We’re nearing that most cherished of American civic traditions: the dignified, peaceful transfer of power that follows an uneventful, orderly election.
It’s a beautiful thing to witness, isn’t it? Filled with civic pride and patriotism, I’ll cast my ballot today here in Virginia, waving to my fellow citizens as I enter and exit my polling place. Wishing them a great day, I’ll smile and exchange a knowing nod with Americans whose own partisan preferences pale in comparison with the feeling of shared cultural norms and commonality during this most “holy” of secular rituals.
Ok, maybe that’s not exactly true, but let’s get down to brass tacks: who’s gonna win this thing?
I have some thoughts. Five, to be specific.
1. Polls matter, but not when they’re this close. Count me among those who question the reliability of polls in recent cycles, but I don’t reject polls per se. What I mean is—I totally accept the science of statistical analysis and polling. It’s just that every poll showing a virtual tie or a one-percent margin to either side doesn’t tell us much. So, yes, we can say confidently that Harris is going to win Illinois and Trump is going to win Ohio, but polling alone isn’t helpful in indicating the ultimate outcome in the states that will determine the election.
2. Other, more marginal indicators (“tells”) do matter, I think. Something new is happening in 2024. I haven’t seen Democrats run toward Trump in any of the prior “Trump” election cycles, from 2016 through 2022. Until this year, Democrats have always run away from Trump (and demonized him), rather than tying themselves to him or using him in a positive way. But Bob Casey and Tammy Baldwin are doing just that. To be clear, many Democrats (especially Harris) are obviously still running “Orange Man Bad” strategies. But if these swing-state Dems in close Senate races thought Trump were a net negative, they wouldn’t dare invoke his name in anything resembling a favorable light. That’s why I think Trump will win both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, albeit narrowly.
3. “Trump,” as a political concept, has been largely normalized. Even his critics would probably (begrudgingly) agree that the the median voter is now desensitized to the stylistic chaos and bluster that surrounds Trump. I would go so far as to say that a decent percentage of voters who couldn’t stomach voting for him in 2016 now, eight years later, are either willing to hold their nose and do so, or actually find him amusing or likable and will enthusiastically support him. Most of what seemed shocking in 2015 or 2017 or even 2020 has now been habituated by the American public. Further undermining the apocalyptic warnings about Trump is the fact that we already have four years of data of him as president! All of that matters, as the cries of “Trump is Hitler” don’t carry as much weight as they did in prior years—except to zealots and would-be assassins, I guess.
4. Media influence is at an all-time low. This is not to say it’s nonexistent. The media’s pivot from “Biden should drop Kamala” to “Kamala is a good candidate” as soon as she ascended to the nomination resulted in a significant popularity surge. But people largely distrust the media, with even Democrats’ trust level slipping to 54 percent. More importantly, independents are at a mere 27 percent (Republicans are down to 12). This matters because slanted framing or blatant bias has less influence on voters than it did even just a few years ago, which helps Trump.
5. Social media suppression is less prevalent. The well-documented suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election rightfully raised the ire of many. And both the public and the companies involved learned an important lesson about trusting “experts” and suppression of speech. Moreover, the purchase of X (formerly Twitter) by Elon Musk, coupled with the admission (and regret) by Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook’s role in content removal, have created an environment in which it is much more difficult for outside forces to suppress narratives unhelpful to their cause. Just recently, the New York Times attempted a last-ditch effort to get YouTube to silence or punish heterodox / conservative content creators right before the election, using “evidence” of “misinformation” as the basis. To its credit, YouTube didn’t bite. I think the outcome would have been the reverse in 2020.
With all of the above in mind, I think Trump wins the election. He overperforms in certain tight states (e.g. Nevada) and wins enough swing states to secure the Electoral College victory. I’m not sure he’ll win the popular vote, but I am sure that this is the best chance he’s had to win it in his three bids. This is the map as I see it:
What jumps out to me is how narrow Harris’ path is. Trump could win a number of different swing-state combinations and prevail, while Harris more or less needs a sweep. For example, Trump could actually lose Wisconsin or Pennsylvania in the above scenario and still win the election. Likewise, if he wins both of them, he could absorb an upset loss in, say, North Carolina, and lose Nevada or Arizona, and still prevail.
