WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON HERE?
WILL WE TURN OUR CLOCKS BACK TWICE DURING ELECTION WEEK? THE TIED POLLS COULD MEAN ANOTHER DISPUTED ELECTORAL COLLEGE OUTCOME: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Early Sunday morning at 2:00 AM local times, November 3, 2024, Americans and their computers and AI assistants reset their clocks back an hour, and the living enjoyed the possibility of a bonus hour of sleep. They’re probably going to appreciate the extra shuteye later in the week!
Election day, two days later on November 5, commences the process of counting the votes – state by state – for thousands of public offices across the nation, including of course the presidency. By around 2:00 AM Eastern Standard Time November 6, the national media will probably have called the presidential ticket winners in over forty states that account for nearly eighty-five per cent of the total Electoral College vote allocations. Recent history suggests that those calls, however, will not add up to the majority of the College needed for victory on the part of either of the two major candidates.
The latest polls are forecasting a dead heat nationally in terms of the popular vote. Moreover, they also predict a similarly ultra close outcome in the so-called “battleground” states (which lately most often “swing” their presidential outcome from one party to another), accounting for 93 of the total 538 electoral votes. The swing state polls collectively show that Vice President Harris and former President Trump are essentially tied “within the margin of error.” There is even a credible scenario where the final Electoral Vote calculation could be a tie at 269-269 if Harris wins all three northern swing states known as the “Blue Wall” and Trump wins the four “south by southwest” swing states plus the one Electoral Vote from the newly famous “Omaha” Congressional district. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/24/nebraska-electoral-college-donald-trump-00180743
It would seem so much simpler if we were allowed to choose the next president according to which candidate won the majority of the total popular vote across all the states: no need for NBC’s Steve Kornacki’s play-by-play, CNN’s “Magic Wall” of State Breaking News, or any of the Red and Blue color-coded maps, charts, and graphs showing “projections” of each state’s electoral votes. Alas, we’re stuck with at least one more round – and probably more -- with the Constitution’s Electoral College system, whereby the aggregate popular vote is slice and diced, batched and measured, state by state – and then weighted according to their relative populations in the most recent national Census as translated into their total seats in Congress. All states are allocated two electoral votes for their Senators, however, plus at least one for even the smallest delegation to the House of Representatives – an arrangement that allows less populated rural states to punch somewhat above their weight in the Electoral College.
This elite “College” is a peculiar national exception to the general Constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.” In fact, it was designed by our Founding Fathers in part as a form of “affirmative action” for the white citizens and officials in the original slave states to get them to sign on to the Constitution as a whole. Although the Founders allowed for counting slaves as three-fifths of a person in allocating representation in the House of Representatives, the slaves were also not allowed to vote in elections, putting the slave states at a power disadvantage with respect states without slavery if the presidency were awarded based on the national vote count.
“Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that ‘the people at large was in his opinion the fittest’ to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most diplomatic terms: ‘There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.’
“Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five Southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.” https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
The possibility of an actual Electoral College tie or some “Murphy’s Law” post-election-day mischief, and the likely consequences in terms of deciding who becomes the President in 2025, were first pointed out in this Substack newsletter in its June 3, 2024 edition.
“What happens next if an Electoral College tie is the official 2024 outcome? According to Article XII of the Constitution, if no candidate has achieved the 270-vote electoral majority at the time of Congressional certification (the infamous ‘January 6, 2021’ Joint Session), the choice of the next president in January 2025 would shift ‘immediately’ to the House of Representatives from among ‘not exceeding three’ electoral vote recipients.... In the House, however, the votes must be taken ‘by states, the representatives from each state having one vote.’ This means the selection could come down simply to which Party holds a majority of representatives in a majority of the states.
“In the current Congress, the GOP holds such a majority in 26 states and the Democrats only 21, while three states’ delegations are evenly split (Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania). If the same numbers were to hold in the new 119th Congress, most states in the House could quickly elect Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States in the event of an Electoral College tie.” https://terryrconnelly.substack.com/p/whats-really-going-on-here-af1
Thus, it would be possible that a minority of the members of the House of Representatives could select a President who came in second in the popular vote and also lacked an Electoral College majority, or even a plurality. If somehow the 2024 election does not result in a majority of GOP controlled House delegations, the decision could come down to the votes from a few states with delegations that are tied between Democrats and Republicans! If as a result the House cannot reach a decision by Inauguration Day, then matters get even more complicated. Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment provides that “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or failed to qualify,” then the Vice President-elect selected by the Senate under the Twelfth Amendment procedures (with all Senators voting in their individual capacity) would become Acting President ‘until a President shall have qualified.’”
“The new Senate in 2025 could wind up in a 50-50 tie between the two Parties after the election (including Independents who may caucus with the Democrats). Under Article I, Section 3, paragraph 4, of the Constitution Vice President Kamala Harris continues to serve until January 20, 2025, as ‘President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.’ The Twelfth Amendment regarding the Senate vote to choose a Vice President when there is no candidate with a majority in the Electoral College count, however, provides that ‘a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.’ (Emphasis added.) Harris is not a ‘Senator.’ Does this later-dated Constitutional provision bar her from breaking a tie among the Senators in such a case? The Democrats previous argument that no one interested person (such as Vice President Pence on January 6, 2021) should be able to singlehandedly decide the results of a presidential election would come back to haunt them if this unprecedented Constitutional issue were to arise in early 2025.” https://terryrconnelly.substack.com/p/whats-really-going-on-here-af1
In the event there is no elected and qualified president or vice president by Inauguration Day 2025, the Presidential Succession Act, as amended, provides that the Speaker of the House would become Acting President until the executive branch vacancy is filled. The House Speakership, however, would in turn depend on which party achieves a majority of elected Representatives in the new Congress taking office on January 3, 2025. Even that process, as we know from the record of the current Congress, can get out of hand for a majority party.
Fortunately, for the roughly eleven weeks between November 5, 2024, and January 20, 2025, the federal government executive power and machinery will remain in the care of serious people. This comfort zone, however, does not necessarily extend to the judicial branch or state legislatures, and that’s where the real post-election day mischief could emerge. https://www.nysun.com/article/election-officials-warn-of-potentially-long-delays-in-counting-votes-leaving-the-presidency-and-congressional-results-in-limbo-for-days?lctg=1543569053&recognized_email=trc1143%40gmail.com&utm_source=MG&utm_medium=email-newsletter&utm_campaign=Morning%20Sun%20%202024-10-24
Putting aside possible but unlikely Electoral College “tie” scenario, the razor-thin polling margin between the two candidates both nationally and in swing states suggests that the electoral clock could well be “stopped” for a considerable period as one or more state governments face demands for recounts, audits, and signature and other background checks especially on mailed ballots and those from overseas. Additional broad-based challenges to voting norms and procedures, marches on state capitals and vote counting sites, and direct of threats or acts of violence in turn could stir stir up demands for state legislatures to again test the outer boundaries of their Constitutional power to “direct” the “Manner” in which their states’ allocated number of electors for the Electoral College is carried out. Trump proponents and campaign officials, and the candidate himself, have already begun predicting and projecting cries of fraud in several swing states, particularly in the one with the largest Electoral Vote allocation – Pennsylvania.
“’Pennsylvania is cheating, and getting caught, at large scale levels rarely seen before,’” Trump posted without evidence to his social media site Wednesday morning. And he continued Thursday: ‘We caught them CHEATING BIG in Pennsylvania. Must announce and PROSECUTE, NOW!,’ he posted. ‘Who would have ever thought that our Country is so CORRUPT?’…. In these final days before Election Day, they are blowing up allegations of malfeasance, administrative mistakes by election officials and claims of error in Pennsylvania into five-alarm fires. It’s not just that they’re raising concerns — and scoring some victories in court — as both parties have done for decades. It’s that Trump holds them up as preemptive proof the election is rigged against him.
“….
“That waterfall of allegations in Pennsylvania in recent days builds upon years of Trump undermining trust in elections. Following the 2020 election the former president and his allies sowed chaos in Pennsylvania, a focal point of his attempt to retain control of the White House. He and his allies unleashed a torrent of misinformation about the state’s election; asked the Supreme Court to throw out its results; and orchestrated a slate of fake electors, even after some original electors in the state balked at the plan. Local election officials became the subject of threats, abuse and harassment — and some, including in Philadelphia, had to have police protection. Two men were arrested on gun charges outside Philadelphia’s vote counting site after driving up from Virginia.” https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/31/trump-pennsylvania-election-conspiracy-theories-00186470
A major but generally little discussed concern is the possibility that many independent and non-partisan voters, concerned about the potential for post-election violence (which the media constantly talks about), will end up choosing Trump precisely because their common sense tells them that a Trump victory is the best way to prevent post-election violence! To begin with, two-thirds of registered voters in swing states are already telling pollsters they fear violence, particularly if Trump is reported to be losing the election.
