"It’s Not Going to Get Any Easier for Democrats After Trump."

That's a NYT headline for a column by Thomas Edsall. 

Key sentence: "The precariousness of the Democrats’ position in the coming decade hit home for me after reading 'The 2026 Midterms Are Critical. But 2032 Could Be Existential,' a March 24 essay that Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist based in Florida posted on The Bulwark."

I have no gift links left to give on this, the last day of the month, but even if I did, I wouldn't use one for this. Just go read Schale's piece at The Bulwark. It's not paywalled. Or don't even do that. The big point is just that the 2030 census is going to be very tough on the Democrats.

"If Democrats don’t reverse course, they may soon find themselves unable to win presidential elections."

"Increasingly, the party is made up of urban professionals who graduated from four-year universities and command relatively high salaries. Having more of these supporters has been a boon to the party’s finances, but electorally, the shift has been a disaster. The electoral power of high-income voters is limited: Not only are they a smaller demographic, but they are also concentrated in a handful of coastal states that do not decide presidential elections. By contrast, the lower-income voters lost by Democrats are dispersed across the battleground states that increasingly determine the Electoral College outcome. Under this system, no candidate can win the presidency today without galvanizing the working class...."

Writes Brody Mullins, in "How Democrats Became the Party of the Well-to-Do" (NYT)(free-access link, because there are some good graphs that show how the class politics flipped).

"Wait, people are leaving blue democrat-run states, and moving to republican-run red states? Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to look at the reasons why."

"Dems have a really tough time admitting they could be wrong, about anything. Maybe they are wrong about their policies, and people are voting, with their feet."

That's the top-rated comment at a New York Times article — "How the Electoral College Could Tilt Further From Democrats" — about "the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party insiders see playing out if current U.S. population projections hold" after the 2040 census.

The next 4 most highly rated comments are similar:

"In 2023, California saw a net loss of 268,000 residents in New York, 179,000....they're going to... Texas, Florida, Arizona...."

"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. You are not the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. In the American political system, to lose people is to lose power. If these trends hold, the 2030 census will shift the Electoral College sharply to the right. The states that Kamala Harris won in 2024 — they'll lose about 11 House seats and Electoral College votes. The states of Trump won would gain them. So in that Electoral College, a Democrat could win every single state Harris won in 2024 and also win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still lose the presidency."

Says Ezra Klein, in "There Is a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk," the new episode of his NYT podcast, audio and transcript at Podscribe.

The quoted part is from the beginning, where Klein effectively stirs up fears of future disaster for Democrats. The answer to the question asked in the episode title is: "If liberals don't make government work, zealots like Elon Musk are going to come in and burn it down." And: "If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promises of strong men, they need to offer them the fruits of effective government in the long run."

Yeah, just do that.

CORRECTION: I misread the headline as a question — Is There a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk? I hallucinated the humility that plainly belongs there!

"Remarkably, Trump’s margin of victory in Florida in 2024 was larger than Kamala Harris’s in New York."

"Such a result seemed unthinkable until it happened. In the seven prior presidential elections, the margin of victory in New York generally exceeded that in Florida by more than 20 percentage points.... In the more than 35 years since Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989, no other presidential candidate of either party has won Florida by even half as much as Trump did in 2024....  The ribbon of interconnected states running through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa has held vital importance for American presidential elections for more than 150 years.... In presidential races spanning 1996 through 2012, Republican candidates won the respective contests in those five key states just 12 percent of the time (three wins, 22 losses). In the subsequent three elections, Trump won the battles in those states 80 percent of the time (12 wins, 3 losses). Trump’s success in Ohio and Iowa is particularly remarkable.... Trump also gained ground in uncompetitive states, such as New York, New Jersey, and West Virginia...."

Writes Jeffrey H. Anderson, in "How Trump Remade the Electoral Map/The president-elect has shaken up state-level results across his three campaigns" (City Journal).

The NYT still has the Electoral College race stalled at 295 to 226...

... with Nevada and Arizona lingering, endlessly unreported.

