The November 4, 2025 National/State/Local Election Thread

[UAH]

Chicago-born Mary Matalin, talked through her nose.

She and Jane Wallace had a show on MSNBC called "Equal Time."

He was at least entertaining, sort of a Redneck Lex Luthor.

I thought much more astute and intelligent than her husband. I recall that she was one of the few who called Florida for George Bush Jr. based on central time votes from the Panhandle still being counted.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Now that the guy in NY has won I am overly curious to see how much of "his stuff" he implements and the impact it has or doesn't have. Just from what little I've read, he has some really aggressive socialist ideas that he wants to implement and I'm curious to watch how they work.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Chicago-born Mary Matalin, talked through her nose.

She and Jane Wallace had a show on MSNBC called "Equal Time."

He was at least entertaining, sort of a Redneck Lex Luthor.

He was hit with the ugly stick.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I thought much more astute and intelligent than her husband. I recall that she was one of the few who called Florida for George Bush Jr. based on central time votes from the Panhandle still being counted.

Well, yes and no.

She was practically pleading on TV and insisting - not without reason mind you - that the absentee ballots were going to flip the race to Bush from Gore. But we've heard similar "I just feel like" stories almost every election night, too. (Hers is only remembered so well because it came true).

However, the thing I've never been able to understand with the "but the central time zone in the panhandle" argument is this: not only was the FIRST call for Gore when there were a mere ELEVEN MINUTES remaining until the polls closed, but the assumption goes like this: "people found out the election was over and got out of line and went home."

Ok, so someone riddle me this: whose voters got out of line, the ones who thought they'd lost (Bush) or the ones who thought they'd won (Gore)?

=====================================================

We've been hearing that "millions were racing across town to vote on the West Coast and heard on the radio that Reagan won the election and it cost Democrats the Senate seats out west because their voters stayed home!" since 1980. But what were the Senate races out West? Hart (D) got re-elected in Colorado, Packwood (R) got re-elected in Oregon, and Cranston (D) got re-elected in California.

The flips were:
Symms beat Church in Idaho by 4K votes
Murkowski beat the guy who beat Gravel in the primary in Alaska in a rout
Inouye got 78% of the vote in Hawaii

So the ONLY race out west where anyone could make this argument is Steve Symms beating Frank Church. But Idaho - and I'm not exaggerating - was Carter's worst state as he only got 25% of the vote (110K) while Church got 214K in the Senate race. Folks would be hard-pressed to make the argument that Carter CONCEDING cost Church. But given Frank Church was a liberal in a conservative state, how do we blame Carter?

There have been studies on "do the early calls affect the outcome" since 1980, and they always come to two conclusions:
1) there is no evidence they do
2) we need more grants to do more study of this subject




Side note: wanna know how history could have been different?
Carter's first choice for VP in 1976 was Frank Church. He opted instead for Mondale - and Church died of pancreatic cancer in April 1984, when he (presumably) would have attempted to run for President.

 

[UAH]

Well, yes and no.

She was practically pleading on TV and insisting - not without reason mind you - that the absentee ballots were going to flip the race to Bush from Gore. But we've heard similar "I just feel like" stories almost every election night, too. (Hers is only remembered so well because it came true).

However, the thing I've never been able to understand with the "but the central time zone in the panhandle" argument is this: not only was the FIRST call for Gore when there were a mere ELEVEN MINUTES remaining until the polls closed, but the assumption goes like this: "people found out the election was over and got out of line and went home."

Ok, so someone riddle me this: whose voters got out of line, the ones who thought they'd lost (Bush) or the ones who thought they'd won (Gore)?

=====================================================

We've been hearing that "millions were racing across town to vote on the West Coast and heard on the radio that Reagan won the election and it cost Democrats the Senate seats out west because their voters stayed home!" since 1980. But what were the Senate races out West? Hart (D) got re-elected in Colorado, Packwood (R) got re-elected in Oregon, and Cranston (D) got re-elected in California.

The flips were:
Symms beat Church in Idaho by 4K votes
Murkowski beat the guy who beat Gravel in the primary in Alaska in a rout
Inouye got 78% of the vote in Hawaii

So the ONLY race out west where anyone could make this argument is Steve Symms beating Frank Church. But Idaho - and I'm not exaggerating - was Carter's worst state as he only got 25% of the vote (110K) while Church got 214K in the Senate race. Folks would be hard-pressed to make the argument that Carter CONCEDING cost Church. But given Frank Church was a liberal in a conservative state, how do we blame Carter?

There have been studies on "do the early calls affect the outcome" since 1980, and they always come to two conclusions:
1) there is no evidence they do
2) we need more grants to do more study of this subject




Side note: wanna know how history could have been different?
Carter's first choice for VP in 1976 was Frank Church. He opted instead for Mondale - and Church died of pancreatic cancer in April 1984, when he (presumably) would have attempted to run for President.

We lived in the Panhandle in the Central Timezone then. Gore was leading and the network was tending to call a Gore win. She essentially said the Panhandle isn't in and it could swing strongly for Bush. She was obviously correct but it would take a month for the Florida Republican Attorney General to make it a win for Bush.

We were never Gore fans but history would have changed considerably if Cheney and Rumsfeld had been left on the sidelines!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

We lived in the Panhandle in the Central Timezone then. Gore was leading and the network was tending to call a Gore win. She essentially said the Panhandle isn't in and it could swing strongly for Bush. She was obviously correct but it would take a month for the Florida Republican Attorney General to make it a win for Bush.

We were never Gore fans but history would have changed considerably if Cheney and Rumsfeld had been left on the sidelines!

Here's what I remember about that night, not that I have a good memory...

I DID think that call in Gore's favor was INCREDIBLY early in the evening for a state that honestly should have been in Bush's column from day one. When I heard it, I honestly assumed that Gore had the election in the bag simply based on how we knew other states would fall. (He'd already locked away Michigan and PA).

They had just called Florida for Al Gore when my Dad called - he got through my dial-up internet (yep!) and asked if I'd meet him at the airbase track to go walking (he was exercising post-hernia surgery). I was venting my spleen about Gore winning, and he showed me how clueless he really was about national politics, insisting Bush still had a chance. Common sense told you losing those other 3 states meant it was over.

We walked about 3 miles, had a soda and talked, and I drove back home. Minutes after I got back home, they suddenly announced that Gore HAD NOT won Florida officially, and you talk about nearly fainting while watching TV. I had never once seen a STATE called back* and the fact there was enough doubt they could call it back told me Bush probably won. I dozed off before they signaled a winner and awakened a little before six, turning on the TV.

I had no idea about them saying Bush had won and what all had transpired.

But boy what a five weeks it was that followed, too.


* - in a Presidential election. But in 1996, the networks had a major whiff in the New Hampshire Senate race, declaring that Republican Bob Smith (who actually won) had been defeated and the new senator from New Hampshire was a man by the name of Dick Swett. I remember watching that night and thinking, "Of all the races you could get the wrong winner, you spent hours telling us the winner was Dick Swett."

 

[Bazza]

Speaking of election night "expectations" gone awry.......who here remembers 2016?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Speaking of election night "expectations" gone awry.......who here remembers 2016?

That was an hilarious skit, it really was.

I think the 2016 Election showed us all how much we really needed Tim Russert. Because I think he - of all of the pundits - would have been the one to say, "Look, I know Hillary has a NATIONAL LEAD of 3-4 points, but the reality is that with a couple of breaks in the Rust Belt, Trump CAN win this thing."

I've always thought part of the entire issue with Trump winning was the fact millions of voters were led to believe there was basically a 100% chance HE COULD NOT win the election. And I do suspect it lowered Hillary's vote total a little bit by people who were never all that enthralled with her but didn't want him - and got told so many times he couldn't win that they decided, "Y'know, this way I don't have to vote for her," and they either didn't vote or voted for one of the many alternative selections like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

 

[Its On A Slab]

That was an hilarious skit, it really was.

I think the 2016 Election showed us all how much we really needed Tim Russert. Because I think he - of all of the pundits - would have been the one to say, "Look, I know Hillary has a NATIONAL LEAD of 3-4 points, but the reality is that with a couple of breaks in the Rust Belt, Trump CAN win this thing."

I've always thought part of the entire issue with Trump winning was the fact millions of voters were led to believe there was basically a 100% chance HE COULD NOT win the election. And I do suspect it lowered Hillary's vote total a little bit by people who were never all that enthralled with her but didn't want him - and got told so many times he couldn't win that they decided, "Y'know, this way I don't have to vote for her," and they either didn't vote or voted for one of the many alternative selections like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

I still blame the hippies, granolas and uninformed in the Sanders camp for the 2016 loss. I had a small sample, but I could tell that they were too busy tearing down an obvious not-soo-great candidate(HRC), while completely blinded to the train coming down the tunnel with the horn blaring. These were the same people who showed up at the election protests in January.....which I always found a bit odd. IF you don't like the results of the election, why not make sure you don't allow the idiot to get elected.

I'm pretty sure many of the Sanders folks either voted for that Russian asset(Jill Stein), stayed home, or even voted for the orange miscreant in "protest".

And I've always said that, if you are caught between a candidate with issues, and a candidate that you should know is a tsunami of crapness, don't complain about the tsunami if you don't do anything about it, personally.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I still blame the hippies, granolas and uninformed in the Sanders camp for the 2016 loss. I had a small sample, but I could tell that they were too busy tearing down an obvious not-soo-great candidate(HRC), while completely blinded to the train coming down the tunnel with the horn blaring. These were the same people who showed up at the election protests in January.....which I always found a bit odd. IF you don't like the results of the election, why not make sure you don't allow the idiot to get elected.

I'm pretty sure many of the Sanders folks either voted for that Russian asset(Jill Stein), stayed home, or even voted for the orange miscreant in "protest".

And I've always said that, if you are caught between a candidate with issues, and a candidate that you should know is a tsunami of crapness, don't complain about the tsunami if you don't do anything about it, personally.

The Bernie vote - IMHO - consisted of the "some folks just want to watch the world burn" vote as part of its core and those folks were more likely to vote for Trump than for HRC.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: ideology does NOT play a HUGE role in the outcome of elections most of the time. For all of the news coverage of "conservatives/liberals" (because the media is basically serving the role of a wrestling announcer), there are PLENTY of both conservatives AND liberals who will not even check out a candidate and they'll see R or D next to the name and ASSUME.

In 1988, people really thought Senator Al Gore was (for the most part) a Republican in the wrong party who was only a Democrat because his daddy was and the party flip hadn't yet fully occurred in Tennessee. And he did hold some conservative positions (by today's standards), but in 1988 he really was pretty much a moderate compared with the national party but a liberal compared with the average Tennessee voter.

The fine posters we have here on this board TEND TO BE somewhat ideologically consistent and vote that way at least most of the time. The problem is that more than half the electorate DOES NOT vote ideologically. Let me give you a fine example: I know several women who voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 - and when Dobbs was decided in 2022, they absolutely lost their minds.

And then they all voted for Trump in 2024.

Did they not see the connection with their vote and the Court composition?

 

[JDCrimson]

The Alabama Education Association used to be the most powerful lobby-union in the state of Alabama. It barely exists now largely because the teachers kept voting against their self interest weakening it's importance.

I would argue the poorest decisions we make as individuals is our ill-informed votes.

 

[92tide]

The Alabama Education Association used to be the most powerful lobby-union in the state of Alabama. It barely exists now largely because the teachers kept voting against their self interest weakening it's importance.

I would argue the poorest decisions we make as individuals is our ill-informed votes.

non-stop propaganda about “those people” being to blame for anything you don’t like works on a lot of people

 

[Its On A Slab]

Did they not see the connection with their vote and the Court composition?

I am rarely a single issue voter, but that issue alone was my reason for holding my nose and voting for Hillary. I knew what the stakes were. And you are right about the Bernie voters. They would rather burn their house down than try to do something to save it.

Now, we have to live with a Supreme Ct that is determined to roll back everything that has made this country a freer place. Voting rights, civil rights, marriage equality, reproductive freedom.

 

[statgrad96]

I still blame the hippies, granolas and uninformed in the Sanders camp for the 2016 loss. I had a small sample, but I could tell that they were too busy tearing down an obvious not-soo-great candidate(HRC), while completely blinded to the train coming down the tunnel with the horn blaring. These were the same people who showed up at the election protests in January.....which I always found a bit odd. IF you don't like the results of the election, why not make sure you don't allow the idiot to get elected.

I'm pretty sure many of the Sanders folks either voted for that Russian asset(Jill Stein), stayed home, or even voted for the orange miscreant in "protest".

And I've always said that, if you are caught between a candidate with issues, and a candidate that you should know is a tsunami of crapness, don't complain about the tsunami if you don't do anything about it, personally.

You could say the same of the 2020 election. Jo Jorgensen won 1.2% of the national vote.

 

[Its On A Slab]

You could say the same of the 2020 election. Jo Jorgensen won 1.2% of the national vote.

Thanks. I didn't know that. Assuming that every LP vote cast would have gone to Trump, PA would have been down to 1000 votes in favor of Biden, GA would have been won by Trump, Michigan would have stayed in the Biden column, Trump would have won WI. Arizona would have gone to Trump.

So, instead of bitching about the "stolen election", I wonder: why didn't Trump assail the LP for handing the White House to Biden?

Then again, I did the math and if we readjusted the EC votes, it would have been a 269-269 tie. Giving Trump Wisconsin, GA, and Arizona.

it would have been thrown into the House. So Biden would have won since the Democrats were in the majority.

 

[92tide]

Thanks. I didn't know that. Assuming that every LP vote cast would have gone to Trump, PA would have been down to 1000 votes in favor of Biden, GA would have been won by Trump, Michigan would have stayed in the Biden column, Trump would have won WI. Arizona would have gone to Trump.

