Skip to content

Month: November 2020

No, he hasn’t won yet

Democratic voters are going to need massive therapy after this election is over. The trauma of 2016 has left a deep psychic wound that has the scab painfully torn off every two years leaving them lying on the floor in the fetal position begging for mercy. I don’t have to recapitulate the shock of 2016 — we all know what happened. The nation has been living with the aftermath of that nightmare for the past four years.

But it’s worth reminding everyone that in 2018, when the polls were all very bullish for a big Democratic win, on election night it looked as though that big blue wave was going to be a tiny little trickle, almost entirely based upon the disappointing gubernatorial results in Florida and Georgia. But after a number of recounts and long counts in various states, the Democrats ended up with a massive 40 seat pick-up in the House of Representatives. It was a very big blue wave after all.

Election night 2020 follows the same pattern. Democrats entered the night with high expectations that were shattered in slow-motion as they watched their dream of an easy victory over Trump and the Republicans instead turn into an hour by hour torture session deep into the night. But the main reason it is this agonizing is because we simply cannot believe that the country isn’t repudiating Donald Trump and the Republican Party in such overwhelming numbers that no one could possibly question the intent of the electorate.

As in 2016 and then 2018, and now 2020, we find ourselves stunned and shocked that so many people would vote for Donald Trump and his enablers. It never stops feeling like the worst form of gaslighting one can imagine. And yet, we have seen his approval rating remain s throughout this most tumultuous presidency in history at 42-45% which should give us a clue that even though the majority of the country finds him to be appalling, his base of support is going to stay with him come hell or high water. And as we saw in 2016, that minority may be all it takes to win the electoral college.

We know this. And yet because everything in us recoils from the idea that all Donald Trump has done has not shaken these people from their fealty to him, it still stuns when it actually happens. They have no problem with the tearing of children from their mother’s arms and putting them in cages, banning people from Muslim countries, calling Nazis “very fine people” or excusing terrorists who plotted to kidnap and execute a Governor, or a thousand other atrocities he’s committed not the least of which is the mishandling of a devastating pandemic that has resulted in 230,000 deaths most of which could have prevented if he had the slightest ability to do his job. And they trust him despite the fact that the economy is in worse shape than it’s been since the Great Depression because he treated the pandemic as a PR problem he could solve with spin and propaganda.

As I write this, the presidential race is still undecided. A number of battleground states still have many mail-in and early votes outstanding and most of the red states where polling was close enough to tantalizingly tease the chance of a Democratic blowout unsurprisingly tipped to Trump. The path to a Biden win remains. And it’s the same path we’ve been talking about incessantly for months: win all the states Hillary Clinton won and flip the three states in the upper midwest that Trump won by 77,000 votes or a couple of sun-belt states that have been trending blue.

Sure they would have loved to win Florida and Texas and Iowa, but all you had to do was watch where Joe Biden has spent the last month to know that the campaign was focusing on winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a little hope for Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona. That was it.

And we also knew that there would possibly be a “blue mirage” in states where the early votes and mail-in votes are counted first whereas there might be a “red mirage” in places where the votes cast on election day are tallied first. Everyone said to be patient, don’t expect to know the results for days.

Yes, it’s nerve-wracking. When the election comes down to a few states that were close in 2016 and might be close this time as well, anyone can be excused for feeling like they are living in a recurring nightmare. But that’s Trump’s America and there’s nothing new about that.

On Monday before the election, I wrote about Trump’s plan to declare victory on election night if he was “ahead” and immediately “send in the lawyers.” He denied that report when he was asked about it but immediately started talking about how the Supreme Court had done a terrible thing when they allowed Pennsylvania to accept ballots after election day and babbled on about the unfairness of the election not being decided on the night of the election. He has made it quite clear many times that he expects “his” Supreme Court to deliver the election to him if it comes to that. I think many people thought that was just Trump being Trump.

At 2:30 in the morning Trump stepped into the East Room of the White House before a cheering crowd, declared victory and said the Democrats were trying to steal the election. He rambled a bit about how he had it won and then “something happened,” and said he wanted to halt the counting of the votes and declared he would go to the Supreme Court to decide the election.

