Opinion: How you know the Democrats think Trump is going to win
An unusual take on the status of the campaigns and a forecast of a possible outcome.
Interesting analysis of the situation, i.e. issues steering the course of polling and possible election outcomes as result
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I know the conventional wisdom is that this election is too close to call. And it is. Predictions on the outcome are little better than guesses.
Still, this is Washington. And while prognostications in U.S. politics is fraught with risk, it doesn’t stop most of us — even though we know that, if you are right, nobody cares, and if you are wrong, it goes on your Wikipedia page forever .
Predictions are pedestrian, oftentimes biased, and generally uninteresting. But the reasoning behind them might occasionally offer something of value.
So, here’s the uninteresting part: I think that Donald Trump is going to win. As to what might be of value, I could start by offering some sort of geeky Washington insider piece of data, such as how new voter registration in critically important Pennsylvania has been trending in Republicans’ favor for more than a year now.
But that’s not the reason I think Trump is going to win.
I could, instead, offer an interesting anecdote from a high-ranking Republican from North Carolina, who was adamant that Trump would win: “Mick, North Carolina is a true swing state. But what people don’t realize is that it swings on the issues, not necessarily the candidates. In 2016, the No. 1 issue in the state was the economy. In 2020, the No. 1 issue was health care. The issue this year, without a doubt, is the economy again.”
His point: Trump won the state easily in 2016. He also won in 2020, but it was much closer, and most polling predicted that Biden would win. This year feels a lot more like 2016 than 2020.
I thought that made a lot of sense. But, although those insights certainly struck a chord, that still isn’t why I think Trump is going to win.
I think Trump is going to win because many Democrats are talking like they are going to lose. And while every campaign engages in some sort of expectations management, the Democrats have been oddly specific in their pearl-clutching this cycle.
They are complaining more and more about a relatively new, entirely fabricated, but certainly sinister sounding boogeyman that could steal away the election: the “Electoral College bias.” Nothing screams “we are going to lose” more than saying the game was rigged in the first place.
Electoral College bias is the more succinct, more academic, and more think-tank-slash-Ivy League-faculty-sounding incarnation of the regular Democratic complaints about Republicans winning the White House without winning the constitutionally meaningless popular vote.
The “bias” is linked to the Great Compromise that gave us different structures in the House and the Senate. That separation — with House members assigned by population and each state getting two senators — was critical in getting big states and small states to buy into the new Constitution. And yes, when it comes to the Senate, it did put small states on the same footing as the large. Indeed, that was its purpose.
So, while Pennsylvania and Virginia might have dominated early Houses (just as California and New York did for generations more recently), Vermont could have equal say in the Senate (again, just as it does today).
The leap from there to Donald Trump is pretty simple, as the Electoral College votes for each state are based on the number of House members plus the two senators.
The “inequity” supposedly stems from the proposition that since so many small states are heavily Republican, Trump has an unfair advantage. (Well, as long as you ignore Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii — all of which are smaller than Idaho, by the way.) Take those Senate votes away in the electoral college, and Trump wouldn’t have a chance.
Of course, you cannot have a real effort to undermine our elections — I mean, restore equity — without some high-quality “non-partisan” research. So, cue Pew Research, which just released an exhaustive study designed to remind all of us that nearly two-thirds of people would like to elect a president based on the total popular vote. It is unclear whether Pew asked people if they knew anything about the Great Compromise.
Finally, just in case you wanted to actually engage in a meaningful discussion of the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the Electoral College, beware: the Electoral College is also racist .
The effort to promote the so-called bias, then, has been a whole-of-the-left effort. Indeed, if someone else were engaging in such a systematic, coordinated attack on our constitutionally agreed-upon election processes, some people might call it “undermining democracy.”
But right now, it just sounds like Democrats see a Trump win coming, and they are greasing the skids for blaming an “inequitable” system.
Honestly, I have no idea who is going to win next month. I just hope that whoever loses decides that it was because they lost, and not because the system was rigged against them.
Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.
Discuss the points made in the article rather than simply hating on the right or hating on the left.
Discuss and rebut the points made by contributors rather than commenting on them personally
If you must disparage someone personally let it be me, I can take it.
Be civil, be vocal and have fun
Tags
Who is online
268 visitors
I found this article more interesting than informative - by that I mean there is nothing new here that hasn't been argued back and forth on NT and throughout the media and country.
I see points made in the article that make me think the author believes that Trump will win and I see points in the article not as prominent but inferred that is creating a soft landing for a Trump loss.
LOL, how fucking predictable ...
I am not a great believer in the accuracy of polls, especially election polls and I am seeing nothing in 2024 to change that view.
.
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." Alan Moore , American Writer
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato, Greek Philosopher
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?
We all await your first article on why Trump is going to lose.
We will leave that to others that post a half a dozen of those a day
John
I think Trump is going to lose because he failed to even try and win any of the middle of the road vote, but rather got more and more verbally abusive and radical in speech and manner rather than focusing on issues such as the border, the economy, the middle east in a rational and sane manner.
If you actually read and understood what I post and how I comment you would realize that I have never once said that Trump would be a good president or that I wanted him to be president.
You miss small details like that when pontificating rather than debating
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
One thing that they like to do is that if you disagree with them, even remotely, you are 100% against them and completely support everything they are against. You don't support Harris or Trump...In their minds you support Trump because you don't 100% support Harris despite your lack of support for Trump.
boo hoo hoo, there's no choice now but to support trump because of those tricky democrats. wait for it ...
They can be for Trump if they want. Just stop telling us you're not for Trump.