But Real Clear Politics shows all the states decided, with a final score of 312 to 226. We know where Nevada and Arizona are going — into the big landslide.

So I just want to declare my victory as the one who predicted the final score on December 14, 2023: "Predicted Electoral College vote: 312 Trump, 226 Biden."

I mean, the word "Biden" is wrong, but 312 to 226 was right on the nose.

I gave some good advice then too: "The demonization of Trump has not worked for Democrats.... My advice, not that I think Democrats would or even could follow it: Fight Trump on the substantive merits of the issues. Show us that you deserve the power you seek."

That advice is still good advice. Especially now that it's a landslide. 

"All across America, millions of people in so-called ‘Blue States’ are joining our movement based on LOVE, INTELLIGENCE, and, above all, COMMON SENSE."

Said Trump, in a statement, quoted in "Struggling in the Sunbelt and the West, Biden Tries to Fortify Blue Wall/‘The Blue Wall is the path of least resistance to 270’ electoral votes, one Democrat says" (Wall Street Journal)(no paywall (I think)).

The only path that offers Biden hope seems to be winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He needs all three. Trump only needs one, as long as it's either Michigan or Pennsylvania. (Here's an interactive map to check whether I'm right about that. And here's the "no toss ups" map for reference.)

Here's what the article has to say about Biden's chances in those 3 states: "Michigan Democrats warn that the continuing war in Gaza has galvanized the state’s large Arab-American community and young voters against the president. Despite repeated trips to Pennsylvania, Biden is still in a tough fight in a place where he was once called the state’s 'third senator,' as voters cite concerns about the economy and prices. And in Wisconsin, known for its Democratic organizing prowess, Rep. Mark Pocan said there is work to do. 'The president certainly is showing up a lot,' said Pocan, a progressive Democrat whose district includes Madison, Wis., and some surrounding areas. But he said there are “still some headwinds around cost of living. There’s some specific headwinds around the war in the Middle East, specifically, on conditions in Gaza.'"

Some people are depending on the crazy NY trial to save Joe Biden. For example, Paul Campos, at Lawyers Guns Money: "So everything hinges on the current New York state criminal trial. If Trump is convicted, my confidence that he is going to lose in November goes to pretty much 100% (It may be absurd, but every poll indicates this would have a massively negative effect on his chances, because it’s the kind of information that actually penetrates the skulls of 'low information voters.'). If it’s a hung jury, I really have no sense of how that cuts. An acquittal would be a devastating development, but I think the chances of that are very slim."

"I challenge you, Elon, to watch the whole interview and tell the world why this isn’t what you claim you want on X."

Said Don Lemon, introducing the interview, which you can watch below, quoted in "5 key moments from Elon Musk’s interview with Don Lemon/The X owner resists responsibility for the hate speech on the social media platform" (WaPo).

I think WaPo's idea "5 key moments" leans toward Lemon: "Musk resists responsibility for hate speech on X....Musk experiences depressive episodes.... Musk described his meeting with Donald Trump.... America needs to ‘move on’ from racism, Musk says.... Musk rejects the idea that the ‘buck stops’ with him." 

I watched the "Great Replacement" segment, and based on that, I'd say Lemon was straining for a gotcha against Elon Musk. Both men speak awkwardly, in different ways, so the conversation is unpleasant (the polar opposite of, say, The Joe Rogan Experience):

The Don Lemon Show episode 1: Elon Musk

TIMESTAMPS:
(02:23) News on X
(10:07) Donald Trump and Endorsing a Candidate
(13:04) The New Tesla Roadster
(16:46) Relaxation and Video Games
(17:54) Tweeting and Drug Use
(23:19) The Great Replacement Theory
(30:03) Content Moderation… pic.twitter.com/bLRae4DhyO

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) March 18, 2024

Predicted Electoral College vote: 312 Trump, 226 Biden.

Screen shot from Real Clear Politics.

Here's the Electoral College interactive map, where I generated the numbers used in my post title.