It was a dark, ugly moment in American history. Even some Republicans could see that:

Trump’s strategy, if you want to call it that, is to portray Biden as a loser who refuses to admit it and just wants to keep going until they “find” enough votes to flip the result. That might work in a recount scenario like Florida in 2000, but there are millions of votes still outstanding. He may have even won legitimately! Why go out in the middle of the night and throw this haymaker?

Who knows with Trump? But this is exactly why Democrats have been driven so crazy by Trump these last four years. It’s simply impossible to understand how 45% of our fellow Americans could actually admire and respect someone who would do such an inexplicably unAmerican thing. How could they want such a man to lead this country? That’s the question that will haunt all of us for a very long time.

Here’s that grotesque statement from the White House. You have to see it to believe it.

My Salon column

Once again, the popular vote favors Democrats

It ain’t over until … they say.

After a decade of court fights over districts gerrymandered by Republicans with surgical precision, Democrats gained two congressional seats last night. This takes the state’s caucus from 10 Rs and 3 Ds to 8 Rs and 5 Ds:

Former State Rep. Deborah Ross, who four years ago unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Sen. Richard Burr for his seat, was declared the winner by AP Tuesday in the race to represent a redrawn congressional district that takes up most of Wake County.

Unofficial results showed Ross, a Raleigh Democrat, was ahead of Republican Alan Swain by 63% to 35% in a district that state lawmakers redrew last year in response to a gerrymandering lawsuit. House District 2 is now strongly Democratic in voter registration; incumbent Rep. George Holding, a Raleigh Republican, decided not to run after four terms.

Kathy Manning picked up the vacant 6th District seat recently redrawn after court fights to include all of Guilford County (Greensboro) and part of Forsyth County (Winston-Salem).

Pulling all of Asheville-Buncombe back into NC-11 did not erase the Republican tilt enough to prevent Madison Cawthorn (R) from defeating Moe Davis for the seat vacated by Rep. Mark Meadows. This was 25-year-old Cawthorn’s first tweet as congressman-elect:

A quick tally of unofficial statewide votes in the congressional races reveals that gerrymandering still pays for Republicans. Democrats received 27,000 more votes statewide:

Democrats: 2,632,913
Republicans: 2,605,760

How long, oh Lord?

Once again, election polling and reality diverge in the Trump era. Both Democratic and Republican strategists this morning find themselves reeling from dashed expectations. Democrats expected to do better; Republicans worse. Thom Tillis looks as if he will hang onto his Senate seat in North Carolina. Joni Ernst fended off a challenge in Iowa to retain hers. What looked like a tighter Senate race for Lindsey Graham in South Carolina was not. Graham will defeat Jaime Harrison by double digits after the most expensive Senate race in history.

The fate of the presidency still hangs in the balance. Neither the acting president nor Joe Biden have yet reached 270 electoral votes in states where results are clear.

Polls placed Biden ahead in Wisconsin by the high single digits. After Milwaukee County reported a block of absentee ballots early this morning, Biden leads Trump there (as I write this) by about 20,000 votes. In Pennsylvania, about 1.4 million absentee ballots remain to be counted. Trump leads the contest there by 615,000 votes with 75 % of the vote counted. Trump’s lead in Michigan is shrinking as votes come in from Wayne County, 18 % of the state’s voters.

How long will it take to know our fate? Philadelphia Commissioner Al Schmidt reminded CNN that he cannot count votes he does not yet have. The state can count ballots received up to three days after Election Day. This is a new phenomenon in that state.

The New York Times updated an earlier story examining that question:

Only nine states expect to have at least 98 percent of unofficial results reported by noon the day after the election. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia allow postmarked ballots to arrive after Election Day, so the timing will depend on when voters return them.

New York and Alaska will not report any mail votes on election night. (Rhode Island had also planned not to report mail votes that night, but its election board voted Monday to begin releasing them at 11 p.m.) Officials in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two key battleground states, have said full official counts could take several days.

The increase in mail voting could also lead to more provisional votes cast, increasing the number of ballots counted later. In many states, voters who have their eligibility to vote questioned at the polls may cast a provisional ballot, which is set aside and counted only when eligibility is later confirmed.

