Edit 12:11 PM 11/6 Pacific
Kentucky (8), Indiana (11), West Virginia (4), Florida (30), South Carolina (9), Tennessee (11), Alabama (9), Mississippi (6), Oklahoma (7), Arkansas (6), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (4*), Wyoming (3), Louisiana (8), Texas (40), Ohio (17), Missouri (10), Montana (4), Utah (6), Idaho (4), Iowa (6), Kansas (6), North Carolina (BG-16), Georgia (BG-16), Pennsylvanya (BG-19), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (15), Maine (1*), Alaska (3), Arizona (11) and Nevada (6) called for Trump.
Vermont (3), Connecticut (7), District of Columbia (3), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), New York (28), Colorado (10), California (54), Washington (12), Oregon (8), Virginia (13), Hawaii (4), New Mexico (5), New Hampshire (4), Minnesota (10), Nebraska (1*), Maine (3*) for Harris.
2 counties in PA have extended voting hours due to voting machine problems. 9:30 PM in one, 10:00 PM in the other.
Multiple precincts in Georgia have extended hours due to bomb threats.
Edit 03:09 PM Pacific Harris wins Guam.
This thread is for the Presidential election, my plan is to start marking wins as soon as they are called, sorted by time zone.
Some states are going to take longer than others. Polls generally close at 8 PM local time, but they can't start counting early/mail in votes until after the polls close.
Wisconsin in particular has an interesting system where ballots are collected by MUNICIPALITY, not precinct, they have over 1,800 ballot counting locations and don't report until ALL 1,800 are in.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/10/22/wisconsin-voters-election-milwaukee-security-denier
Currently 226 EC votes from Blue States:
4+19+10+7+3+3+4+10+11 +4+14+28+4+3+13+54+12 +10+5+8+6
NC called for Trump. -16 here, +16 to Trump.
GA called for Trump. -16 here, +16 to Trump.
PA called for Trump. -19 here, +19 to Trump.
AZ and NV both called for Trump, +11, +6
Which leaves 312 EC votes in Red States.
9+6+6+6+8+6+10+5+3+7 +3+40+30+11+8+17+9+11+4+3+4+4+3+16+16+19+11+6
270 to Win.
Online map here!
It's going to boil down to ~~VA~~, PA, MI, WI, MN. A Trump win in any of them puts him over the top. Harris has to take all ~~five~~ four. VA just got called for Harris. 1 down, 4 to go.
MSNBC called PA for Trump, that's it. It's over.
But the "Anti-Genocide" vote in Michigan is not significant.
Donald Trump 47,322,739 votes (52.5%)
Kamala Harris 41,760,788 votes (46.3%)
Jill Stein 334,826 votes (0.4%)
Chase Oliver 334,504 votes (0.4%)
Robert Kennedy 291,829 votes (0.3%)
Other candidates 160,156 votes (0.2%)
Harris is down 6 million. The other protest votes are 10% of that.
When the "anti-genocide" people accelerated and intensified the outcome of the existing genocide by protest voting for spoiler candidates it is really hard to muster any sympathy.
Sometimes you have to be willing to play politics in order to win at politics. Purity testing doesn't count for shit when the opposition is literally in favor of enslaving the entire human race for sport.
Way to go! You really showed the lesser of two evils who's boss, while the ultra-nationalist psycopaths erradicate millions more innocent people. Nice fucking job 👏
The spoiler candidates weren't really a factor, at least not in MI. We'll see how it plays out elsewhere, but as noted above, Harris being down 6 million and ALL the spoilers COMBINED for 600K.
They drove down enthusiasm, and refocused the attention away from the global threat to democracy. So, no offense, but I completely fucking disagree. The fate of Palestine is negligible in comparison to the long term threat of global authoritarianism.
Harris played it safe and it looks like she's going to lose anyway, so maybe she should've considered more progressive ideas. Or maybe listened to her constituents instead of doing what Democrats always fucking do, and playing off the "you have to vote for us because we're not them."
But no, let's blame the voters for a candidate failing to win them over.
I'm fine with tacking to the left. She was not the candidate to do it. Until you have someone who is willing to threaten to rally the same kind of structural violence that Donald Trump is capable of in opposition, and actually make good on it, then moving to the middle is the only logical option. We either get serious about forcing our positions by any means necessary or pander to the lowest common denominator. Those are the only two options.
And Democrats will continue to lose because of this. Americans are tired of progress not happening, so I have to disagree with you.
Democrats needed to rally the country and get them excited behind a progressive candidate actually willing to reflect their constituency. But they won't, because that's somehow considered radical by Democrats.
The Democrats keep trying this middle-of-the-road status quo bullshit, and they keep losing. So maybe middle of the road isn't the play anymore.
Did you somehow miss, or just conveniently ignore the first part of my comment where I literally called for a revolutionary candidate who was willing to restructure the face of the left by whatever means necessary?
No, I didn't miss it, you just will never convince me that progress can only be made by riding in the middle. Harris needed to be a shift left that a lot of people in this country are desperate for, and instead, she chose centrist policies and pandering to Republicans for their votes.
The "political" game is over, we needed actual change, and we got it, just not from the candidate we needed.
Which fucking part of that did you not understand?
Moving to the left is good, and desirable. If you want to do that effectively you need the advantage of structural violence that is provided by the organized hierarchical structure of a serious political party.
So, we need a candidate who is willing to forcibly restructure the Democratic party in the way Trump did to the Republican party. Simply just wanting a candidate to support more left wing policies is not enough. They must centralize support for those populist positions.
Once again, I fucking understand what you're saying, quoting it for the third time doesn't make it sound anymore correct. What part of "To go to the middle, you have to compromise from the left, and therefore are already giving up on progress" do you not seem to understand?!
We're on the same side, I'm telling you the average American doesn't give a flying fuck. "We need to play the political blah blah" we've been listening to it for fucking decades, shit or get off the pot. The Democrats don't want to pass progressive policy, they don't want progressive voices at the forefront of their party, and "meeting them in the middle and becoming centrists to then infiltrate them" is so fucking ass backwards I'm tired of you parroting it at me like it's some groundbreaking idea.
The DNC chooses their candidates that they back and run, they choose to run centrists across the country, all they have to do is shift the party platform and run more progressive candidates. They've had the ability to do so for decades, and they just fucking won't.
So I don't understand why you think working with them, compromising with them when they do nothing but give empty promises and bullshit excuses, is somehow going to magically turn the party left because of one cult-like candidate (who we had, btw, Bernie, the DNC shit all over him, remember) who "centralizes power."
We both want the party to move left, I think you're way of doing so is ass backwards, and you, mine. So I'm done with this discussion.
I see now where the confusion lies I believe. It seems to me that you think I am arguing IN FAVOR of moving to the middle. I am absolutely, unequivocally, and under no circumstances in support of that strategy. What I am arguing is that when you have a candidate with no true ideological convictions, and that does not believe in the radical reorientation of the Democratic party towards true economic populism then the only option you are left with is pandering to the middle. I agree it has been a complete and total failure, and that it was always doomed to fail in the long run even if it miraculously worked in the short term (2020). I knew it was going to be a failed strategy in 2016, I knew it was going to lead to future failure after 2020, and that was proven to be true again in 2024. I fucking agree with you.
This is not what I am suggesting at all. I want zero compromise with the right, ever. I want absolute, uncompromising, ideological militance from the left and its leadership. Bernie was never going to provide that. While I absolutely believe in the genuine nature of his beliefs, and appreciate what he did to wake up so much of the Millennial generation in this country, he ultimately was too old and lacked the courage of his convictions.
What we need is new leadership who is willing, ready, and able to build a political apparatus that is capable of organizing and maintaining the advantages that come along with engaging in structural violence when necessary. That means economically embargoing conservative states, and corporations. It means systematically organizing and overtaking local governments in strategically advantageous districts. It means building organizations that allow people to escape regressive social, familial, religious, or economic situations that are keeping them trapped and unproductive to the cause. It means encouraging those people to cut off social access to anyone that does not share in their ideological convictions. No more fucking around. I want a legitimate push toward radicalizing the population, and showing people how to effectively use their numbers to their advantage.
For some reason you thought I was arguing for centrism, when what I am really arguing for is centralized, organized, strategic revolution. Hopefully that clears things up.
the county trends in swing states compared to 2020 are extremely discouraging.
This makes the assumption that the protest vote went to Jill Stein.
I've been saying the entire time that both of these candidates were in a race with the couch.
Harris didn't give voters something to show up for. So they chose the couch.
Not JUST Jill Stein. The combined total of ALL the "also ran" candidates doesn't cover the gap between Trump and Harris.
Even if they all voted for Harris, it wouldn't make a difference.
Which one of those candidates is "I didn't vote because I didn't feel represented?"
I expect, when the votes are all counted, you won't see a significant difference in the percentage of non-voters.
We're going to need to look at post election polling I think.
Oh, definitely!