The demonization of Trump has not worked for Democrats. I think Glenn Greenwald put it aptly (reacting to the polls I've displayed above):

"The more Trump is indicted, the more he rises in the polls. That correlation doesn't prove causation, but what it does prove is that most Americans have so much distrust in the justice system and DOJ that even felony indictments don't undermine Trump's standing with the public." 

My advice, not that I think Democrats would or even could follow it: Fight Trump on the substantive merits of the issues. Show us that you deserve the power you seek. 

"If Trump manages to escape conviction in Jack Smith’s Washington case, which may be the only criminal trial that ends before the election, that’s going to turbocharge his campaign."

"Of course, if he’s convicted, that could turbocharge his campaign even more. It’s a perfect playing field for the maleficent Trump: He learned in the 2016 race that physical and rhetorical violence could rev up his base. He told me at the time it helped get him to No. 1 and he said he found violence at his rallies exciting. He has no idea why making fun of Paul Pelosi’s injuries at the hands of one of his acolytes is subhuman, any more than he understood how repellent it was in 2015 when he mocked a disabled Times reporter. He gets barbaric laughs somehow, and that’s all he cares about...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "The Axe Is Sharp" (NYT)

"The Axe" refers to the person Biden calls a "prick," David Axelrod.

Trump mocked a disabled reporter, but he did not, as Dowd may want readers to falsely remember, make fun of his disability.

If we could read Trump's mind, would we find that he has "no idea why making fun of Paul Pelosi’s injuries is subhuman"? But we can't read his mind.

"I believe that what can be achieved on Jan. 6 is not simply to keep Biden below 270 electoral votes. It seems feasible that the vote count can be conducted so that at no point will Trump be behind in the electoral vote count..."

"... unless and until Biden can obtain a favorable decision from the Supreme Court upholding the Electoral Count Act as constitutional, or otherwise recognizing the power of Congress (and not the president of the Senate) to count the votes."

Wrote Kenneth Chesebro — AKA Co-Conspirator 5 — in a newly revealed memo, quoted in "Previously Secret Memo Laid Out Strategy for Trump to Overturn Biden’s Win/The House Jan. 6 committee’s investigation did not uncover the memo, whose existence first came to light in last week’s indictment" (NYT).

"One reason demographic change has failed to transform electoral politics is that the increased diversity of the electorate has come not mainly from Black voters but from Hispanic, Asian-American and multiracial voters."

"Those groups back Democrats, but not always by overwhelmingly large margins.... The new census data’s finding that the percentage of non-Hispanic white voters in the country’s electorate dropped by about two percentage points from 2016 to 2020 might seem like a lot. But with Hispanic, Asian-American and multiracial voters representing the entirety of the increase, while the Black share of the electorate was flat, the growing nonwhite share of the electorate cost Mr. Trump only about half a percentage point over a four-year period. Another factor is the electoral map. The American electoral system rewards flipping states from red to blue, but many Democratic gains among nonwhite voters have been concentrated in the major cities of big and often noncompetitive states. By contrast, many traditional swing states across the northern tier, like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, have had relatively little demographic change.... White voters still represent more than 80 percent of the electorate in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the new census data. The nonwhite population in these states is predominantly Black; their share of the population has been fairly steady over the last few decades. But Mr. Biden won these states so narrowly that the relatively modest demographic shifts of the last few decades were necessary for him to prevail in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It’s just hard to call it a Great Replacement if Mr. Trump could have won in 2020 if only he had done as well among white voters as he did in 2016."

From "Why Rising Diversity Might Not Help Democrats as Much as They Hope/Voters of color make up an increasing percentage of the United States electorate, but that trend isn’t hurting Republicans as much as conservatives fear" by Nate Cohn (NYT). 

