226
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

https://www.guampdn.com/news/guam-picks-harris-over-trump-in-non-binding-presidential-straw-poll/article_657b06b8-9b97-11ef-9896-1302c4e2ebe9.html

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!

https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Yeah. But we need to squarely focus the blame on Harris, the campaign, the apologists who excused some of here deeply unpopular positions, and disallowed the dissent that tried to bring her to more popular positions.

In the previous 6 elections, the candidate that ran as an anti-elite populist won.

This will make 7 (if Trump wins).

[-] criss_cross@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's a lot of blame to go around.

-Americans who tolerate and accept Trump's behavior.

-Biden for not calling it sooner and letting a proper candidate emerge. Harris was the best at the last minute but there should have been actual primaries.

-Harris for not swinging for the fences and playing it safe.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

arming a genocide and going in on anti-crime and -migrant rhetoric is "playing it safe" jfc

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What about the people that were protesting war crimes outside her rallies? No blame for them?

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Maybe she should have listened to what they had to say.

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

It doesn't appear to have mattered. I know it's an issue important to a lot of people here, but changing her stance on it would not have moved the needle. It literally comes down to inflation and xenophobia. And the billionaires putting their thumb on the scale as hard as they can.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

You have no way of knowing that because anti-genocide voters basically didn't show up. You dont know what you didn't measure.

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah. They didn't show up. They literally don't count. That is political irrelevance.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Democratic apologism and cognitive dissonance, name a more iconic duo.

[-] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

A more iconic duo you say?

Leftist Entitlement.

There you go.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

This was the natural result of the rhetoric you've been engaged in since you started this sockpuppet of yours.

We told you this would happen as a result of how you were approaching the issue.

I told you what the consequences of what you were doing would be before. I told you while you were doing the thing that would have these consequences. I told you after you did the thing that it would have these consequences.

And if course you want to blame the people who told you that the way you were approaching this wouldn't work. That when you did it it wasn't working. And after having done it we told you that you alienated more people with the approach than you gained.

You have no excuses. This is your loss. You own this.

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I don't see what you're getting at here. You are literally imagining that there are vast numbers of people staying home over Gaza while telling me I can't know they don't exist.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You have no way of knowing that because anti-genocide voters basically didn’t show up.

how do you know what they did?

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And housing if you want to separate that out from inflation.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

This is the kind of delusional thinking that cost Harris the election. That you could just "abuse" people into accepting a genocide.

You, this specific kind of thinking, this is what is to blame for Harris's loss.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well when every single Palestinian is dead or displaced and Gaza is annexed into Israel by February you be sure to cling to that moral high ground!

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Just keep blaming the voters instead of having an iota of introspection. It worked real well for the Harris campaign.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Go read my other comment. You think messaging on Gaza would have made a difference because your are historically illiterate. War is coming. Pick a fucking side.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 10 points 1 month ago

I mean, Harris is in the unenviable position of having to get the support of both conservatives and leftists at the same time (because the democratic party is an awkward hodgepodge of much of what passes for the left in the US, people who mostly just want to not be discriminated against, and people who fundamentally are conservatives but feel like the republicans go too far or dislike their stance on one thing or another.) It is nigh impossible to not have some unpopular positions if you've got to try to maintain the support of groups of people that sometimes want mutually exclusive things, and can afford to lose neither, because no position in that instance is truly that popular.

I know Lemmy likes to think that if she only adopted all of their positions, she'd win in a landslide, and if Lemmy was the electorate that'd probably be the case, but to be perfectly frank, I'm far from the most far left person I encounter here routinely, and I'm already in the position of not knowing a single other person irl that agrees with me on a number of my stances. The issue for Harris isn't that she tries to get votes from conservatives, she in order to win, she has to win some amount of them, the US is too conservative a country to avoid that, it's that at the end of the day, Trump has a cult following, and a lot of people that like him. He might seem "easily beatable" because he does crap that would sink someone else, but he really isn't, having that many motivated followers is a huge asset in elections.

Isn't the blatantly obvious answer to "who is to blame for Trump getting elected?", assuming that he ultimately does, the people that voted for Trump?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Unenviable position my ass. She campaigned like ass and tried to court Republicans and got goose eggs to show for it.

No more fucking excuses. Trump has always been the singularly most beatable opponent in politics.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Inflation killed her. It's the economy. You have to send the message that you're going to make things better. Numbers don't help here. What matters is what people's bank account is like.

She didn't say shit about it. He did.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

"I wouldn't do anything different than Joe Biden"

--Kamala Harris

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

He went to black barbershops and McDonald's. Where the hell was she? I'm sorry, but this fucker was the most beatable candidate ever and it's close.

That's fucked up.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

The Democrats couldn't beat a moldy ham sandwich now. They lost to Trump twice and the 3rd time running was at his weakest and dumbest.

If there's history books in the future, I want it known how badly they fucked up and gave the Orange Moron the keys back to the white House.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

In reality it's both the campaign and the voters. But it's easier to just blame voters. Lemmy/Reddit will down vote anything that goes against that narrative: but as we just saw, Internet echo chambers do not determine reality.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
226 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2175 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS