Let’s take it slow.

November 8, 2024

I want to focus on the election results and a small slice of the news through reader reactions I received over the last twenty-four hours. My main takeaway is this: Take it slow. We are only two days out from Election Day, and many races have yet to be decided.

It is too early to make judgments or plans. Let’s sit with the results and allow them to settle in. There are glimmers of hope that should fortify us for the battle to come. Most people are exhausted and numb—not a good state for making plans to leave the country or conclude what the Democratic Party must do to succeed in 2026 and 2028.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the emails I have received from people sharing their pain, panic, and despair. As I wrote yesterday, if you can, please reach out to people in your life—especially those in vulnerable groups—to check in with them. Many are suffering in silence. A small act of kindness or empathy can go a long way in lifting their spirits.

I heard from many readers that the video I posted yesterday (with Jess Piper) helped them deal with their anxiety and feelings of loss. I recommend it to those still in the early stages of shock. See Today’s Edition, (Day 1: Taking care of one another.)

I heard from equal numbers of readers who have resolved to fight on. They are fully committed to seeing our nation through the difficult period to come. If that includes you, be a leader and example for those around you who are looking for social cues on how to react to this novel situation. You will never know how many people will take solace from your leadership during adversity. And by being a leader, you will lift your spirits and renew your resolve!

But . . . I received dozens (hundreds?) of emails that attempted to dissect and explain the election result. Inevitably, those emails included an assignment of responsibility (read: blame) for the Democratic losses on November 5th. I believe it is WAY too early to make such judgments. Nonetheless, the data experts are looking for a signal in the noise by using conventional wisdom that no longer applies to the American electorate. As a result, pundits are drawing conflicting, erroneous, and irrelevant conclusions about the meaning of Tuesday’s results.

Worst of all, the early effort to slice and dice the electorate into parcels of blame is the most harmful exercise Democrats can engage in at this moment. We can deconstruct the 2024 election at our leisure. Today, we face the imminent threat of a fascistic regime intent on deporting ten million immigrants, repealing Obamacare, outlawing contraception and abortion, appointing white nationalists to the cabinet, placing an anti-vaxxer in charge of the health of women and children, putting climate-change denialists in charge of environmental agencies, and packing the military and national security community with Putin-friendly isolationists.

We must be united to have any chance of limiting the damage. More importantly, we must be united to have any chance of reclaiming ground in 2026 and 2028.

Trying to figure out “who to blame” is counterproductive. And it is counterproductive even when phrased as “We have to figure out what we must do differently in the future.” That statement is incontestably true. But now is not the moment. Emotions are raw, and people are exhausted. They need leadership and support, not issue-spotting.

Let’s take it slow. We need to regroup and regain our strength so that we can be ready for the battles looming on the horizon.

---

A bit of perspective on the election turnout and results

Many readers are expressing some version of this thought: “How is it possible that we are in the minority in this country?” I don’t believe we are. Looking at the election results more closely can help put the outcome in perspective.

First, we must be realistic and acknowledge that Trump made gains in most states and Kamala Harris underperformed Joe Biden’s 2020 results by approximately 12 million votes. Those are facts that we must understand as we move forward—but they are beyond the reach of today’s newsletter.

Political commentators are describing Trump's win as a “landslide” or a “mandate.” I don’t believe either is true. Trump won the majority of voters who voted on November 5. That is a long way from being the majority of Americans.

There are 245 million eligible voters in America. Despite claims that 2024 was a “low turnout” election, it was not. When all the votes are counted, it will rival the 2020 record turnout of 158 million. (The 2024 estimated popular vote is 152 million.)

That means that 93 million eligible voters did not vote—a number that exceeds Trump's final tally in the popular vote by a substantial margin. See generally 2024 General Election Turnout UF Election Lab.

Let’s set aside the math and get to the point: Less than a third of eligible voters voted for Donald Trump. Before declaring a “landslide” or tectonic shift in American politics, commentators must address the 93 million Americans who did not vote. I am not taking a position on how they would have voted or what the outcome would have been, but to ignore one-third of the electorate in an analysis of the political landscape is malpractice. But it does tell us that Trump’s popular vote support is not a majority of Americans.