The "Great Replacement" theory is referred to elsewhere in the article, here: "Contrary to what Tucker Carlson says repeatedly on Fox News about the rise of 'white replacement theory' as a Democratic electoral strategy, the country’s growing racial diversity has not drastically upended the party’s chances." That's carefully worded. It doesn't say that the Democrats do not have that strategy, only that it hasn't worked as well as you might think. If it's an odious strategy, then it's bad whether it works or not. If it's not odious, then you'd go right to open discussion of how well it works. So I'm inclined to think that the NYT doesn't think it's odious or doesn't want us readers to think it's odious. If the latter, it would seem that the NYT is trying to quell concern about about "replacement": it's not really happening, not that much, and even if it were that would be okay too, and if you feel at all worried about it, then you're in the Tucker Carlson camp, and you'd better get out of there.

(To comment, you can email me here.)

"If Congress purported to overturn the results of the Electoral College, it would not only exceed [its] power, but also establish unwise precedents."

"First, Congress would take away the power to choose the president from the people, which would essentially end presidential elections and place that power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress. Second, Congress would imperil the Electoral College, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections. Democrats could achieve their longstanding goal of eliminating the Electoral College in effect by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect. Third, Congress would take another big step toward federalizing election law, another longstanding Democratic priority that Republicans have consistently opposed. Thus, I will not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes on January 6. I’m grateful for what the president accomplished over the past four years, which is why I campaigned vigorously for his reelection. But objecting to certified electoral votes won’t give him a second term—it will only embolden those Democrats who want to erode further our system of constitutional government."

Says Senator Tom Cotton.

"Mr. Hawley’s challenge is not unprecedented... Democrats in both the House and Senate challenged certification of the 2004 election results..."

"... and House Democrats tried on their own to challenge the 2016 and 2000 outcomes, though without Senate support. ... Senator Barbara Boxer of California... briefly delayed the certification of George W. Bush’s victory... cit[ing] claims that Ohio election officials had improperly purged voter rolls... which Mr. Bush carried by fewer than 120,000 votes. Nancy Pelosi, then the House Democratic leader, supported the challenge.... The House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge and the Senate rejected it 74 to 1...  After the 2016 election, several House Democrats tried again, rising during the joint session to register challenges against Mr. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in various states. The Democrats cited reasons ranging from long lines at polling sites to the Kremlin’s election influence operation."

From "Hawley Answers Trump’s Call for Election Challenge/The Republican senator said he would object to certifying the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, a move that is unlikely to alter President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory" (NYT). 

So... in the last three decades, every time a Republican won, Congressional Democrats challenged the certification of the election, and every time a Democrat won, Congressional Republicans did not challenge the certification.

That certainly puts a different light on what Josh Hawley is doing!

Either challenging the certification is the norm or it is not. It can't be the norm for Democrats and abnormal when a Republican does the same thing. Either Congress has a role in looking into the workings of the state elections or it does not. It can't be that the role is to question Republican victories and rubber-stamp Democratic victories.

I can see — in the NYT write up — the basis for arguing that there actually should be a lopsided role. To fill out something I elided above: "In challenging those results Democrats cited claims that Ohio election officials had improperly purged voter rolls and otherwise disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters in the state...." 

The argument that's hinted at is that there should be heightened scrutiny where the challenge has to do with discrimination against a traditionally discriminated against group. 

"In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed. The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a lot time ago. And we now know that nothing - not even a pandemic - or an abuse of power - can extinguish that flame."

"What beats deep in the hearts of the American people is this: Democracy. The right to be heard. To have your vote counted. To choose the leaders of this nation. To govern ourselves. In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them." 

That, we are told, is what Biden will say in his speech tonight — at 7:30 ET, quoted in "Electoral College confirms Biden is President-elect': Joe to address the nation tonight to say 'democracy prevailed' in rebuke to Trump's refusal to give up doomed fight" (Daily Mail).

So the thing happened just now — the thing we call the Electoral College.

It's a momentous day.

The Electoral College is voting AND the first shots of the newly approved COVID19 vaccines are going in.

"California certified its presidential election Friday and appointed 55 electors pledged to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, officially handing him the Electoral College majority needed to win the White House...."