“A majority of swing-state voters are concerned that supporters of former president Donald Trump will respond with violence if he doesn’t win the presidential election next month and do not believe he will accept defeat. Significantly fewer voters across those key states feel the same is true about Vice President Kamala Harris and her backers, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll. The poll of more than 5,000 registered voters conducted in the first half of October in six battleground states finds a 57 percent majority are very or somewhat worried that Trump’s supporters would turn violent if he loses, compared with 31 percent who think Harris voters would resort to violence. Two-thirds of voters are not confident Trump would accept a loss, while a little more than two-thirds are confident Harris would accept defeat.”
Voters know from recent history that Trump has a propensity to incite violence. On Halloween night, The Atlantic magazine’s daily newsletter shared a “partial” list of 40 such instances since his first presidential campaign began until the present day.
“After the second attempt on his life, Donald Trump accused his political opponents of inspiring the attacks against him with their rhetoric. The reality, however, is that Trump himself has a long record — singular among American presidents of the modern era — of inciting and threatening violence against his fellow citizens, journalists, and anyone he deems his opposition.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-violent-rhetoric-timeline/680403/?gift=f2bHoGCGavOXwNerOGK-Ccx7X85nTaDkOVlfeR7wy6E&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Some of Trump’s voters are demonstrably inclined to violence if their man loses. We saw the proof on January 6, 2021, and more so in the aftermath where GOP majorities defended their actions and endorsed similar future responses to electoral losses. According to the 2024 American Values Survey undertaken by the Public Religion Research Institute in conjunction with Brookings Institute, most Americans (across party lines) consider threats to democracy a critical issue in this election. “But Republicans remain more likely than Democrats to support authoritarianism and potential political violence.” https://www.prri.org/press-release/survey-one-in-four-republican-trump-supporters-say-that-if-trump-loses-the-election-he-should-declare-results-invalid-and-do-whatever-it-takes-to-assume-office/
“Nearly one in four Republicans who hold a favorable view of Trump (23%), and 19% of all Republicans, say that if former President Donald Trump loses the election, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office. Only 12% of Democrats say Vice President Kamala Harris should do the same. While most Americans reject political violence, nearly three in ten Republicans (29%) believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 16% of independents and 8% of Democrats. Republicans are twice as likely (27%) as independents (14%) or Democrats (12%) to agree that armed everyday citizens should be poll watchers, even if this makes some voters uncomfortable. Republicans (22%) are also more likely to agree than independents (14%) or Democrats (12%) that ‘if the 2024 presidential election is compromised by voter fraud, everyday Americans will need to ensure the rightful leader takes office, even if it requires taking violent actions.’” Ibid.
Independent voters also know that Democrats, despite their misgivings, wind up formally conceding with very rare exceptions and simply do not resort to violence or even threats of violence. Consider the examples of Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton. Trump and his 2024 campaign are cold-bloodedly aware of the opportunity to literally scare truly open-minded citizens into voting for him and ruthlessly exploit it by talking about "violence" in general any chance they get to enhance concern about "civil war" among non-ideological voters. "Hold Nose, Vote Trump, Nobody Gets Hurt” might as well be a MAGA bumper sticker, even though they now blame “the enemy within” allegedly including the likes of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and Black Lives Matter protestors for the type of violence the Trump supporters themselves promote.
If enough worried voters fall for this tactic and conclude that voting for Trump is, unfortunately but necessarily, the best way to prevent post-election violence, he could win enough votes in the swing states and Nebraska’s Second Congressional District to secure his return to the Presidency in a GOP sweep even before all votes are counted. Such a result would constitute the second time Americans “turned their clocks back” in the week of November 3 – back to policies including the following list, which Trump and his campaign operatives have openly discussed and championed:
-- the 1890s tariff and trade policies of President McKinley, and the Depression-triggering Treasury policies of President Hoover and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon https://newrepublic.com/article/183968/donald-trump-bad-tariff-lesson-william-mckinley
-- the nineteenth century “spoils system” for federal jobs, with political interference replacing long standing civil service reforms
-- the pre-income tax and pre-Federal Reserve Board financial environment, when tycoons controlled the dollar and dominated the US economy while impoverishing labor and farmers
-- a 1930s style Supreme Court that moved to gut FDR’s New Deal recovery programs until he faced the Justices down
-- the post WWII redlining era in housing and mortgages discriminating against racial and religious minorities, and potential return of racially “restrictive covenants” in various neighborhoods
-- the mass deportation of immigrants of the 1950s on steroids https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/us/politics/trump-2025-immigration-agenda.html
-- the book banning hysteria and Red-baiting of Joe McCarthy’s seminal attack on enemies “within”— especially in public service, media and the arts https://minio.la.utexas.edu/webeditor-files/coretexts/pdf/195020mccarthy20enemies.pdf