So, instead of bitching about the "stolen election", I wonder: why didn't Trump assail the LP for handing the White House to Biden?

Then again, I did the math and if we readjusted the EC votes, it would have been a 269-269 tie. Giving Trump Wisconsin, GA, and Arizona.

it would have been thrown into the House. So Biden would have won since the Democrats were in the majority.

not to worry. they all came home in 2024 /s

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Thanks. I didn't know that. Assuming that every LP vote cast would have gone to Trump, PA would have been down to 1000 votes in favor of Biden, GA would have been won by Trump, Michigan would have stayed in the Biden column, Trump would have won WI. Arizona would have gone to Trump.

So, instead of bitching about the "stolen election", I wonder: why didn't Trump assail the LP for handing the White House to Biden?

Then again, I did the math and if we readjusted the EC votes, it would have been a 269-269 tie. Giving Trump Wisconsin, GA, and Arizona.

it would have been thrown into the House. So Biden would have won since the Democrats were in the majority.

No, Biden wouldn't have won because that's not how it works.

YES - it would have gone to the House but the STATES GET ONE VOTE APIECE. They congregate and vote as one unit.

Since the GOP had a majority in 27 state caucuses of the House members, Trump would have won.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

So, instead of bitching about the "stolen election", I wonder: why didn't Trump assail the LP for handing the White House to Biden?

Because Donald Trump is what happens when your Daddy makes you think losing something is the worst thing you can ever do. So from the get-go, there were only two possiblities:

a) Trump wins
b) the opponent had to have stolen it because Trump CANNOT lose

If he loses, he's a loser, and whatever his Daddy did to him when he was young clearly did enough damage that he is still an oppositional defiant toddler developmentally.

Why I should ever vote for a guy who couldn't prevent an election theft he insisted he saw was coming for years is something I learned long ago never to ask a Trump voter engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Don't ever forget: this guy TO THIS DAY will point out to you, "Well, you know, we won the lawsuit with the NFL." The entire league crashed because of his idiocy, but what he wants you to know is - HE WON that lawsuit.

 

[Its On A Slab]

No, Biden wouldn't have won because that's not how it works.

YES - it would have gone to the House but the STATES GET ONE VOTE APIECE. They congregate and vote as one unit.

Since the GOP had a majority in 27 state caucuses of the House members, Trump would have won.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Just another example of how our electoral system is messed up. Without the EC, there would never be this state caucuses crap. The winner of an election should ALWAYS be the person who gets the most votes.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Thanks, I stand corrected. Just another example of how our electoral system is messed up. Without the EC, there would never be this state caucuses crap. The winner of an election should ALWAYS be the person who gets the most votes.

No, not a problem. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk. But how would you know me otherwise!

I only learned it when it looked like it might happen in 2000 (that election - coincidentally - was 25 years ago today).



You know what's funny? Everything we whine about today about how to elect a President is in document after document in the early history of this country. There's literally not a single argument ANYONE advocating a popular vote (however done) presents now that was unknown 250 years ago. Hamilton touched on it in Federalist #68 (the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent) and while I "get" the popular vote argument, I'm not sure everyone has bothered to think through the even shadier ways of winning that the two major parties would try in order to win. No doubt, Democrats would prop up a regional "conservative Democrat" in the South to siphon votes away from the Republican, and the GOP would pull the same trick in New England and on the West Coast, maybe even with two or more candidates.

It's a fair point to say someone doesn't like the EC for whatever reason. But it is simply false for anyone to say, "Well, if it wasn't for the EC then Hillary would have won" because you cannot assume that the two parties run the SAME CAMPAIGNS and turn out the same voters.

Seriously - how many times does a voter either pull the lever for the familiar name or NOT pull it because of a name? That would take on a different meaning in the case of removing the EC.



This - to me - is the funny thing. This country came closer than it ever had in 1970 to abolishing the EC, approving it by a 338-70 margin in the House and sent it to the Senate. Six Senators - three from each party - conducted a filibuster by raising every objection always raised: it would cause the rise of splinter parties (as I was saying above), federalize state elections, lead to endless recounts (imagine if in 2000 we had to recount every single vote in the USA), but also noted (and this was one of the first points ever made historically) that it is EASY TO STEAL and election if it's a popular vote because you might only have to spot inject a few thousand votes around the country. In the case of the EC, you have to have enough to STEAL THE STATE - and let's face it, there's only about 7 states where this would ever matter, but they change through the years. They never shut off the filibuster, failing by a 54-46 vote.

Besides - the only time we ever REALLY hear about it is when someone doesn't like the outcome.