This is not the repudiation of Donald Trump for which Democrats and even many Republicans had hoped. The Trump boat rallies and truck trains signaled more support for the acting president than a lunatic conservative fringe. The flood of early voting that favored Democrats was not early advantage enough to overcome Election Day turnout for Republicans in many places. This race is closer than expected.

The Hub Project’s email this morning reminds readers that Biden still retains several paths to 270 electoral votes:

Biden has many pathways to win the Electoral College — Just as we expected going into Election Day, Vice President Biden has many more paths to victory than Trump. 

NV + WI + MI = 270+
WI + MI + GA = 270+
WI + MI + PA = 270+
MI + PA + GA = 270+ 
You get the picture… 

Early Wednesday morning, Biden claimed he was “on track” to win and commended people’s patience with letting the process play out. “Keep the faith, guys, we’re going to win this.”

Meanwhile, Trump declared himself the winner last night even while trailing in the electoral count. “We’ll be going to the Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop.” Voting is over, of course. What still remains is to count the vote still coming in. Ever the entitled heir, Trump expects to be declared the winner on his say-so. He expects his lawyers and judges to win for him where he cannot count on his voters. He considers the Democratic process and the votes of millions of Americans incidental to his retaining power.

Here in the home of surgically precise gerrymandering, Republicans will retain control of both the North Carolina House and Senate. They will have control of redrawing districts next year that will stand for the next decade. Democrats and voting rights advocates will contest them in court for the next decade as they have for the last.

This is not where we hoped to be this morning.

Where we will be when it’s over

Here is a Ron Brownstein thread on the implications of today’s vote for the future. It’s bracing but important:

An E-day thread: For 4 years, Trump has governed as a wartime president for red America, w/blue America, not any foreign adversary as the target. That’s provoked an enormous reaction from the diverse, well-educated urban centers & inner suburbs driving eco growth & innovation

Tonight will tell whether it’s enough, but the scale of the mobilization from blue America-primarily metro America-is unprecedented. It’s measured, for starters, in the record-setting Democratic fund-raising, mostly from small donors in well-educated areas, that’s swamped Rs

It’s measured in outpouring of celebrity support for Biden: ads from Brad Pitt, @springsteen, Eminem, campaigning by Cardi B, John Legend, Lady Gaga, Common, Spike Lee, Taylor Swift’s twitter activism, $-raising reunions by casts of Avengers, Princess Bride, Veep & Happy Days etc

Its measured in the unprecedented crossover support for Biden from top officials in the other party: hundreds of former GOP national security officials (including Reagan’s FBI Director & W’s CIA head); top staff for past 3 GOP presidential nominees;

Dozens of former GOP elected officials (including Governors, Senators & House); Reagan WH lawyers; former US Attorneys; about half of W’s Cabinet; Cindy McCain. No nominee has ever won as much support from prominent figures in other party-not even Nixon 72

Above all, the response is measured in the soaring turnout & margins metro America has provided Ds since 2016. The mould was cut quickly- in 17 VA Gov race when Ds received record margins & turnout in prosperous NoVA suburbs-but also broke thru in previously red Richmond suburbs

That set the pattern for 18. Not only did D Rs sweep away last House Rs in metros already turning blue (NY/NJ, Phillie, Chicago, Detroit, MPLS, Denver) but Ds broke thru for wins in Sunbelt metros where Rs had dominated: Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, even Charleston, OKC.

The result was to exile GOP from fast-growing metro US: b4 18 election, Rs held 43% of House seats w/more college grads than national average. After, they held 24%. With more suburban losses coming, they could fall to ~20% after today. Ds dominate high-GDP seats per @MarkMuro1

Win or lose, Trump today is facing even greater opposition in virtually every metro. Biden’s likely to expand Clinton’s margins in almost all urban centers (Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Denver) & thriving white-collar suburbs

Trump lost 87/100 largest counties by combined 15m votes. He’s at risk of losing about half of the 13 he won. His deficit will soar in many he already lost. In 16, counties he won accounted for only 1/3 of GDP. That could easily fall below 30% tonight.