For Harris, barring upsets in places like Georgia, she would need to carry Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And even that combination only gets her to 270 on the nose, with no margin for error elsewhere.
I have one final, bonus thought. I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this part, but . . . depending on what happens over the next few days (weeks? months?!? God help us.), prepare yourself for a deluge of hypocrisy and flip-flopping by some of the loudest political voices on a variety of issues.
First, if Harris somehow wins the Electoral College with Trump winning the popular vote, expect all of the calls for abolishing or “reforming” the EC to abruptly vaporize as the politicians and academics who support such a move miraculously and simultaneously “re-think” their decades-long opposition. For some reason!
More seriously, if Trump does win, many of the people who have been lecturing politicians and the public about “election denialism” for the past four years will suddenly revert to the posture they had when Stacy Abrams lost in Georgia in 2018, or when they tried to influence electors to change their votes and called Trump “illegitimate” when he won in 2016.
Election denial or undermining results may once again be framed as noble and virtuous. Hypocrites will swiftly discover “credible” reasons why a victorious Trump either isn’t eligible to be president or didn’t actually win. The media will dutifully amplify and corroborate these arguments.
They will also helpfully “retcon” much of what has been said on that topic over the past four years to make the hypocrisy more resemble a consistent, principled stance—similar to how they retconned the assertion that Harris ever had the unofficial role of “border czar” (perhaps “gaslit” is the correct term).
If that doesn’t work, aggrieved Regime members will likely craft a new narrative once Trump in office as to why his victory owes to “illegal” or “impeachable” conduct of some kind. Rinse and repeat.
But, for many of the reasons stated above, I don’t think most of the public will buy it.
Good luck out there, my fellow Americans!
The Axis of Ego 
2024 Election Spoiler Alert!
It’s a beautiful thing to witness, isn’t it? Filled with civic pride and patriotism, I’ll cast my ballot today here in Virginia, waving to my fellow citizens as I enter and exit my polling place. Wishing them a great day, I’ll smile and exchange a knowing nod with Americans whose own partisan preferences pale in comparison with the feeling of shared cultural norms and commonality during this most “holy” of secular rituals.
Ok, maybe that’s not exactly true, but let’s get down to brass tacks: who’s gonna win this thing?
I have some thoughts. Five, to be specific.
1. Polls matter, but not when they’re this close. Count me among those who question the reliability of polls in recent cycles, but I don’t reject polls per se. What I mean is—I totally accept the science of statistical analysis and polling. It’s just that every poll showing a virtual tie or a one-percent margin to either side doesn’t tell us much. So, yes, we can say confidently that Harris is going to win Illinois and Trump is going to win Ohio, but polling alone isn’t helpful in indicating the ultimate outcome in the states that will determine the election.
2. Other, more marginal indicators (“tells”) do matter, I think. Something new is happening in 2024. I haven’t seen Democrats run toward Trump in any of the prior “Trump” election cycles, from 2016 through 2022. Until this year, Democrats have always run away from Trump (and demonized him), rather than tying themselves to him or using him in a positive way. But Bob Casey and Tammy Baldwin are doing just that. To be clear, many Democrats (especially Harris) are obviously still running “Orange Man Bad” strategies. But if these swing-state Dems in close Senate races thought Trump were a net negative, they wouldn’t dare invoke his name in anything resembling a favorable light. That’s why I think Trump will win both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, albeit narrowly.