-- the abortion and birth control policies in force up to the 1970s, plus a new national ban on abortion pills, as Trump sets up RFK Jr. “go wild with medicines,” with the FDA, CDC, NIH and all federal health agencies https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-02/trump-s-health-care-plan-is-mostly-just-rfk-jr
-- a national vaccine policy that takes us back to the days of frightening childhood polio, measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks, and a dramatic reversal of progress against cervical cancer (with Trump’s promise to “protect” women by putting RFK Jr. in charge of their health care, one can only hope he is lying to Bobby, too) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-team-fully-embraces-rfk-vaccine-skepticism-rcna178389
-- the pre-1965 systematic state discrimination against non-white voters amid an absence of federal voting rights enforcement
-- a return to “traditional” policing policies, including racial profiling, “stop and frisk,” and fully immunized law enforcement violence https://apnews.com/article/trump-police-law-enforcement-kamala-harris-jd-vance-766351074cc53c543e89966651ba0614
-- the time before George Floyd’s murder when workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion were virtually irrelevant considerations in corporate America, and women on boards was likewise a rare occurrence
-- the time before global scientific consensus and Al Gore spoke the “inconvenient truth” that climate change is an existential threat to the planet, the US military, and corporate profits, and when electric vehicles were a joke, seawalls were merely decorative, and plastics were the future (turns out they can indeed be “forever”)
-- classroom prayers and compulsory Bible studies in what remains of public schools, and a 1950s-like surge in state-funded and effectively segregated white Christian K-12 “chartered” academies, all with mandatory “official” federal history and biology curricula and texts; and all colleges required to be federally accredited by a new partisan-controlled to office and to eliminate “DEI” staffs and programs or risk being ineligible for any federal funding for research or student loans. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/07/11/how-project-2025-could-radically-reshape-higher-ed
If the last round of election polling is correct, however, the Trumpian “back to the future” agenda may depend on the outcome of a post-election decision process of several days or even weeks duration including court battles over disputed ballots and vote counting procedures. This will especially be the case if one or more swing state vote totals remain undecided or under attack, whether in the courts or in the streets and no candidate can secure an Electoral College majority until such disputes are settled once and for all.
If that is the case, please watch your IRAs and 401Ks. Traders and other major investors in the bond, stock, crypto, and currency markets have been decisively positioning their holdings to reflect a Trump win and even a GOP sweep of Congress as well. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-01/traders-boost-bullish-bets-on-dollar-before-pivotal-us-election
A prolonged “hung” Electoral College verdict with swing state results up in the air could rapidly undermine and destabilize such pre-election financial positioning and trigger a “rush to the exits” on those trades and a spate of unpredictable market gyrations. The potential for market panic would rise, especially if ultra-close vote totals in decisive states also trigger even more aggressive claims of “massive voter fraud” that would make the 2020 post-election chaos look tame. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-fraud-claims-revive-fears-he-may-again-seek-overturn-election-results-2024-11-01/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Weekend-Briefing&utm_term=110224&user_email=d8cff7e60a058d0ad6f3bf97ade763a43e0416c730a36d9bd9908f65c80a7b5b&lctg=63041dd084992fc576039249
As noted above, Trump has already raised doubts about the integrity of the Pennsylvania election rules and procedures, and the GOP has also posed similar and other legal challenges to absentee ballots and alleged non-citizen voting procedures in Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina in advance of the official vote count, to lay the groundwork for challenges to Electoral College submissions to Congress when it meets in January 2025 to certify the presidential election results. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4879631-republicans-sue-battleground-states/
The bi-partisan federal Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (“ECRA”), however, has substantially clarified the chain of responsibility for counting and reporting the states’ official Electoral College vote counts and slates, up to and including the January Joint Session of Congress. The ECRA establishes the timeline for states to appoint presidential electors in November and for electors to cast their votes in December, and clarifies the process for Congress to follow in certifying the counts the states vote in early January. Among its most important provisions in terms of any 2024 election controversy, the ECRA makes clear that state governors have the sole authority and responsibility to submit their state’s electoral vote counts and slate of electors to Congress, not the state legislatures, unless the legislature has designated in advance of the election another state official to do so.
“[T]he ECRA does not allow state legislatures to step in to appoint electors themselves after Election Day. Nor does it allow claims of fraud to trigger the exception to appointing electors on Election Day….
“The ECRA sets ‘the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December’ as the date on which the Electoral College must meet, only one day later than in the past. It further provides that Congress must treat the executive’s certification as “conclusive” unless a state or federal court has ordered that it be replaced or modified — in which case Congress must treat the new/modified certificate as conclusive (with federal courts having the final say on issues of federal law, including the ECRA itself).