I thought that the symbol of 2020 realignment would be if Trump loses Maricopa (Phoenix), largest US county he won, which no D nominee has carried since 48. But it may be more likely that even if Trump holds TX, the symbol of 2020 is the voter surge in TX big cities espec Houston

It remains possible, if less likely than 16, that Trump will generate enough advantage in mostly white, Christian exurban/small town/rural America to squeeze out another EC win despite losing popular vote. But metro America-the emerging America-has left it all on the field vs him

Win or lose, GOP faces reality that places driving economic & pop growth are consolidating vs them to unprecedented extent. Party faces risk of being tattooed to rising Millennials & Gen Z not only w/Trump’s racism & misogyny but also his disdain for democracy & inciting violence

To win Trump’s favor, Rs must not only excuse but emulate this behavior: @sendavidperdue disgracing himself w/open racism vs Harris, @marcorubio belittling himself w/groveling endorsement of vigilante violence in TX; TX Rs suing to disqualify 127k votes

In all these ways, Trump has sentenced GOP to a strategy of squeezing bigger margins from groups & places that are shrinking at price of provoking greater resistance from groups & places that are growing. He might make it work one more time & Senate favors the shrinking places

Also like the South in 1850s, facing a national majority coalescing against them behind the new Republican Party in the North, GOP today has laid down many procedural sandbags to block that new majority, particularly control of SCOTUS

But under Trump Rs have positioned party in open opposition to what America is becoming, governing only for those most fearful of the country’s changes. At any political moment, the past may win for a while. But the future always gets the last word. That may start today. (end)

Originally tweeted by Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) on November 3, 2020.

He doesn’t say it but I will. Just as they refused to see the writing on the wall in 1860, they will not see it now. The fight is not over.

The legal layout

Let’s hope we don’t need to think about any of this, but just in case, Ian Millhiser at Vox has laid out the most pressing legal issues we might be facing if Trump decides to turn this into a shitshow:

Two significant legal events occurred last week that could determine whether the winner of the 2020 election actually becomes president. They could also shape American elections for years to come if the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority remains in place.

The first was the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which not only gave Republicans a supermajority on the Supreme Court, it also most likely made Justice Brett Kavanaugh the swing vote in election cases. While Kavanaugh’s approach to election law is extremely conservative, he’s staked out a position that is slightly more moderate than the views of his most conservative colleagues Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.

The second event is that, last Monday, just minutes before Barrett was confirmed, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that prevents ballots that arrive after Election Day in the state of Wisconsin from being counted. Kavanaugh joined that decision, and he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that endorsed a radical reading of the Constitution that would upend at least a century of established law.

Briefly, Kavanaugh signaled that he wants to give federal courts — and his Court in particular — an unprecedented new power to overrule state supreme courts and to potentially rewrite state election law. Some of the implications of this view are discussed below, but the upshot is it means that Kavanaugh appears ready to change longstanding rules that have governed elections for a very long time.

There is, however, a crucial question that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve. If the courts change the rules governing an election after voters have already cast their ballots, are voters who did not comply with these new rules disenfranchised, even if they followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was cast?

Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. have all claimed that voters who followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was counted can have their ballots tossed out anyway if a court later changes the rules.

But Kavanaugh, at least in his opinions, has not gone that far. And because she hasn’t weighed in on any election cases, we don’t know where Barrett stands on the question. In other words, it’s not at all clear whether a majority of the Supreme Court shares the view that ballots should be tossed if the rules that were in place when they were cast are later changed.

Currently, there are at least four states — PennsylvaniaNorth CarolinaMinnesota, and Texas — where a court could potentially change longstanding election rules and then order ballots tossed out for failing to comply with these new rules. All of these states, and especially Pennsylvania and North Carolina, feature competitive races for the state’s presidential electors.

Thus, if the election is close, the winner could very well be determined by whether or not five justices are willing to disenfranchise voters because those voters failed to see into the future.

Under existing law, state election law functions more or less the same way as any other law.

A state legislature enacts election laws the same way it would enact any law. The governor may veto such law if the state constitution provides for a gubernatorial veto. If the state allows voters to enact laws through a ballot initiative or referendum, then they can use that process to enact election laws, too. And state election laws are interpreted by state courts, with the highest court in the state having the final word on how to read those laws.