3. “Trump,” as a political concept, has been largely normalized. Even his critics would probably (begrudgingly) agree that the the median voter is now desensitized to the stylistic chaos and bluster that surrounds Trump. I would go so far as to say that a decent percentage of voters who couldn’t stomach voting for him in 2016 now, eight years later, are either willing to hold their nose and do so, or actually find him amusing or likable and will enthusiastically support him. Most of what seemed shocking in 2015 or 2017 or even 2020 has now been habituated by the American public. Further undermining the apocalyptic warnings about Trump is the fact that we already have four years of data of him as president! All of that matters, as the cries of “Trump is Hitler” don’t carry as much weight as they did in prior years—except to zealots and would-be assassins, I guess.
4. Media influence is at an all-time low. This is not to say it’s nonexistent. The media’s pivot from “Biden should drop Kamala” to “Kamala is a good candidate” as soon as she ascended to the nomination resulted in a significant popularity surge. But people largely distrust the media, with even Democrats’ trust level slipping to 54 percent. More importantly, independents are at a mere 27 percent (Republicans are down to 12). This matters because slanted framing or blatant bias has less influence on voters than it did even just a few years ago, which helps Trump.
5. Social media suppression is less prevalent. The well-documented suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election rightfully raised the ire of many. And both the public and the companies involved learned an important lesson about trusting “experts” and suppression of speech. Moreover, the purchase of X (formerly Twitter) by Elon Musk, coupled with the admission (and regret) by Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook’s role in content removal, have created an environment in which it is much more difficult for outside forces to suppress narratives unhelpful to their cause. Just recently, the New York Times attempted a last-ditch effort to get YouTube to silence or punish heterodox / conservative content creators right before the election, using “evidence” of “misinformation” as the basis. To its credit, YouTube didn’t bite. I think the outcome would have been the reverse in 2020.
With all of the above in mind, I think Trump wins the election. He overperforms in certain tight states (e.g. Nevada) and wins enough swing states to secure the Electoral College victory. I’m not sure he’ll win the popular vote, but I am sure that this is the best chance he’s had to win it in his three bids. This is the map as I see it:
What jumps out to me is how narrow Harris’ path is. Trump could win a number of different swing-state combinations and prevail, while Harris more or less needs a sweep. For example, Trump could actually lose Wisconsin or Pennsylvania in the above scenario and still win the election. Likewise, if he wins both of them, he could absorb an upset loss in, say, North Carolina, and lose Nevada or Arizona, and still prevail.
For Harris, barring upsets in places like Georgia, she would need to carry Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And even that combination only gets her to 270 on the nose, with no margin for error elsewhere.
I have one final, bonus thought. I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this part, but . . . depending on what happens over the next few days (weeks? months?!? God help us.), prepare yourself for a deluge of hypocrisy and flip-flopping by some of the loudest political voices on a variety of issues.
First, if Harris somehow wins the Electoral College with Trump winning the popular vote, expect all of the calls for abolishing or “reforming” the EC to abruptly vaporize as the politicians and academics who support such a move miraculously and simultaneously “re-think” their decades-long opposition. For some reason!
More seriously, if Trump does win, many of the people who have been lecturing politicians and the public about “election denialism” for the past four years will suddenly revert to the posture they had when Stacy Abrams lost in Georgia in 2018, or when they tried to influence electors to change their votes and called Trump “illegitimate” when he won in 2016.
Election denial or undermining results may once again be framed as noble and virtuous. Hypocrites will swiftly discover “credible” reasons why a victorious Trump either isn’t eligible to be president or didn’t actually win. The media will dutifully amplify and corroborate these arguments.
They will also helpfully “retcon” much of what has been said on that topic over the past four years to make the hypocrisy more resemble a consistent, principled stance—similar to how they retconned the assertion that Harris ever had the unofficial role of “border czar” (perhaps “gaslit” is the correct term).
If that doesn’t work, aggrieved Regime members will likely craft a new narrative once Trump in office as to why his victory owes to “illegal” or “impeachable” conduct of some kind. Rinse and repeat.
But, for many of the reasons stated above, I don’t think most of the public will buy it.
Good luck out there, my fellow Americans!
Share this:
Related