
• Speaking of the Packers: As of this moment, former Packers and current New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers is +3000 (30-to-1) to be elected president in 2028, as an independent. Meanwhile, the Jets' odds to win the Super Bowl this year are +6600 (66-to-1). So, he's more than twice as likely to be president than to win the 2025 Super Bowl, apparently. Does this tell us that there are a lot of poorly informed voters out there? That literally anyone can be president these days? That nobody has any idea what the presidential field for 2028 will look like? Maybe all of the above.
  
  
• Bro Fest: In today's least surprising news story, Vladimir Putin said yesterday that he looks forward to talking to "manly" Donald Trump. Putin knows that shallow flattery won't get you anywhere... except with Donald Trump.

And that's the way it is. (Z)

In Conversation: Pointing the Finger

As you might imagine, we got a lot of letters from folks trying to figure out what went wrong for Kamala Harris and the Democrats:

R.C. in North Hollywood, CA, writes: CNN's exit pollsters asked voters about their financial situation and matched it with their presidential choice:

• Those who said "Better than 4 years ago" broke for Harris by 68%.
• Those who said "About the same": Harris +41%.
• Those who said "Worse than 4 years ago": Trump +64%.
• "Worse" was 46% of voters, "Same" was 30%, "Better" was 24%.

The economy is getting better, but a lot of people are still behind. The pandemic and inflation depleted their savings, and high interest rates are making it very hard to buy a home or pay off debt.

There will be a lot of second-guessing about choices the Democrats made, but the fact is that with that many people feeling that bad about the economy—which really means "their personal finances"—it would have been very, very hard for any Democrat to win.

---

O.D. in Lisbon, Portugal, writes: I can't help but think that Joe Biden is responsible for this debacle. I haven't seen any reaction from the president so far. Maybe he's angry and bitter because he thinks he could have done better. He's wrong. His candidacy was doomed. By seeking a second term and dropping out so close to the election, he forced the Democrats to rush through a new candidate.

Maybe Kamala was the best candidate given the circumstances, but she wasn't the best the Democrats had to offer. Indeed, she didn't inspire many people in 2020. And this year, she didn't inspire enough, even though she ran a better campaign than I expected (in truth, I didn't expect much from her, so the bar was low to clear).

Biden should have confirmed early that he would not seek a second term so that Democrats could have a meaningful primary. In 2020, he was the hero who prevented a second term for Trump. It turns out he only delayed it.

---

S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: Let's be honest, Kamala truly had no substance. Trump owned the issues except abortion, and the people remember the economy under the Trump years as being significantly better. This is also a referendum on DEI. The men of this country all know of or have personally experienced a case where an unqualified woman was given a position or promotion that the man was better qualified for. Women voted early, but the men turned out on Election Day.

---

B.B. in Detroit, MI, writes: I have been saying this to friends and family for years, but yesterday's results offered further support, if not confirmation of the following: The Obamas have to go away! In their own way, they are as divisive as Trump, maybe even more so. I believe that a significant percentage of the polarization of the country can be blamed on them. To be clear, I voted for him twice and might well vote for him again if he were eligible (he's not) and I thought he could win (unlikely), but he and his wife are divisive, polarizing figures that do NOT help the Democrats win elections.

Barack Obama was a remarkably ineffective president, despite his obvious intellect and preternatural speaking talent. With an overwhelming advantage in the Senate, he did nothing about assault weapons, abortion, or gerrymandering, all of which he could have advocated. He spent his capital on health care, which, to be fair, appears to be working reasonably well, but that effort offered a sledgehammer issue to Republicans, which they used to short circuit the remainder of his first term. He offered no significant response to Vladimir Putin's incursion into Crimea, emboldening that dictator rather than confronting him. His response to the economic meltdown was milquetoast.

He made such a good choice for vice president that I hardly believe it was actually his decision. But then, after providing a vehicle for racist backlash for 8 years—and we are a very racist country—he then bypassed his man-of-the-people VP to also provide a vehicle for misogynist backlash against a woman more qualified than him but whom few liked, even many (like me) who voted for her.