"The electors named Friday will meet Dec. 14, along with counterparts in each state, to formally vote for the next president. Most states have laws binding their electors to the winner of the popular vote in their state, measures that were upheld by a Supreme Court decision this year. There have been no suggestions that any of Biden’s pledged electors would contemplate not voting for him. Results of the Electoral College vote are due to be received, and typically approved, by Congress on Jan. 6. Although lawmakers can object to accepting the electors’ votes, it would be almost impossible for Biden to be blocked at that point." 

The NY Post reports.

"You can press Trump and the vote goes to Biden. All you have to do is play with a chip, and it’s shown all the time. All you have to do is play with a chip..."

"... and they played with a chip, especially in Wayne County and Detroit. You take a look. In Philadelphia, you take a look. We’ve had excellent meetings with senators from Pennsylvania, Republican senators and others, and they’re seeing things. They knew it was dishonest, but they didn’t know it was this dishonest. You’ll see it all. You’ll see it also, so we’ll see."

Said Trump, in the second half of what began as the Thanksgiving call to the troops. Here's the transcript. Video:

Did the reporters change the subject from Thanksgiving to the election results? The question was cleverly framed so that it can be staunchly denied that the reporter brought up the election: "Mr. President, do you have any big plans for your last Thanksgiving in the White House?" But that word "last" was, quite obviously, a dagger.

"As the weaknesses of President Trump's legal cases to overturn Joe Biden's win become clearer, Republicans are talking more about the Electoral College..."

"... hinting at an extreme last-chance way for Trump to cling to power.... In this long-shot scenario, Trump and his team could try to block secretaries of state in contested states from certifying results. That could allow legislatures in those states to try to appoint new electors who favor Trump over Biden.... Trump has not directly said he would pursue this strategy. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo each noted on Tuesday that the election results don't become official until electors cast their votes next month...." 

Axios reports.

It's very hard to imagine such a thing happening, but the Biden side needs to be prepared as long as Trump keeps the uncertainty alive, tormenting them. 

Axios has quotes from "one lawyer familiar with the process" — the process, not the Trump insiders who are planning to do anything like this, just the existence of this strange, mind-bending path to victory. 

This lawyer observes that Trump may be trying to "scare the living bejeezus out of everyone." Good guess. 

What is the argument that Trump ought to be doing what he can to calm us? I hear Biden and his people telling us they want to bring calm to the country, but they're declining the opportunity to just be calm themselves until the state officials certify the results of the election.

Personally, I feel calm about waiting for that. Why isn't that okay? It seems to me that as long as they choose to pressure Trump to concede before the vote certification, they're forfeiting the high ground of calmness above all, and I'm not going to worry about Trump's pot stirring. 

"Trump wasn’t elected because Clinton was cordially detested. What American presidential candidate since George Washington hasn’t been?"

"She was dull on the stump. But if dullness were politically fatal, the entire American political system would have been in the cemetery with President Harrison since 1841. (He gave a two-hour inaugural address in freezing rain, then caught a cold and died a month later.) Clinton’s 'popular vote' victory was and is inconsequential. America, since its founding, has had a devolved system of voting for the president that eschews nationwide first-past-the-post to give more obscure regions (our Scotlands) a greater say than weight of population would allow. She and Trump knew the rules. The cheating would have been different in a different game. Russian electoral interference was doubtless factual but doubtfully culpable. I’ve spent time in Russia. The idea that the Russians could fine-tune America’s enormously complex machinery of election is … I’ve driven Russian cars. And there’s no use blaming Trump’s election on the rise of populism. 'Populism' is an epithetic catch-all in use whenever the ideas popular with the good and the great aren’t popular.... America is what you get when you turn a random horde of people loose in a vast and various space. Some came here on the make, some on the run, some were dragged here involuntarily as slaves, some were chased here by poverty, oppression or bigotry and some were here already and were defeated by disease and demographics until they became foreigners in their own country. The bunch of us have never got along...."

From "Trump v Biden: PJ O’Rourke on why this US election is the craziest yet/Why on earth isn’t Joe Biden set for a landslide? The inimitable political commentator takes a ringside seat at the election circus" by (obviously) P.J. O'Rourke writing in the Times of London.