This general rule — that there’s nothing special about state election law — stretches at least as far back as the Court’s decision in Davis v. Hildebrant(1916). It was most recently reaffirmed in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015).

Yet, four members of the Court — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — have recently argued that this foundational rule should be abandoned, a decision that, among other things, would give the Supreme Court far more power to overrule state court decisions protecting voting rights. Meanwhile, while newly confirmed Justice Barrett has not weighed in on this question, her record suggests that she shares the same broad constitutional philosophy as Thomas and Gorsuch.

The Constitution provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” A separate constitutional provision provides that “each State shall appoint” members of the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The Court’s right flank argues that the word “legislature” must be read in a hyper-literal way to mean only the state legislature itself may set the rules governing federal elections.

As Gorsuch wrote in a recent opinion, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

This approach, to say the least, is not how the Constitution has been understood in the past. Previous decisions define the word “legislature,” when used in this context, to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within a state. As the Supreme Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature, the word “legislature” should be read “in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”

The implications of Gorsuch’s approach are breathtaking. Gorsuch’s opinion suggests that state governors may lack the power to veto election laws (because the governor is not the “legislature”). It suggests that states may not be allowed to use independent redistricting commissions to draw legislative maps (because a commission is not the “legislature”). And it also suggests that state courts may not have the power to protect the right to vote (because a court is not a “legislature”).

In the contextof the 2020 election, this approach means that state supreme courts could lose much of their ability to protect voting rights or to enforce their own state constitutions. But there’s a more pressing concern here too: what happens to voters who voted days or weeks ago, before the Supreme Court signaled that it was likely to overrule at least a century of established law? What happens to voters who relied on state supreme court decisions saying that they could vote in a certain way, unaware that the Supreme Court of the United States might overrule those decisions weeks after the voter cast their ballot?

To understand the stakes underlying these two questions, consider Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar. In mid-September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that ballots that are mailed before the election but arrive up to three days after Election Day may be counted. Though some members of the US Supreme Court have criticized the state supreme court’s decision, that decision is still in effect today.

That means that, under the rules that are in effect today, a Pennsylvania voter who mails their ballot now will have that ballot counted — so long as the ballot arrives within the three-day window.

But that’s not the entire story. The other part of the story is that, on Wednesday, Justice Alito handed down an opinion, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, which warned that his Court may revisit Republican Party after the election — and order these ballots tossed out after the election is over. Alito suggested that only Pennsylvania’s Republican legislature, and not the state supreme court, should be allowed to decide which ballots are counted.

There is a similar case seeking to have late-arriving ballots tossed out in North Carolina on the theory that non-legislative state officials lacked the authority to extend the due date for ballots. A third case seeks to toss out late-arriving ballots in Minnesota. A fourth case seeks to disenfranchise voters who used drive-through polling places in Texas.

All of these cases have one thing in common: They target voters who followed the rules that existed when their ballots were cast but who may run afoul of new rules announced after they voted.

Under any fair system of justice, a voter would not be disenfranchised for following their state’s election rules. One cloud looming over this election is it’s not clear that there are five justices who believe in such fundamental fairness.

If Trump doesn’t look like he’s winning tonight, I think that despite all his bad mouthing of the early vote and these to disenfranchise millions, he will be demanding “count every vote!”

WWHD? (What Will Hannity Do?)

If Trump loses, the right wing media has a problem on its hands. For four years it’s been single-mindedly devoted to celebrating the Donald Trump cult. They’ll probably engage in an extended primal scream for quite some time if Trump loses. But then what?

Columbia Journalism Review takes a stab at predicting where it will go and it sounds about right.

DONALD TRUMP WINS the US presidential election on November 3, we already know what the right-wing media will do—remain his cheerleaders, enablers, stenographers, and megaphones. 

But if he loses to Joe Biden, a whole world of media outlets will face a tricky pivot to something else. Will they drop their support of Trump as if he were as radioactive as an autographed headshot of Dr. Fauci? For the good of the country, will some conservative publications mute the propaganda-like chatter and dial down the divisive rhetoric? Or should we anticipate a continued barrage of toxic barbs and criticism directed at Biden and his fellow Democrats? 