The Democratic party trots out Barack and Michelle every election as if that is going to increase their appeal to voters. Can everyone finally admit they DON'T? Both are super-smart accomplished people who project the smartest-person-in-the-room vibe whenever they get behind a microphone. They both talk down to people and otherwise preach to the choir. Who in the world thinks that approach helps with the high school graduates who work at a tire store or sell clothing at a department store (with apologies for the blue-collar stereotypes)? Put yourself in their shoes and listen to a speech by either Obama versus a speech by Trump. Who do you think is talking to you and who is talking at you?

The Democratic Party—and I include Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi with the Obamas—makes one mistake after another, and every mistake costs them another state in the Electoral College. Ohio is gone; Florida is gone; is Pennsylvania (Biden's home state) gone? Obama's initial election, historic though it may be, was badly timed and a therefore a mistake. Choosing Hillary after Obama, instead of before, was a mistake. Replacing Biden late in the campaign was a mistake, and then replacing him with an unknown woman of color was a mistake. Obviously it doesn't help when they are running against a man who lies with every breath, but that is not what a huge number of people see. They feel they are being patronized by the Democrats in general and by the Obamas specifically. Neither Obama has what might be called the common touch. Both come across as elite and effete (descriptors that might well apply to me). And Barack Obama's decision to chastise—chastise, for crying out loud—young Black men for not turning out hurt the Democrats more than it helped. Does anybody in the Democratic establishment see that?

I think Biden would have won in 2016 and I think he would not have done any worse than Harris in 2024. The blue wall might have fallen anyway, but it would have held better for Biden than it did for her.

Thank the Obamas for their service and send them on a 10-year trip around the world.

There, I got that off my chest and can now stop hectoring my wife about it.

---

A.L in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: As a computer engineer, it is not lost on me that this is the first presidential election that has been fully impacted by autonomous artificially intelligent bots. This certainly isn't the first election we've had systems at the helm, but one of the first where much of the information people have read on the election was likely generated by a GPT. I personally believe this is the reason for the massive Democratic loss, that there is no one reason: every single voter had a reason perfectly tailored for them, based on the context of their lives. I believe this is yet another moralistic position liberals must wrestle with, as the Republicans are clearly and without a doubt using this tooling to their great benefit. Every single voter was bombarded with content specifically generated for their brains. If Obama was elected with Twitter, Trump was re-elected with ChatGPT.

There are already hundreds of thought pieces out there on this subject. Our view, with the benefit of 48 hours' reflection (admittedly not much), is that this election was about forces that were beyond the control of politicians. The pandemic swept Donald Trump out of office, and then its aftereffects put him right back in office. The whole world was affected by the pandemic in a similar way, and the entire world has reacted in a similar way, often favoring populists and authoritarians but, even more commonly, favoring "something different." That the Democrats took a pasting everywhere, and in nearly every "competitive" race, indicates that this was about something larger than Kamala Harris or her campaign. Long-time Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) didn't lose to a carpetbagging hedge fund manager who lives in Connecticut due to any mistake Kamala Harris made. The voters were angry and he was collateral damage.

We do tend to agree that, in 2024, it was "the economy, stupid." However, we don't agree with the argument that the Democrats should have realized that, and proceeded accordingly. The blue team, from Harris on down, knew that was THE issue. It was not a secret, poll after poll showed it to be the case. The problem is that such insight isn't really actionable. Politicians, even presidents, have relatively little power to affect the economy for the better. They have even less power to affect people's perceptions of the economy. If this was going to be an "economy" election—and that is what it turned out to be—then woe be unto anyone who is associated with the current regime. (Z)

In Conversation: Better Luck Next Time?

The "twin" to the "what went wrong" letters (and op-eds, etc.) are the "How do the Democrats do better next time?" letters (and op-eds, etc.):

K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: As devastating of a result as Tuesday was—and let's not minimize it, because it is absolutely devastating for all of the people Trump wants to target—I hope that Democrats take away a few key lessons from this loss so that we can somehow recover from this:

1. American voters are not ready for a female president. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris have lost to someone who could charitably be described as a monster. Not only did they suffer a penalty for being women, but female voters did not vote in solidarity with the female candidates who went up against a man who bragged on tape about sexual assault and has been found liable for sexual assault in a court of law. This obviously makes me very sad to say, since we might not see a female president for many more years (decades?) to come.
   