Next, if current patterns hold, Trump will win about 51% of the popular vote, and Harris will win 48%. (California is still being counted; likely to increase Harris’s popular vote share.) When Trump lost by the same margin in 2020, he claimed he lost “by a whisker.” Today, pundits claim that the same margin in 2024 is a “landslide.” Trump’s winning margin in the popular vote (on a percentage basis) exceeds only Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush in the modern era. See Winning margins in U.S. elections 1789-2020 | Statista.

The same analysis applies to the Electoral College. Trump currently sits at 295 electoral votes (to Harris’s 226). That margin of victory in the electoral vote puts Trump in the lowest winning margins in the electoral college in the modern presidency—just above George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter (and below Trump's own 2016 win). So, please, spare us the “landslide” language. It didn’t happen.

Finally, Kamala Harris needed only 175,000 votes in three swing states to win in the electoral college. Per Mikel Jollett on Twitter,

If 1.1% of voters (175,000) across the 3 blue wall states had chosen Harris over Trump, she would be President.

I get that Trump won but this isn’t a “blowout” or a “landslide” and it’s certainly not a mandate.

1.1% across 3 states is all it was. [Note: I haven’t confirmed this math.]

Of course, we must not contort the data in a way that misleads us. We have plenty of soul-searching to do. My point in sharing the above is to shake you by the shoulders and say, “Snap out of it!”

Yes, we lost, but not by a historic, earth-shaking margin. It was a close race. The notion that 2%+ win by Trump means that we are assigned to a minority status in America is suspect (at least) and wrong (in my view). Whatever the answer, we are not potted plants, we are not sheep, and we are not helpless. We represent (at least) fifty percent of the American people. Let’s act like it!

---

Don’t accept the commentariat’s claim that Democrats lost because they are “elitist”

Oh, boy! My inbox was filled with dozens of emails from readers forwarding articles explaining that Democrats lost because they are “elitist” and ignored the concerns of “real” Americans. I tried to respond civilly to those emails but may have failed on occasion. My apologies, but the emails turned into a flood. And they were always preceded by nice notes like, “Here’s another perspective to consider,” while forwarding articles that claimed Democrats “got what they deserved” because they are arrogant elitists.

As I write, the NYTimes is filled with opinion pieces scolding Democrats for arrogance and hubris in ignoring the concerns of working-class Americans. As of Thursday evening, those articles include:

Kamala Harris Failed to Read the Room, by Damon Linker

Democrats, Let’s Get Real About Why Harris Lost, by Frank Bruni

The Hubris that Cost Democrats the Election, Lydia Pollgreen and Tressie McMillan

Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?, by David Brooks.

Before turning to my response to those articles, let’s acknowledge the Times’ role in normalizing Trump so that he was a “respectable” candidate who the wealthy elites in the Republican Party could support. And now that a candidate described by his own running mate as “America’s next Hitler” has been elected, the Times’ opinion columnists believe that the best use of their time is to scold Democrats for losing the election.

But I digress. In the 2024 campaign, one candidate advocated the following policies:

Childcare tax credits, mortgage assistance for first-time home buyers, building affordable housing, increased minimum wage, earned income tax credits for families without children, a middle-class tax cut, support for unions, lower healthcare premiums, lower prescription drug costs, student loan forgiveness, anti-price gouging legislation, and paying for in-home care for invalids.

The other candidate advocated the following policies:

Extending a tax cut that benefits millionaires and corporations, imposing a 10% (or more) national sales tax on all consumers, ending the Affordable Care Act, opposing government efforts to lower prescription drug prices, busting unions, deporting 10 million immigrants (many of whom work in entry level jobs), and extending the retirement age for Social Security.

Oh, and one party outsourced its campaign ground operation to the richest person in the world, who also turned his privately owned social media platform into a propaganda mill for disinformation for Trump.

Remind me, David Brooks, who are the “elites” that deserve your scolding?

To those readers who fall for the “Democrats are “elitists” blame game, I beseech you to scrutinize the allegation. Who are and why are Democrats “elitists”? Certainly, the policies above show that Democrats favor working and middle-class Americans.