I have been covering the right-wing mediascape since 2017 for a number of media outlets including my daily email, TheRighting. Based on those experiences, and my  conversations with several journalists with a firsthand knowledge of conservative media, these are my educated guesses. 

The election was rigged/stolen/fixed: This will be irresistible. If Trump pushes the “rigged election” narrative, we can look forward to an epic pity party. His Twitter feed will become bloated with heated rhetoric, and right-wing media will echo every moan, whine, and grievance. Conspiracy theories will abound. Count on Rudy Giuliani to be working overtime. Ratings and traffic will soar, and the cycle will be repeated for months as conservative journalists provide a flood of content for conspiracy-minded news consumers. 

Biden is corrupt/incompetent: The New York Post’s October 14 “smoking gun” exclusive alleging Hunter Biden’s introduction of a powerful Ukrainian businessman to the then–vice president represents just a preview of the hit jobs coming at Joe Biden in the first few months of his presidency. He shouldn’t expect anything close to a honeymoon period from the conservative press.  Though Hunter’s appeal as a target  should fade over time, according to National Review editor Rich Lowry, “assuming he’s not getting enormous contracts thrown at him from shady foreign actors.” Sign up for CJR’s daily email

Historic levels of scrutiny for the incoming vice president: Kamala Harris would likely be the most scrutinized incoming vice president in US history. The right-wing media, using Biden’s age to speculate about his mortality, will try to give her an outsize presence in the administration. And it won’t only be her politics. In August, the American Spectator ran an article headlined “Why It Should Matter to Women That Kamala Harris Slept Her Way to the Top.” Can stories get worse than that? We all know the answer.

Over-the-top attention to Biden’s health: It’s safe to say that this would be a significant editorial focus for the conservative commentariat. They will not be kind to any Biden stumble—physical or verbal. Every gesture, nod, tremble, or sniffle will be under a microscope as the right-wing media seeks to paint him as frail or fading. 

Strong anti-mask opinion: If Biden assumes the presidency, he’ll have the full weight of the White House to flood the news channels with the latest information and guidance regarding the coronavirus. But based on my reading of conservative media reports on the pandemic (here’s a list that I compiled of the dozens of inaccurate headlines from March), I doubt the coverage on this topic will change. For the most part, conservative media will remain mired in their old anti-mask attitudes thanks to a combination of bad science, macho posturing amplified by Donald Trump, and a pervasive “don’t tread on me” attitude. A push from a Biden administration on mask-wearing could very well be met with the right railing against infringement of personal liberties. 

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will still have targets on their backs: It doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. “You can take it to the bank that right-wing media will take them to the woodshed at every opportunity,” says Jim Swift, senior editor at The Bulwark

More investigative reporting from conservative mediaAxios has called Joe Biden “the least scrutinized frontrunner,” and I completely agree. Up to now, most of the assaults from the right have been predictable and sophomoric. (If I have to read another article calling him “Grandpa Gropes,” I’m going to tear up my press pass for cpac.) But the tone may become more serious if he wins on November 3. I know of at least one conservative news outlet that is already considering launching an investigative unit to dig into his spending and cabinet picks. “They will try to hold Biden to standards they were unwilling to hold Donald Trump to with the hope that the mere appearance of impropriety or evasion is enough to create a Benghazi-size scandal that they can harp on for weeks,” says Kurt Bardella, former Breitbart spokesperson turned Project Lincoln senior adviser.

They will be seeking a lightning rod “that has the staying power like Obamacare for ten years,” Lowry says. 

Our long national nightmare is only beginning: You can also bank on a very different tone from that which the nation  experienced after Nixon left office in disgrace, in August 1974. In fact, conservative media may go in the opposite direction and express a “nightmare is just beginning” sentiment. That response would cast a long shadow over the next four years. It would show that, though Trump might be gone, the divisive flames of Trumpism will keep burning, fanned by the right-wing media.

And, by the way, Trump’s not going anywhere. For the next three months he will be using his power to wreak revenge and seek protection for himself and his family. And then he’ll need money. I guess we’ll have to see how long he can bring home the bacon for the right wing media as well.

But they aren’t going anywhere. None of them. Unfortunately.