   
2. It is a waste of time trying to appeal to mythical "moderate Republicans." They no longer exist. They're either Democrats now or independents. The Republican Party is the MAGA Party now. The Harris campaign gambled that they could woo enough moderate Republicans in the homestretch to offset losses among the working class. Her campaign repeatedly talked about how it was going to help the middle class instead of what it was going to do for the working class. She barely even attempted to pin the blame for inflation on greedy corporations. It failed spectacularly.
   
   
3. Unyielding support for Israel—even when its far-right government is committing heinous war crimes and setting the stage for more illegal land seizures—is politically toxic. Democrats lost the overwhelming support from Arab Americans that they previously enjoyed. Combined with the young progressives who either voted for Jill Stein or stayed home, it was easily enough to cost Harris Michigan (and probably Wisconsin, too).

In a stunning rebuke of the Democrats, Dearborn (which has a majority Arab-American population) went for Trump. Dearborn is part of Wayne County, which is also home to other large Arab-American communities. Trump did four points better and received 20,000 more votes in Wayne County than he did in 2020. Harris received 61,000 fewer votes than Biden in Wayne County. In other words, the shift in Wayne County alone was enough to tip the state.

---

W.V. in San Jacinto, CA, writes: Last time I wrote in to Electoral-Vote.com, my argument was published the day Joe Biden dropped out and I said that the problem is Trump is winning with a "Trump Strong/Biden Weak" message. I was thrilled to see Biden replaced by a younger, more assertive fighter. But while door knocking out-of-state (Arizona and Nevada) in October, I still noticed the same type of short, memorable messaging used by the Trump campaign and observed that Harris had not developed an alternative. Driving in Mohave and Clark counties I saw sign after sign that said "Harris: High Taxes/Trump: Low Taxes." Or "Harris: Open Borders/Trump: Secure Borders."

It was the same, short, easy messaging that could be noted and digested in an instant. Which meant it could fit on a lawn sign, or, dozens of lawn signs repeated down a main road, reinforcing the groupthink. Just like in 2016, when Trump's main messages were each 3 words long (Build the Wall, Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up), the 2024 Trump had an easy message to get across; "They broke it, I'll fix it." And they drove it home often enough that it stuck. Now, Harris voters, think to yourself, if you could distill Harris' message in 3 seconds or less, what was it? What simple, repeatable message did she drive home to voters? Abstract messages like "Freedom"? Or "Joy"? Targeted first-time homebuilder credits? How about trying to explain tariffs? "If you're explaining, you're losing" said St. Ronnie of Reagan and Harris supporters needed to explain every proposal. Once again, Harris went with complicated policy proposals that needed time and attention to understand, instead of something simple like "They don't care, I do." or "He's a criminal, I'm a cop."

I used to coach my school's academic decathlon team and the advice I would give them when writing their theme for prepared speech was "If you can't explain what your speech is about in 7 seconds, you don't know what your speech is about." I have thought about this for the past several weeks: "What was the Harris equivalent to the 3 word Trump slogans?" or "Why does it take so long to explain her proposals?" Every time I try to explain why voting for her would be good, it always took longer than 7 seconds. And let's face it, the average TikTok scroller won't even give you 7 seconds... you're lucky to get 2.

Trump and his voters could do it in 2 seconds. Harris and her voters couldn't. They overlooked the power of a simple message that supports the brand.

---

D.F. in Birmingham, AL, writes: The Democratic party needs to change course. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is what Donald Trump has tapped into. The harder Democrats have pushed to the left, the harder Trump has pulled the GOP to the right. The answer is simple: Come back close to the center, where the bulk of America wants to be voting. From that position, sane people won't have to choose between two unpalatable extremes.

The money doesn't matter. Raise and spend to your heart's content, it isn't winning voters. It won't beat Ted Cruz, or Rick Scott, or Trump. Just stop. Find out what the Trump team did (for far less money), and figure out how to do that better.

---

A.O. in Cornelius, NC, writes: Well, here we are, post-election, and it's hard to ignore what played a massive role: the Democratic Party's struggle with men. We didn't just lose ground with one group—we failed with all men. White men, Black men, Latino men. Across different demographics, men are moving away from the Democratic Party, and it's not hard to see why, if we're willing to be honest.

