Election Day — 2024 (Ten Thoughts)

Note: This post contains a summary of my thoughts on the 2024 election. Most content pertains to news and events leading up to the the first polls closing, which happens at 7 pm EST. This post (and thread) will hopefully be more analytical in nature. I’m no longer interested in partisan advocacy, as those arguments are useless at this point. 

[1] First thought comes not from me, but from Paul Harris (no relation to Kamala), the St. Louis-based radio talk show legend (who is a close friend and posted his own thoughts this morning). I loved this:

“The only thing I can guarantee you is that when you wake up Wednesday morning, you won’t have to sit through any more political commercials or receive spam texts and calls multiple times a day from politicians, parties, and PACs. Until the next campaign begins, of course. Which shouldn’t be until next week.”

[2] Many people asked me which election night network coverage is best. I can’t say which is “best” exactly, but I have my own preferences largely based on the “expert” panelists. I grew up with the gold standard of election-night news coverage, which was CBS’ Walter Cronkite in-studio who with his deep baritone voice of authority and clever cadence, made election returns sound like the last two minutes of a tied football game. Later, I became fond of his replacement, Dan Rather, who was a master of down-home quips and quick thinking. Rather could easily have been a stand-up comedian, as he was so fast to react to breaking news with a line that perfectly encapsulated the moment, often in a humorous way. But his politics and delivery wasn’t for everyone. I also loved Frank Reynolds (and later Peter Jennings) of ABC News, who I thought were perfect middle-of-the road hosts. I thought ABC was light years ahead of everyone else for many years, in the same way CBS used to be excellent.

[3] I can’t help myself. Here are some of the best “Ratherisms.”

“This race is hotter than a Times Square Rolex.”

“The presidential race is swinging like Count Basie.”

“Ohio becomes like a sauna for the two candidates. All they can do is wait and sweat.”

“This situation in Ohio would give an aspirin a headache.”

“No question now that Kerry’s rapidly reaching the point where he’s got his back to the wall, his shirttails on fire and the bill collector’s at the door.”

“We need Billy Crystal to Analyze This”

“George Bush’s lead is as thin as November ice.”

On John McCain’s chances: “He’s gotta draw to an inside straight. But hey, sometimes you get lucky and hit that straight.”

“The election is “closer than Lassie and Timmy.”

On how election results affect political strategists: “It’s the reason so many of them drink a lot.”

“They’re about first and goal from 4 yards out.”

“Reminds you of that old Will Rogers line, it takes a lot of money just to get beaten.”

“This race is shakier than cafeteria Jell-O.”

“He swept through the South like a tornado through a trailer park.”

“Don’t bet the trailer money yet.”

“This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach.”

“This race is as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a ’55 Ford.”

“Waiter! Smelling salts for all Democrats please.”

“The presidential race still hotter than a Laredo parking lot.”

“I think you’re likelier see a hippopotamus come in and run through this room than see Mitt Romney win this thing.”

“We’ve lived by the crystal ball, we’re eating so much broken glass. We’re in critical condition.”

[4]  I watch CNN for about 50 percent of my election day/night coverage, but that’s always subject to change. I flip over to the four majors on occasion, but don’t spend much time there other than CBS (20 percent), FOX (10 percent), and the other networks which get the scraps. I’ve never liked anything about NBC News, which is far too Northeast-centric for me, and ABC just doesn’t deliver much in terms of uniqueness. I tune into FOX to get some perspective of “the other side,” though it’s often hard to stomach the constant sludge pipeline of propaganda. For the same reason, I never watch MSNBC on election night — though I do like the hosts and generally agree with liberal perspective. I don’t need an echo chamber and cheerleaders on election night. I want (somewhat balanced) analysis and coverage. I’m sure PBS and CSPAN do the most balanced coverage, but that’s sorta’ like being hungry fora steak and dining at a lunch cafeteria (that’s my “Ratherism” for the day).

[5] I don’t care who you voted for but here’s an analytical fact: Donald Trump ran an atrociously bad closing week to his 2024 presidential campaign. Recall where he was and where this race stood back in June after the first assassination attempt, and how many sycophants then proclaimed, “it’s over.” Well, here we are. If Trump had simply “stuck to the script” and pounded Harris/Democrats on the economy-immigration-etc. he’d probably be a solid favorite to win right now. Instead, we all saw the horrors of the (utterly pointless) MSG rally, which was disastrous and could backfire with some voters. The constant drum beat appeals to young misogynistic males (which even Nikki Haley and Megan Kelly openly criticized) did nothing to expand the Trump base nor win over independents. His numerous speeches calling for violence and reinforcement of fears of his anti-democratic leanings also was a stupid fumble on the goal line. Think Leon Lett. We’ll see what (if any) impact this has on the final outcome. Nonetheless, this election is a toss-up because of Trump’s unscripted, rambling, unforced errors.

[6] Another interesting factoid from an investigative journalist who recently surveyed many campaign workers from both sides (forgive me for forgetting the source) found that the Harris/Walz campaign had a much higher percentage of volunteers. The Trump/Vance campaign and assorted PACs used a much higher number of paid workers over the past three months. Trump’s own campaign admits much of the last month of “turn out the vote” has been outsourced (to paid flunkies), including abominations like Musk’s super-PAC. This divide worth nothing because workers who knock doors, stuff envelopes, and make calls purely as volunteers are true dedicated believers. But paying a majority of workers (or worse, bribing them with lottery-like perks to win money) is much like mercenaries in warfare — they never perform as well in combat. This isn’t to say Trump’s supporters are less dedicated. His base is clearly more loyal to him than even hard-core Democrats are to Harris. After all, Democrats don’t hang giant flags and banners on homes and cars nor do they look upon the top of the ticket as some kind of religious messiah. But I also can’t discount the fever that Trump-supporters have for their candidate. Still, when people have to be PAID to work for you and campaign (as opposed to volunteerism), that’s not a positive sign for that side.

[7] I do believe the influence of social media platforms (some I don’t even use, such as Instagram, TikTok ) and podcasters with big followings will be *very* influential in this race. Many voters of my generation tend to be very television-centric. We think in terms of TV anchors (see my own biases towards this), newspapers, and political analysts who have many years of experience. I’m unconvinced these outlets of information carry as much weight as they used to. If Trump wins, I would give much of the credit to the element that used to be called “Right-Wing Talk Radio,” made famous by the late Rush Limbaugh. That audience is still out there, and it’s big. If Trump’s strategy to mobilize that demographic into votes works, he’ll be very difficult to beat in this race.

[8 ] I won’t spend much time on the gender gap of both candidates, but it must be addressed in any objective preliminary analysis. I was slightly surprised to learn women constitute a 52-48 majority of voters nationwide. Moreover, female turnout has been heavier than males in early voting. I would not read too much into either of these things. While Harris will certainly win women by perhaps 15-20 percent, Trump could match that percentages with men. Obviously, the popular vote means little to nothing. If Democrats don’t win the popular vote by at least 3 million (and that might be a low figure), they’re in trouble on all fronts.

[9] Successful politics –from running campaigns to actual governance and certainly on foreign policy- always means BUILDING COALITIONS. I capped this because it’s perhaps the single most powerful point I will make in this post. Successful politics isn’t constructed around individual ideologies. Failed politics often is wrapped in philosophical mantra. Indeed, winning always requires making compromises and pretzeling one’s own emotions. You take the support, the donations, the votes from *wherever* you can get them. Kamala Harris was thrilled to get the public endorsements of four-star generals who served in Trump’s former cabinet and ideological adversaries like Liz Cheney. Donald Trump was just as thrilled to gain the public endorsements of ex-Democrats including Tulsi Gabbard and RFK, Jr. No campaign turns away support. I’ve followed every political race closely since 1976. I recall nothing in the past that anywhere close to the psychedelic quilt of disparate ideological forces and diverse personalities who have aligned themselves with both candidates. As an admitted ideologue (someone who votes based mostly on political philosophy), I don’t much like this trend, which is largely the result of Trump’s polarizing personality. In other words, I’d like to get back to issues. Nonetheless, we must all recognize the powerful force of personality and identity in political races. Voters want to support people they believe are like them, and reflect what they think and believe. This trend probably isn’t going away. It’s an extension of the classic, “who do you want to have a beer with?” question. We’re stuck with barstool kindergarten politics.

[10] I’m not making any presidential predictions because I don’t know. Even if I was betting money, something I do full-time on uncertain outcomes, I’d have a hard time deciding which side is the smart wager. That said, Republicans will certainly win control of the Senate, flipping at least two states — Montana and West Virginia (and perhaps a third with Ohio). I’ll call it 52-48 (including independents) for Republicans. I don’t see any other plausible outcome. One more point on Senate races: I think it’s tragic that former Gov. Larry Hogan, the Maryland GOP Senate candidate, will almost certainly lose. He’s the kind of Republican we desperately need back in Washington. I’ll call the House slightly for Democrats, as I think the spillover from 2022 carries over here (yes, Republicans won control of the House, but they underperformed badly in a mid-term election). The internal disarray with Republican House leadership (threats, speaker changes, crazy talk) combined with Democrats carrying the nationwide popular vote probably gives a net gain to Democrats of perhaps a dozen seats. Small Subset Comment: Several NY swing districts narrowly won by Republicans in 2020 and 2022 alone are now extremely vulnerable, and Harris’ coattails could mean 4-5 seats flip in that state alone. Think of those NY Republicans as the reverse equivalent of Jon Tester (or even more of a comparison, Doug Jones in Alabama) –almost certain to lose. This is a monumentally important point, as even if a few seats flip and turn blue in NY, certainly a few more elsewhere across the country will go Democratic — and that means a change of leadership in Congress.

BONUS NEVADA COMMENT: I will make one very clear presidential race prediction. Trump wins Nevada. There’s just too many angry Trump voters in my home state not to reverse what’s been a red-to-purple-to-blue trend over the past 30 years. This is also the playground kingdom of low-information voters, with so many obvious distractions. I don’t believe Harris’ “democracy” message will resonate with enough independent voters in this state. Add in some oddities about Nevada which includes a propensity of average voters not to be upset by glaring character flaws and unorthodox personal backgrounds and behavior (hell, we’ve elected a former mob lawyer as Las Vegas mayor) and you end up with a population that isn’t as offended by Trump’s antics. Rightly or wrongly, that’s the way I see it. And even if he’s spewing nonsense just to get elected like “no tax on tips,” and “eliminate federal taxes on Social Security” (nonsense) there are enough microbe-brained voters in this state who will believe the lies to swing some who might have instinctively gone for Harris. One More Peculiarity: Sam Brown is the GOP Senate candidate in Nevada. But he’s losing in polls by 8-10 percentage points. That’s bizarre in a state where Trump is tied, or slightly ahead in polls. So, are there really that many split-ticket voters who will pull the lever for Trump AND then the opponent Jackie Rosen? That seems very likely. This is a bold and very rude statement to make, but I’ll put it out there anyway. Brown is facially disfigured (he was burned almost beyond recognition while serving in combat and carries the scars of that horrible event). Could so many people be that shallow to NOT vote for a candidate based on his looks? I realize there’s a repulsive degree of shallowness in this culture, but that’s very troubling to me. Brown is a terrible candidate on the issues, but he’s lock-step with Trump on everything. So, why is Trump ahead, and Brown almost hopeless in this race? I can’t think of anything else–which really is a depressing perspective to have on your neighbors and fellow citizens.