I fear that railing against “elitists” is code for attacking segments of the Democratic Party that are essential to its continued success.

• By “elitists” do you mean people who live in New York and California? (If so, be very careful that you are not using “elitists” to mean “Jews.”)

• Or are you blaming Democrats for having support from more voters who have college degrees? If so, what should we do? Tell college-educated voters they are not welcome in the party?

• Or are you blaming “progressives,” who have been the most stalwart and loyal Democrats during the Biden administration?

• Or are you referring to Democrats who support Black Lives Matter? Or abortion rights? Or LGBTQ and trans rights? Or the fight against climate change?

If you believe it is productive to circulate articles claiming that Democrats are “elitists,” please be specific about why you think Democrats are “elitists.” If you undertake that examination, you will soon see that the claim that Democrats are “elitists” is a right-wing caricature that has no basis in fact. It is a strategy to divide Democrats and set us against one another.

Don’t fall for it. Please. We need to be united. We should not be looking for scapegoats or attempting to find explanations that inevitably involve “blaming” one segment of the Democratic Party.

And shame on the NYTimes for failing—once again—to see the real news of the day: An adjudicated sexual abuser, coup plotter, insurrectionist, and convicted felon who wants to be a dictator on “day one” was just elected as president. And the NYTimes’ columnists want to wag their fingers at Democrats. Surely, there must be a more productive use of their fingers and their opinions.

---

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

Ballot Curing

Important races hang in the balance and may be determined by curing ballots with technical but fixable errors.

A reader (Joe E.) sent a link to this Google Doc that lists ballot-curing opportunities in California, Nevada, and Arizona. 2024 Ballot Curing Opportunities prepared by “Grassroots Democrats.”

And this list from reader Mark B. has ballot curing opportunities for Ohio, AZ, NC, and NV. Ballot cure/We must remain champions of the rule of law  

If you have an opportunity for ballot curing in other states, please email me at rbhubbell@gmail.com and put “Ballot Curing” in the subject line. I will publicize tomorrow.

---

Join me and my Managing Editor on Saturday morning for a live chat

My Managing Editor (my wife, Jill Bickett) and I will hold a live chat on Saturday morning, November 9, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern / 8:00 a.m. Pacific. The point of the chat is simply to share time with readers as we process the election results as a community.

There are two ways to join, but if you can join by the Substack App for the “livestreaming,” I would greatly appreciate it. To join by the Substack App, just download the App (links below). At the appointed time, you will receive a notification that we are live streaming. (You will also receive an email.) There is no limit on the number who can join through the Substack App. There is no link ahead of time! You will receive a real-time notification that we are live! Download the Substack App here: Substack from the Apple App Store and Substack - Apps on Google Play.

Some of you have said you can only join by desktop computer. If so, you can join via this Zoom link: Today's Edition Reader Zoom. But here’s the catch: I have a 300-seat Zoom license. When those slots are gone, I can’t accommodate any more readers on Zoom. On the livestream earlier this week with Jess Piper, we had nearly 4,000 participants. So, again, it would be best if you joined through the Substack App, because there is no limit on the number of attendees.

---

Concluding Thoughts

In addition to articles that sought to blame segments of the Democratic Party for the loss, I also received a smattering of social media posts and articles that predicted that “the end times” are upon us. I acknowledge that we are in a very tough spot. I acknowledge that things may get worse before they get better. But I believe they will get better—but only if we refuse to give up!

It cannot be that all it takes to end two-and-half centuries of our great nation is the re-election of Donald Trump. America is bigger and sturdier than the vain, narcissistic, lazy, ignorant man who just slithered his way back into the Oval Office.

Still, as powerful and enduring as America is, it needs everyday patriots to step up and refuse to give up. In a real sense, all that is being asked of us is to endure and abide until reinforcements can join us in the fight. We can do that! We must do that!

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

Below is an image of the lovely Pleiades, an open star cluster only 444 light-years from Earth. The Pleiades are visible to the naked eye under dark skies. Look up!

Enjoy!