Consider the crisis points. The male suicide rate is almost four times higher than that of women, yet Democratic leaders barely talk about men's mental health. Life expectancy for men is falling, but public health conversations don't address why men are dying younger. These issues are absent from our platform.

The educational gap is another glaring issue. Men's college enrollment and graduation rates continue to decline, and boys consistently lag behind girls in literacy from a young age. Today, the gender gap in bachelor's degrees is exactly the inverse of what it was in the 1970s, yet where is the focus on helping boys and young men succeed? Democrats talk about education broadly, but we don't acknowledge the specific struggles boys face.

Men's voting patterns this election speak volumes. The numbers are staring us right in the face, but nobody seems to be addressing them. Across racial and socioeconomic lines, men overwhelmingly broke for the other side. It's clear that our messaging and policies are failing to connect with men and it cost us a Trump presidency.

It's no wonder men feel overlooked. They are. The lack of focus from Democrats on issues directly affecting men is driving them away, and we need to acknowledge that if we want to turn things around. Taking these challenges seriously isn't just a policy necessity—it's critical to our electoral success.

---

V.G. in New York City, NY, writes: Post mortem. Maybe Kamala Harris couldn't have won anyway, but I think the campaign made a mistake at the very beginning. Instead of treating the economy as a liability, she should have treated it as an asset. By the time she entered into the race, the post-COVID inflation surge was pretty much over. The economy was in terrific shape—low unemployment, low inflation, increased real income gains, rapid overall growth; it had responded better than all the G5 countries—the U.S. economy was the envy of the world. She should have emphasized that. She could have then qualified it by agreeing that the gains had not been uniform; while the Biden/Harris team had tried to change that, they couldn't get anything done being confronted by a hostile House. That is why, she should say, I need your help to get the House to be Democratic.

By avoiding the topic, she let the Republicans define the economic issue—Bidenomics is a disaster, etc. I believe that her advisers were a bunch of PR people with zero knowledge of economics and they decided that she should take the idiotic position that the solution (to a non-problem) was to go after price gouging.

She should also have been clear about inflation. If the inflation rate fell to zero, we do not go back to 2021 prices. To do so would require a massive deflation (and the increased unemployment that would go with that). Maybe the public can't be convinced of all this. Maybe she can't understand it. But a campaign stressing this, rather than ducking it, could have worked.

So, like in his first term, Trump inherits a terrific economy, for which he will take credit.

Here, we think there is actually some good news for the Democrats.

Of course the Party will commission countless autopsies, and will spend much time tearing out hair and rending garments as they try to figure out what went wrong. But beyond that, there are systematic factors that will be in the Democrats' favor in the next few years (and would have been against them if Harris had won).

First, as we have written many times, midterm elections are nearly always bad for the party that holds the White House. There's no reason to think that won't be true in 2026. Second, while the Democrats might have a knock-down, drag out primary in 2028, the Republicans will have one, too. And the Republican one figures to be uglier, as various contenders try to out-Trump Trump. Third, when the 2028 election happens, it is likely to favor the Democrat. In part, because we are apparently in a "throw the bums out" era, not unlike the Gilded Age. In part, because nobody can out-Trump Trump, and his successor is not likely to command the loyalty of the base the way Trump can. Remember, every Trumpy Republican runs behind Trump himself. (Z)

In Conversation: Bernie

Yesterday, we wrote this:

Bernie Kvetches: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who won reelection on Tuesday, thinks he knows what went wrong for the Democrats:

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they're right.

This is typical Bernie: Big words, but little connection to the real world. What, exactly, does he propose Democrats should do? Should they, for example, talk about raising the minimum wage? Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did that. Should they actually INCREASE the minimum wage? Biden tried, and was stymied by the filibuster and by pro-corporate types in his very narrow Senate majority (ahem, Kyrsten Sinema). As a sitting U.S. Senator, you would think Sanders would know this. Meanwhile, the Biden administration supported strikes by walking union picket lines, created blue-collar jobs with the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act, helped secure union pensions that were underfunded, and tried to help low-income folks who have student loans, among other initiatives. This does not sound like Biden and Harris "abandoned working class people" to us.

Predictably, that generated quite a response:

R.W. in Seattle, WA, writes: I think Bernie Sanders is basically right in his criticism of the Democratic Party.