“[The ECRA] [g]ives federal courts a clear and expedited role in ensuring that states send lawful certifications of election results to Congress. [Section 104] The ECRA also allows for direct appeal to the Supreme Court (via a petition for writ of certiorari) and requires that if the Supreme Court hears the case it do so ‘on an expedited basis, so that a final order of the court on remand of the Supreme Court may occur on or before the day before the time fixed for the meeting of electors.’
“….
“Previous law allowed for objections to a state’s electoral votes as long as those objections were made in writing and signed by one senator and one representative. It was therefore too easy for members of Congress to disrupt the counting process (and potentially make objections that unfairly undermine public confidence in the integrity of the election). The ECRA raises the threshold required to make a cognizable objection to one-fifth of each chamber, while retaining the requirement that each chamber must sustain objections by a majority vote.”
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022/ (Emphasis supplied.)
But some GOP state legislators are nevertheless considering submission of their own slates of electors in the event Trump does not prevail in the actual vote count reported by their governors. Republicans control the legislatures in four swing states: Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin –- among these states, all but Georgia have Democratic governors. The pro-Trump forces will base their claims supporting any alternative elector slates on two legal theories. First, they will claim that the ECRA prescription relating to presidential elections somehow violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution’s provision that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed by the Legislatures thereof” and that Congress is given only a “secondary” role by the following provision in the same Section that “Congress at any time by Law may make or alter such Regulations.”
“Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, this document explains the constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal government with respect to election administration. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections". Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms, the right to vote.” https://cha.house.gov/the-elections-clause
The other, more significant, GOP claim to the Court would be that the ECRA violates the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution, which stipulates that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner the Legislature thereof may direct” its allocated presidential electors. In a case in 2023 challenging whether state courts could intervene against vote counting rules established by the legislature, a 6-3 Court majority rejected outright the extreme “independent legislature” theory but left open broader questions of how far the state legislature’s power relating to the Electoral College makeup extends, potentially including for example vis-à-vis the state governors’ authority in that matter under federal law such as the ECRA.
“The court’s 6-3 ruling Tuesday drove a stake through the most extreme version of the so-called independent state legislature theory, which holds that legislatures have absolute power in setting the rules of federal elections and cannot be second-guessed by state courts. That decision cheered voting rights groups. ‘We beat back the most serious legal threat our democracy has ever faced today,’ said Kathay Feng of Common Cause, whose lawsuit challenging congressional districts drawn by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature triggered the case. But for some critics of the theory, the danger is not entirely past….
“As Republicans have gained more power in state legislatures, the theory has become more popular on the right.
“North Carolina’s GOP-controlled legislature last year argued that the theory meant its state supreme court couldn’t overturn the map it drew that awarded a disproportionate share of the state’s 14 congressional districts to Republicans. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in the case, known as Moore v. Harper, dismissed that argument as historically and legally inaccurate. ‘When legislatures make laws,” Roberts wrote, ‘they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life.’
“….
“Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who argued the case for voting rights groups at the Supreme Court, said the ruling is ‘a signal that this United States Supreme Court, with a solid six justices behind it, will resist attempts by state legislatures to mess with the integrity of the 2024 election.’”
Hopefully in 2024, Justice Roberts’ “rule” will prevail. Otherwise, we may be in for a dramatic “December Surprise” in the presidential election. There were a few October Surprises this year, but none are expected to have the dramatic impact on the electoral outcome of FBI Director James Comey’s reopening the “private server classified documents” investigation involving Hillary Clinton in late October 2016.
The potential remains, despite the virtual unanimity of polls showing a dead heat, for a “November Surprise” in this year’s balloting. The most surprising result would be a Harris/Walz sweep. Perhaps Nebraska-born and raised and now Minnesota Governor Walz has “folksy-charmed” his neighbor Iowa as well next-door Omaha. The prominence of the abortion issue under Iowa’s strict six-week limit may more directly explain any late surge toward Harris. https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/
Trump, of course, will most likely claim victory regardless of what the vote count looks like, no later than sometime overnight November 5-6. He has already claimed (with no particular evidence) to be leading in early voting.
In addition to financial markets, election betting sites and many media observers have lately been touting a Trump/Vance sweep, based on a presumption that the former President’s “hidden” voters are systematically undercounted by the polling industry. If the secret voters in fact belong to Harris in the voting booths, however, a lot of folks will be feasting on crow at Thanksgiving. And our clocks will be running just fine on Standard Time right through January 20, 2025.
Thanks, Chris. Please forward to others as you wish.
Bravo, Terry: Literally a primer on the election and electoral process, history and current outcomes. Should be required reading for all voters.