But do you scream Trump is a threat to democracy from the rooftops at least 3 times a day?
And you can tell if they support Trump by the balance of posts on NT. Why do you think they consider your approval enough to lie about who they support?
Some people are embarrassed that they are for Trump, believe it or not.
On an anonymous chat site? Sorry, I am not buying that.
Or maybe they don’t want to deal with bullshit from the left by stating they are for trump? I’d say that’s more likely the case.
What's even scarier is that some aren't embarrassed that they are for Harris.
“What's even scarier is that some aren't embarrassed that they are for Harris.”
I am voting for Harris, unabashedly, unequivocally, and with no embarrassment.
How does that scare you? Unless, of course, you and yours, in your fear and ignorance, would deny the existence and validity of varying opinions.
Whereas Harris is doing her best to reach moderates and independents, correct? That's what I see in your words
Projection
What do you think the purpose of this article, (which hinges entirely on his perception that Democrats are universally whining about the electoral college), is?
And, it is written by an unrepentant MAGA who was an official in the first Trump administration.
Propaganda comes to mind.
[deleted][✘]
RDTC
The democrats are no more guilty of whining than the Republicans, in fact there is still far more whining, pissing and moaning about the 2020 election than there is any mention of policy and programs going forward from the Trump camp.
Trump's entire campaign is based on whining and inciting rather than presenting any resasonable alternative programs and policies that make any sense
While I agree in general my comment was more specific to the electoral college complaining which is mostly a dem phenomenon.
As for policies I think it is fairly safe to assume Trump will have alot of the same ones he had when he was president and Harris will continue with alot of the policies that have been in place for the past 3 and a half years.
Getting specifics at this point will be hard to come by since neither person is interested in the policy getting torn apart from the other side and losing any voters still on the fence.
There is no way that the majority of levelheaded, sane, informed, and patriotic Americans are going to put this cackling nitwit into the White House as president and Commander-in-Chief of the armed services. When the dust settles, it won't even be close.
The Republicans are likely to flip the Senate and hold onto the House. Their most nightmarish dreams will have become a reality. There will mass disbelief and great wailing and the gnashing of teeth on the part of the democrats. But their reign of terror and incompetence will have come to an end.
Greg
I think that the White House is still close to a toss up (leaning more left than right), I also think the Republicans ave a good chance to control the Senate but have just as good a chance to lose the House.
When your comment started out " to put this cackling nitwit" I wasn't sure if you were coming from the right or the left
Seriously?
it won't even be close.
Lol. I can only imagine your excuses when that does not happen.
"When your comment started out " to put this cackling nitwit" I wasn't sure if you were coming from the right or the left"
From the 'right' of course. We don't demean and insult and project.
[deleted][✘]
I will give the fools credit. They normally don't whine about the EC. Now when elections don't go their way, they cry about it incessantly.
John
Try concentrating on the points made rather than denigrating the writer - you do not have to be of like political mind to see the points made are worth considering and debating
We live in a gray world and absolutely nothing is as black and white (or blue and red) as you seem to think it is
We should get rid of the current electoral college, period. It serves no GOOD purpose.
Right now, today, everyone is saying Pennsylvania is essentially the only state that matters. It is said that whoever wins Pennsylvania has an 85% chance of winning the election. So the campaigns flock to Pennsylvania and focus their attention and to some extent their announced policies on Pennsylvania. There is no GOOD reason for this to be so.
I think they should devise a system where regions and groups of states could have a proportionate number of electoral votes. For example Pennsylvania could be in a region with Ohio, Michigan , Indiana and New Jersey. The electoral votes would go to the candidate who got the most votes in that region. That would put Ohio Indiana and New Jersey back into the game. Similar could be done for the rest of the states. Ten regions of 5 states each, balancing the ideologies of each region as best as possible. Washington and Oregon could be in a region with Idaho, Montana and Utah.
Good article.
Tickled your fancy fantasy did it?
I hope no one sees this article as an endorsement or prediction that Trump is going to win.
I think he and Vance are doing everything in their power to lose the election by not knowing when to shut up about their opponents and talk about the issues.
Democrats have lost three presidential elections this century. They’ve claimed everyone was stolen. They will blame the electoral college if they lose and that will likely be the tip of the iceberg.
Republicans only won the popular vote for President once since 1988!
Still crying about shit that has nothing to do with a presidential elections I see.
Crying? Me? The gop nominee for President has only won the popular vote one time since 1988. In context it is HILARIOUS!
I didn't studder.
And, again, that has nothing to do with the Presidential Election.
As if that had anything to do with what I wrote.. but I see why you want to deflect from the fact that democrats have complained every election they’ve lost this century was stolen.
.
The idea of Kamala being president makes me shutter.
[deleted][✘]
nah, it's probably the psychotropics ...
or forgetting to take them .....
it probably makes the jello taste funny ...
‘democrats have complained every election they’ve lost this century was stolen.’
They will probably start doing it again starting November 6
That's a bold claim. Please prove that.
That's funny.
For two of the three..
And the third....
Presidential wise. There is always Stacey Abrahms too.
2000 also included a Democrat Congresswoman calling the election a "coup d'état" during a House debate
2004 was hacked voting machines in Ohio. John Conyers led a big Congressional investigation into it.
So is that, funny that is
1800 - Aaron Burr
1824 - Henry Clay
1876 - Samuel Tilden
1908 - Roosevelt.
2000 - Al Gore.
2016 - Hillary Clinton
2020 - Donald Trump
Donald Trump is nothing new. "Stolen Election" claims go back 200 years and it comes from both sides. IMHO, Trump only stands out because of WHO he beat in that election.