Bernie is correct in pointing out that inflation-adjusted wages are lower for working class Americans than they were 50 years ago, and that the U.S. is the only major country without healthcare for all and without guaranteed family and medical leave. The U.S. also has the greatest wealth inequality, has the most expensive healthcare, and the highest incarceration rate of all rich countries. Yet Democrats rarely talk about or campaign on any of those issues.

You attempted to counter Bernie's argument by pointing to Biden/Harris's support for unions and student loan forgiveness. But these are issues that affect few people in the poorest half of the country. Few workers belong to unions and less than half of adults have ever attended college. To them, student loan forgiveness is just another give away to the "elites." Raising the minimum wage would help the poorest workers, but it hasn't happened and has never been a major priority with Democrats, so poor workers are not impressed.

On a related note, Democrats seem to buy into the "American exceptionalism" mindset of conservatives. Except for the richest 10% of Americans, quality of life in the U.S. is worse than in every other of the 40 or so rich countries of the world by pretty much every indicator: lifespan, child mortality, violent crime rate, incarceration rate, high school graduation rate, leisure time, and so on. Yet Democrats rarely talk about public policy in, say, Denmark, as an example for the U.S. to follow.

The U.S. system is rigged against the middle and working classes. Our tax code is so biased towards the wealthy that Warren Buffett's tax rate is half that of his secretary, and Donald Trump apparently pays no taxes at all. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are talking about this and trying to change it. Other Democrats would do well to fight that fight, too.

---

M.R. in New Brighton, MN, writes: In your response to Bernie Sanders' assertion that the "Democratic Party has abandoned working class people," you are ignoring Biden's student loan forgiveness program. This plan basically rewarded college grads who can't manage their finances. Now that may not be strictly accurate, but it doesn't matter—it was seen as a scheme to give money to the privileged. Non-college grads justifiably reacted with resentment; it helped drive them out of the Democratic Party. The message this sent to non-college grads was very clear: You're not one of us. Unfortunately, we have now discovered that a lot of them were listening.

---

J.S. in Camp Hill, PA, writes: It was strange to see these two things in such close proximity...

You wrote that "Where did all those Biden voters go?" is a question that "will haunt Democratic operatives, not to mention political commentators, for months or years."

Not 100 words later, in the "Bernie Kvetches" section, you seemingly blast Bernie Sanders for being out of touch with reality when he says that the Democrats have lost their working class base.

This seems like a pretty reasonable explanation. And if the Democrats dismiss it as flippantly as you did, we're in for a long streak of electoral losses.

---

K.J.M. in Somerville, MA, writes: You dump on Bernie Sanders (when he's once again 100% right) and you actually think Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) is a viable candidate after he and Kamala Harris crashed and burned this week? Your solution is to be more like the GOP? Haven't you people (yeah, I said it) learned yet that, when given the choice between a real or fake Republican, they will go with the real Republican every time?

For 20 years (yes, since 2004) I've visited your site nearly every day. Maybe today that stops. I am not happy to say this, I'm actually pretty sad.

What will it take for you to finally admit damned near all your predictions about this election season were wrong? Once again, the Democrats (and all the pollsters) have failed the U.S.

---

D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: I noted your comment on Bernie Sanders' response and agree with your criticism. He identifies the primary cause of our dire situation and at least to some extent I agree with his assessment. What he fails to articulate is a practical path to achieving the goal.

The vast majority of Trump fans support him because their personal economic situations have declined, often to the point of misery.

These folks have been receptive to the propaganda that China and Mexico and immigrants and liberals and Democrats and trans folks and on and on, are to blame for their miseries, when the root of the problem—the true enemy—is financial inequality.

It is no coincidence that we have simultaneously, record numbers of billionaires and houseless individuals.

Resources are limited and if they are systematically extracted from companies as profits for the owners, inevitably that will impact working conditions and renumeration. It will also affect the communities where these companies exist, either through direct harm or lack of engagement.

But that is exactly what lowering the highest tax rates has achieved. When you have to sacrifice 70-90% of your assets to the government through taxation when liquidating your profits, you are much more inclined to instead reinvest in your business, its employees and the community.