Trump dumpster

The waxwork museum Madame Tussauds in Berlin loaded its effigy of TV star-turned Republican president Donald Trump into a dumpster on Friday, a move apparently intended to reflect its expectations of next Tuesday’s presidential election.

In what seemed a further calculated insult, the statue of his predecessor and nemesis Barack Obama, who counted Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel among his closest allies, remained in place, beaming and besuited.

“Today’s activity is rather of a symbolic character ahead of the elections in the United States,” said the museum’s marketing manager Orkide Yalcindag. “We here at Madame Tussauds Berlin removed Donald Trump’s waxwork as a preparatory measure.”

This isn’t actually jinxing anything. The article says they’ll put him back in the hall of former presidents if he loses — and back in his old spot if he wins.

Will there be exit polls?

Exit Polls Can Be Misleading — Especially This Year | FiveThirtyEight

Yes, they will be done this year even though so many voted early or by mail:

News media and election watchers have long relied on exit polling to tell them who voted and why they support their chosen candidate on election night, and despite the unprecedented challenges that 2020 has presented, this year will be no different.

Exit polling traditionally involves interviews with a randomly selected sample of voters conducted as those voters leave their polling places. Unlike pre-election polling, where voters can only be identified using screening questions or a history of voting on a voter file, meeting voters where they are ensures that those included in the survey have actually cast their ballots.But carrying out a poll exclusively that way during a pandemic, when more than 90 million have already cast their ballots, would not be a representative measure of the full electorate.

To make the 2020 survey more representative, Edison Research has made modifications to the methodology it uses to carry out the exit poll for the National Election Pool, a news consortium made up of CNN, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News.This year’s exit poll will still include in-person interviews with voters who cast their ballots on Tuesday. To make sure that both interviewers and voters are safe, interviews will be contactless. Voters will pick up paper questionnaires and single-use pencils from a table rather than taking them directly from the interviewer, and disinfecting wipes and hand sanitizer will be available for use by both voters and the interviewers manning the table. Interviewers will be masked, and have been instructed to remain at least 6 feet away the voters they ask to participate.

Those interviews are only one piece of the puzzle this year. The share of voters who cast their ballots before Election Day has been growing for two decades, and will rapidly accelerate in this year’s election. In 2000, absentee and early voting represented about 16% of the total votes cast. In 2016, that figure was over 40%; this year, it is expected to top 60%.

To account for the large share of early in-person voters in critical states such as North Carolina, Florida and Texas, Edison Research has spent the past month conducting the same type of in-person interviewing that it does on Election Day at a random selection of early voting locations around eight states. The consortium first used this procedure to capture the opinions and vote choices of early voters in 2018 in Nevada and Tennessee. Those voters are answering the same questions that voters will be asked on Election Day.

To account for the large number of by-mail voters, as well as early voters in states where in-person early voter interviewing is not possible, the exit polls will also include the results of telephone polls targeted at these voters. Edison Research has conducted such polling for use in exit polls in states with significant shares of absentee and early voters since 2004.

This year, in every state where exit poll results are available on election night, the results of a telephone poll of early and by-mail voters will be incorporated into the results. These voters are also being asked the same questions that will be asked on Election Day.

When all of these pieces are combined, the exit poll results presented on election night will reflect a complete picture of voters all across the country.

Generally speaking the cable nets will start hinting around about the early exits even though they aren’t supposed to. If they’re jovial on Fox you know it’s looking good for their boy. If they are dour, they don’t.

But it means nothing. I remember 2004, when Democrats were popping champagne at about 4 in the afternoon and Fox News looked like they were getting ready to down a bucket of Hale-Bopp cocktails made with cherry flavored kool-aid. It was bad. Three hourse later, the roles had been reversed.

Exit polls are very useful after the election to understand why the the election went the way it did. And even then it takes a couple of years to go back and sort that out. (The Pew Polls do a good job of that.) But as an indicator of what’s going to happen, they aren’t going to help us, especially the early wave. So, don’t get excited or depressed by anything you hear early in the day. In fact, don’t assume anything at all until the polls close.

It should not be this hard

Trump said yesterday that he won Pennsylvania by a huge margin in 2016. He won by 44,000 votes.

It amounted to this:

For Trump, that’s a landslide.