So Bernie is absolutely right on the principles, but how on earth can we make them reality, when the folks most impacted by the negative consequences have been brainwashed into blaming their sad lot on minorities and immigrants and whoever else they are conveniently able to punch down on?

Somehow we need to educate Trump voters and redirect their anger; Elon Musk is the beneficiary and product of their suffering, not their friend.

Jumping to the topic of "who" needs to lead Democrats from here is the wrong question. Rather we must first reflect on how it might even be possible to win back some of these financially hurting families, to the Democratic camp. Education or de-cultification or big warm hugs—I don't know. "How?" and not "Who?" is the question.

Other than D.C. in Portland, the other correspondents seem to have missed our point.

First, any person who grossly exaggerates their arguments should expect to be tuned out. If Sanders wants to say the Democrats haven't done enough, or that there are other things they could do, or that they should work harder, then that's fine. However, to say that the Party has "abandoned" working-class people isn't fair, and isn't honest.

Second, and more importantly, Sanders is very right about many of the issues and problems he points to. However, he is all talk. It's easy to identify problems. It's much, much harder to solve problems, particularly when you have a political system designed to limit change.

Sanders has been a United States Senator for 18 years. That is a position of actual power. He is currently chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with the Democrats having the majority. He could write bills on any of those subjects and work like hell to get them through the Senate. The House would kill the bills but he could turn that into a major campaign issue, as in: "the Senate passed a bill to raise the minimum wage but the House Republicans killed it. Vote Democratic."

Do you know how many bills he's gotten passed into law in that time? Three. And two of those were to rename post offices, which means his only substantive bill was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013. That was more than a decade ago, and before he became one of the most high-profile politicians in America. Since skyrocketing to national fame, he's used his fame primarily to re-deliver his stump speech over and over again, on TV, at conventions, at rallies, etc.

Again, Sanders has a lot of good observations. But, as they say, "if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem." And the Senator seems rarely, if ever, to deliver any solutions. In this way—long on talk, short on solutions—he's actually a lot like Donald Trump. And so it's not too surprising that there are lots of Sanders-Trump voters. (Z)

In Conversation: Thank You

As readers can probably guess, we've gotten a fair number of unpleasant e-mails since Tuesday afternoon. They fall into two broad categories. The first group are from Trumpers who are, it would seem, so hollow inside that they need to gloat, often using vulgar or violent language. (Z) learned in Little League (age 10) that gloating after a win is low-class. Guess these folks never played Little League.

The second group are from folks who are regular readers, and who say they like the site, but who felt this was the right time to tell us that we are doing it all wrong. For example, there was a correspondent who said the site should not be "90% polls" and that, really, we should get rid of the polling altogether. Many others wrote in to make that same basic point. In response, we'll note that for most of the time, there are NO polls, since there's no election underway. We probably won't have a poll again until February or March... of 2026. Second, even when there are polls, we still give most of our attention to non-poll stuff. Third, and finally, polls may be inaccurate, but they are better than any other option available.

Anyhow, that is the bad news. The good news is that for every negative e-mail (and that includes both groups we describe above) there have been at least 30 e-mails expressing gratitude and thanks. In fact the ratio might be 40:1. And if we include survey responses, the ratio jumps to something like 60:1. Anyhow, we thought we might share some of those, thinking of them as a pretty good replacement for "This Week in Freudenfreude":

J.K. in Silverdale, WA, writes: As someone who has followed Electoral-Vote.com since the humble beginnings in 2004, this site has become a valued part of my life over the last 20 years. Reading this site is how I "boot up" my brain every morning, and over the years I've recognized with ever-growing appreciation that this site has evolved from an informative blog into an interactive learning community. Beyond the substantive analysis, I come here for the breadth of perspectives and personal stories from around the world that make me laugh, cry, and understand all the ways that our political process impacts real lives. There are no words to express the gratitude I feel for (V) and (Z) for their years of service and dedication to this community.

And since our community is heading into dark times, I had an idea about how we can share some light by sharing the ways, large and small, that this site has touched our lives. If our hosts and readership like this idea, I can start us off with a silly one. This story from (Z) related the circumstances in which a candidate who licked his dinner plate clean during an interview process still landed a position as a tenured professor. Now, I would never engage in such crass behavior in public, but in the privacy of my own home if only my cats are around ...well, maybe I've engaged in occasional lingual plate cleaning, along with this thought: "Wow, I could be a professor."

---

R.W.O. in Camano Island, WA, writes: I'm one of your female followers since about 2015. You have guided me like a shining light all these many years. You helped keep me from despair in 2016, and I'm so grateful for that. Now we're in even deeper trouble than we were then.

It's even more important that we have a place to get political information that we can rely on. I know you're so very tired, but just know that plenty of people out here really love you and respect what you do.

And it's a plus that you coddle dachshunds!

Thank you from the depths of my soul.

---

C.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: We've all had a rough couple of days and I thought this was a good time to send a note I've been thinking about sending for a while now.

In short, THANK YOU!

I'm a big nerd who spent most of the 90s as a teen writing little video games and playing around with Linux. At some point I was lucky enough to stumble across (V)'s MINIX textbook. As I recall even the cover art—a fella with thought bubbles around his head corresponding to the major components of an OS—set me on a totally different approach to coding. Sure, finally understanding mechanisms by which system calls may be invoked was huge and exciting, but more important than that was your organized approach to software engineering: Each gizmo you described had a certain well-defined job to do. It slowly came into focus that my own software was best described as "spaghetti code."

My career (principal software engineer at a consumer electronics company) has been relatively easy (don't tell anyone!) and super fun and I owe a large part of it to an approach you helped introduce me to: organizing a solution as a group of easily understood smaller components, making sensible choices about the domain of each of those components, and thoughtfully stitching them together.

Anyways, decades later? I found myself reading Electoral-Vote.com. Mainstream news media makes me anxious and irritable and leaves me with a messy cloud of thoughts. Your distillation on Electoral-Vote.com is different. Despite the simple format it manages to be exceptionally well organized, terrible news somehow avoids provoking my fight-or-flight response, and I walk away feeling (often, anyways) a little better and (always) a lot more informed! I know you and your co-author are responsible for this tone—so I owe you both a debt of gratitude.

It probably took me a couple years to realize you were THAT Andrew Tanenbaum—and a few weeks ago I was smiling to myself about how you've unwittingly made such positive contributions to my own life in these two very different domains. I just wanted to let you know. So, thanks!

---

K.Y. in Chelmsford, MA, writes: No worries about the website difficulty on election night. These things happen, and as I'm sure others have joked: The server probably sensed the outcome and refused to display the data! Thank you again for your site. I plan on visiting Electoral-Vote.com even more in the future. I have always appreciated the measured and fair (no, not balanced) analysis, interesting history and civics information, and humor. I rarely watch or listen to any mainstream news anymore; both right- and left-wing outlets are just too agenda driven for my taste.

---

J.L. in Madison, WI, writes: I have stayed tuned into Electoral-Vote.com since the early 2000s for your news, witty insight, mapping and exceptional poll tracking.

This election was indeed a disappointment, and a lot of mud is slinging over the results and what they say about the American people in general.

No matter the results, I believe Kamala Harris did her job and you did your job very well. As a "thank you," I have made a donation and I intend to support those who continue to do their work with the best intentions despite the hate.

---

P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes: Bummer of a result. When Florida was called so early, and Virginia so late, my recollection of Election Night 2016 roared back. I'm both disgusted and ashamed.

For my own mental health, I need to step away from binge-consuming political news. And that's where y'all come in.

I want to remain informed. But I don't want consuming MSNBC, the LA Times, NYT, Washington Post, Apple News to fill my news intake at the rate I've been doing. I need a measured amount from a good source. In other words, from you.

Please keep up the good work so I can remain current on what's important. Thereby providing me with a way to do so in a way that doesn't become overwhelming, and mentally debilitating.

First, if folks like the suggestion from J.K. in Silverdale, you can send your submissions to comments@electoral-vote.com. We think that many readers will find that enjoyable, not unlike looking through a yearbook or a photo album.

Second, we are very much humbled by all of the kind e-mails we've gotten this week. It is remarkable that many, many people who were at a very low point nonetheless decided to take some time to reach out to us with some kind words. It means a lot, and makes clear that: (1) we have a really great community here, and (2) there are still plenty of good-hearted people in this country. We truly thank you all, and we will see you on Monday. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger