Most People Still believe In The Accuracy And Fairness Of U.S. Elections

 

The charts above are from a Pew Research Center survey -- done between July 6th and 12th of a nationwide sample of 3,554 adults, with a 1.9 point margin of error.

Reuters/Ipsos Poll Shows Many Are Starting To believe Some Of Trump's Election Lies

The chart above is from the Reuters / Ipsos Poll -- done between April 15th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 4,557 adults, with a 2 point margin of error. 

It Was A Great Night For Democrats - They Found The Issue That Voters Care About

 

It was a very good Tuesday for the Democratic Party. They were expected to do fairly well, but they exceeded expectations. Quite literally, it was a blowout.

Pundits had said the New Jersey governor's race would be close. It wasn't. Democrat Mike Sherrill won by 13 points! In the Virginia governor's race, the margin was even bigger. Democrat Abagail Spanberger won by over  15 points. And in New York, Democrat Zorhan Mamdani got over half the vote in a three-person race and won by about 9 points.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Supreme Court judges retained their seats by 40 to 50 point margins. And the redistricting proposal in California won by over 25 points.

Was this a repudiation of Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants? Yes. But it was also something bigger. Democrats have found their message - a message that appeals to most voters. That message is to make life affordable again! And it's a message that plays well in all areas of the country for both moderates (Spanberger in Virginia) and progressives (Mamdani in New York).

Donald Trump won enough voters in 2024 to get elected by promising to lower prices. But he betrayed those voters by doing just the opposite. His imposition of tariffs on most countries have fueled inflation and raised prices on nearly everything from groceries to health care. 

While the rich and super-rich are doing very well in the Trump economy, no one else is doing well. Both working and middle class people are finding it harder every day to afford the necessities for a decent life in this country. And they are tired of the struggle to keep up with inflation.

It's not going to get any better in the next year. Trump will continue the tariffs that are fueling inflation, while cutting the government programs that help people (Medicaid, ACA premium help, SNAP benefits, etc.). 

That means the Democrats, whether moderate or progressive candidates, can ride the affordability issue into the 2026 election. And that is exactly what they should do.

The United States is the richest country in the world, but most of that wealth is being hogged by a very small percentage of very rich people. That is just wrong. We must create a fairer economy - one that benefits all citizens.

2026 will be a referendum on Trump is a way - in the way he has damaged the economy and made most Americans suffer while giving more to the rich. 

Most Americans Say God Didn't Play A Role In Recent Elections

 

The charts above are from a Pew Research Center survey -- done between May 5th and 11th of a nationwide sample of 8,937 adults with a 1.4 point margin of error.

The Rich Have To Much Power In Our Elections

 

From Robert Reich.

The Polls Were NOT Wrong This Time

In recent presidential elections, the polls have been vilified - many of them justifiably. And some are even blaming the polls again this time - saying they were wrong. But they weren't. This time they were right!

This was a very close election in the popular vote. As of the latest count, Trump had 50.4% and Harris had 47.9%. That's about a 2.5 point gap. And that's exactly what the polls were telling us - that it would be very close.

While many polls had Harris with a slight lead, it was always within the poll's admitted margin of error - which means either of the candidates could have a small lead. That's how it turned out - a victory within the margin of error.

Polling is not an exact science. At best, they just give us an educated guess (within a small error) of what the public's thinking at a particular time. They told us this would be a close election and either candidate could win by a small margin. That is what happened, especially in the critical swing states.

Some look to the electoral college margin (312 to 226), and say it wasn't a close election. But polling can't predict what the electoral college will turn out to be - only what the popular vote might be.

For the most part, I think the polls did a credible job this time.

Some Facts About Poll Workers

 

From the Pew Research Center

Only 28% Of Republicans Are Confident In Election Accuracy

The chart above is from the Gallup Poll -- done between September 3rd and 15th of a nationwide sample of 1,007 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.
 

Our Economy Is Unfair Because We Are Ruled By The Rich

Why do millions of Americans work full-time jobs for a wage that keeps them in poverty? 

Why do working and middle class families struggle to keep up with inflation? 

Why do over 50 major corporations make billions in profits, but pay no income taxes?

Why do the super-rich pay a smaller income tax rate than many middle class families?

Why are giant corporations allowed to control so much of the market that they can raise prices at will (regardless of already record-breaking profits)?

The answer to these, and other inequities, is really very simple? We are being ruled by the rich.

Most of the elected officials in Congress are millionaires (and a great many are multi-millionaires). They make the laws that govern our society. And as one would expect, millionaires make laws that benefit millionaires. And none-elected millionaires have the money to fund propaganda to support the laws made by elected millionaires.

This could be fixed, but it would be difficult. An overwhelming number of voters would have to demand that change. Anything less could be ignored by the ruling rich.

Anyone can run for Congress, but not anyone can afford to run for Congress. It takes a good deal of money to get a person known by the voting public, and more money to get their views know. And it takes money to be able to raise money. This puts a working or middle class person at a serious disadvantage, since a rich opponent can simply outspend them with their own money (or easily fund a money-raising campaign).

The answer is public funding of federal campaigns. All candidates should receive a certain amount of funding from the government to run, and no candidate should be allowed to spend more than that amount. And MAGA-donors or other outside groups should not be allowed to spend money campaigning for any candidate. This would put all candidate on an equal footing, and probably results in more working and middle class candidates being elected to Congress.

Also, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court must be overturned. That decision said money was speech, and allowed the rich to have more speech than anyone else.

We must have fair elections before we can have a fair economy. That will not be easy to accomplish. It will only happen when the voters demand it, and will only vote for those who will reform our election funding laws and support Supreme Court nominees who will overturn Citizens United. 

Until this happens, we are destined to be ruled by the rich - to the detriment of everyone else.

Republicans Are On The Wrong Side Of Big Issues

 The above shows the results of Tuesday's vote in red-state Ohio. Ohio is one of the most Republican states in the country, and yet the Republican establishment lost big on the ballot issues. 

The voters gave a constitutional right to abortion for women, even though Republican officials tried hard to defeat it. They tried to change the rules for approval (wanting to require 60% for passage) and voters denied that. Then they changed the wording on the ballot -- hoping their lies would fool the voters. It didn't. The abortion proposal won by about a 14 point margin.

And that wasn't all. Even though Republican officials opposed legalizing marijuana, the voters approved it -- by a similar 14 point margin. 

This should be a warning for the national Republican Party -- a warning that they are on the wrong side of issues important to voters. 

Since Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the anti-abortion forces have lost at the ballot box in every election involving the issue -- even in red states. And the issue will not go away. It will very likely play an important part in the 2024 election.

So will the marijuana issue. A recent Gallup poll shows that a record 70% of the population now supports legalizing marijuana use by those over 21 years old. Continuing to oppose legalization is not going to win Republicans any new votes -- especially among young voters (who turned out in record numbers for the 2020 election).

But it doesn't stop there. The Republican leaders have made it very clear that they want to cut Social Security and Medicare -- two of the most popular government programs (because they keep millions of senior Americans from abject poverty). Seniors are the most reliable voters the Republicans have, but trying to cut these programs could change that.

The Republicans also oppose raising the national minimum wage (currently only $7.25 an hour). No one working a full-time job should have to live in poverty, but the current minimum wage is a poverty wage. A huge majority of voters want the minimum wage raised, but Republicans continue to block that from happening.

Republicans complain about the national debt, even though the biggest boost to that debt occurred when Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations. And that want to cut taxes even more for the rich and corporations. But voters think those entities don't pay their fair share of taxes, and want taxes raised on them.

The one issue the Republicans thinks they have going for them is inflation, but they have no solution for reducing it. They claim inflation is caused by the national debt, but that is simply false. Inflation goes up and down regardless of the national debt. The real solutions to inflation are putting more money in the hands of workers, making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, and breaking up corporate monopolies (which allow them to raise prices unnecessarily).

The Republicans are on the wrong side of all these issues, and until they change they will continue to lose national elections. 

Most Voters Say U.S. Elections Are Conducted Fairly

 The charts above are from the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 16th and 19th of a nationwide sample of 1,278 registered voters, with a 2.9 point margin of error.

We Don't Need Special Police To Fix A Nonexistent Problem

 In their haste to fix elections to favor their own party's candidates, Republicans in state legislatures are creating special election police. They claim it is to combat election fraud -- a problem that is extremely rare in U.S. elections. The truth is they are trying to suppress the vote by scaring legitimate voters into not voting.

Here is part of what Zeeshan Aleem says about this at MSNBC.com:

One of the most obvious issues is that these programs require state governments to invest money, personnel and institutional resources to address a phantom problem. Texas’ voter fraud crackdown efforts last year required spending more than $2 million, and 20,000 hours of labor to close three cases and open seven new ones. Those kinds of resources would be much better spent on a problem that actually exists or threatens our democracy.

There is also rising concern among voting rights advocates that increasing attention to aggressive enforcement could dampen voter participation. Will the exceedingly rare instances of fraud, which are committed accidentally a significant amount of the time, be punished with much more severe penalties? For example, if voters are confused about where exactly they’re registered to vote or allowed to register to vote because they moved recently or they’re between addresses, a fear of enhanced penalties could convince some that voting is not worth the effort. There's reason to think that these problems are disproportionately likely to discourage voters who have fewer resources and hail from marginalized communities, because they tend to have less information as voters and can't afford risking financial penalties.

There are also questions about the exact purview and power of these new units. “I really think we have a lot of procedures in place where these things can be addressed, and I worry that we’re putting in place a police force which has no guardrails,” Florida state Sen. Lori Berman, a Democrat, told The Associated Press about the new election police unit in her state. “We don’t know who can initiate the investigation, there’s nothing to prevent it from being used for targeting certain groups, and I really worry about us having this kind of squad that’s totally out there without any supervision.”

Finally, it’s worrying to contemplate how these policies will allow the Republican political class to continue to mislead its voter base into thinking voter fraud is indeed a real problem. Some Republican voters might hear of these policies and think to themselves, “Surely if they’re creating entire new police units for this thing, it’s got to be pretty serious, right?” Unfortunately, some of them likely underestimate the cynicism of the leaders of their own party.

The money spent on new election police and associated programs is better spent on funding to administer elections properly — and solving problems that actually exist.

Dan Rather's Remarks About Tuesday's Election Results

Tuesday was not a good day for Democrats. And now many pundits are scrambling to come up with a reason for it. Some are even calling it a preview of the 2022 elections. That sounds too defeatist for me. I think Democrats need to adjust, and do a better job of turning out their vote, but I'm not ready to write 2022 off yet.

One of the better reactions to the Tuesday elections came from veteran journalist Dan Rather. Here is part of what he had to say:

In the wake of yesterday’s elections, the prospects around the electoral strength of the Democratic Party appear, at least for this moment in time, bleak. I caution you to beware of any simplistic accounting for what took place in Virginia and even New Jersey, as well as in many examples of local races in other parts of the country. That there was a broad uniformity to the bad news for Democrats is certainly a message. But of what exactly? 

Was this a natural swing in electoral fortunes against a sitting president, especially one with low approval numbers?

Was it an example of the potency of racist rhetoric around such topics as education? 

Should senators Manchin and Sinema bear blame for holding up a popular agenda in Congress and denying Biden a win?

Are many Americans just frustrated and tired as we continue to stagger through the pandemic?

Was this a turnout election, where it wasn’t so much that the Democrats didn’t turn out a lot of voters, but the Republicans just turned out more?

Are we seeing more evidence of the perniciousness of the lies and divisions promulgated by social media? 

Have Democrats lost even more working class white voters?

Is the media culpable for covering extremism in the Republican Party as politics as usual?

Does this mark a further erosion of our democracy?

Is America still cleaved and weakened by its racist history?

Are there more voters in play than many might have believed?

Will the next election cycle look different just as governor’s races in both blue and red states in the recent past have not predicted well what often comes next? 

Do many people in this country not pay close attention to the inner workings of our political system and make decisions at the ballot box that seem inscrutable to those who are much more informed?

As I write out this list, and know I could add many entries, my answer is simply, in some form, All of the above. . . .

There are millions who will have woken this morning and are already hard at work to help make this world better. I suspect that includes many of you. Nonetheless, I will not diminish what we face. There should be recriminations and post mortems. . . .

I have seen the road to progress in my lifetime take many detours. Sometimes new chasms emerge that seem uncrossable. But the reason why progress often gets back on track is because people refuse to give up. They regroup, rethink, reorganize, but not retreat. They maybe were weary and needed a break, but they ultimately keep pushing forward. I have no way of predicting where we will go. I do know, however, that fatalism has never been a winning strategy. And I firmly believe, with my life’s experience as my guide, that what we sometimes see in the moment looks very different in retrospect. But to change that fate requires energy and perseverance. Recovery is not inevitable but it is not impossible - not by a long shot. 

Crowd Sizes Mean Nothing In Electoral Politics

A pro-Trump rally in Salt Lake City drew only one-tenth of the crowd it was expected to draw a few days ago -- even though Trump favorite, Michael Flynn, was the keynote speaker. 

I must admit that, like many of my Democratic friends, I was amused by this. But it would be a mistake to read too much into it.

It probably does mean that Micheal Flynn is not the draw that Trump conservatives would hope for. But I have no doubt that if Trump had been there, they would likely have filled the arena. But even then, that means little in electoral politics.

You may remember that Bernie Sanders was drawing phenomenally large crowds in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries. The large crowds had leftists thinking that Sanders would win the nomination. But he didn't. He lost in both 2016 and 2020.

And in the 2020 campaign, Donald Trump was drawing huge crowds at every campaign stop. It had right-wingers sure that he would win re-election. He didn't. He lost by more than 7 million votes.

The truth is that only a tiny part of the electorate goes to rallies and campaign stops. Most voters will never go to either, but they will make their choices known on Election Day.

I know that people on both sides of the political divide (and the media also) like to think that crowd sizes matter, but they don't. They actually mean nothing in electoral politics.

The New CNN Poll Is Very Troubling

The charts above reflect the results of the new CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between August 3rd and September 7th of a national sample of 2,119 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

I found these results troubling. They show people are losing faith in our electoral system.

U.S. Public Has A Very Unfavorable Opinion Of QAnon

The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 10th and 13th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,292 registered voters). The margin of error for adults and registered voters is 3 points.

The believers in the nutty QAnon conspiracies are running in local elections (especially for school boards). They see this as their path to taking over in this country.

We must prevent that. They are not believers in democracy, or our democratic system, and it would be in danger if they actually come into power.

Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans (65% of adults and 69% of registered voters) have an unfavorable opinion of QAnon. Democrats must identify the QAnon believers that are running in local races, and they must make sure the voters know who these people are.

Historian Says Republicans Will Try To Steal 2024 Election

We are currently seeing Republican state legislatures around the country passing new laws to suppress the votes of minorities and young people -- people they expect to vote for the Democratic Party. But that is not all they are doing. Many of these legislatures are also including in those new voting laws the ability of state legislatures to overturn the results of a state election if it goes to Democrats. To be blunt, they are trying to make it possible to steal the 2024 election.

The following is just part of a great op-ed by Dana Millbank in The Washington Post:

In September, I wrote that the United States faced a situation akin to the 1933 burning of Weimar Germany’s parliament, which Hitler used to seize power.

“America, this is our Reichstag moment,” the column said, citing the eminent Yale historian Timothy Snyder on the lessons of 20th-century authoritarianism. Snyder argued that President Donald Trump had “an authoritarian’s instinct” and was surrounding the election in “the authoritarian language of a coup d’etat.” Predicted Snyder: “It’s going to be messy.”. . .

American democracy survived that coup attempt on Jan. 6. But the danger has not subsided. I called Snyder, who accurately predicted the insurrection, to ask how the history of European authoritarianism informs our current state.

“We’re looking almost certainly at an attempt in 2024 to take power without winning election,” he told me Thursday. Recent moves in Republican-controlled state legislatures to suppress the votes of people of color and to give the legislatures control over casting electoral votes “are all working toward the scenario in 2024 where they lose by 10 million votes but they still appoint their guy.”

History also warns of greater violence. “If people are excluded from voting rights, then naturally they’re going to start to think about other options, on the one side,” Snyder said. “But, on the other side, the people who are benefiting because their vote counts for more think of themselves as entitled — and when things don’t go their way, they’re also more likely to be violent.”

The extinguishing of our Reichstag fire on Jan. 6 made Trump’s failed coup less like 1933 Germany than 1923 Germany, when Hitler’s clownish Beer Hall Putsch failed. Historically, most coup attempts fail. “But a failed coup is practice for a successful coup,” Snyder said. This is what’s ominous about the Republicans’ determination to sabotage investigations that could help us learn from the Jan. 6 insurrection. Also ominous is the move in many Republican-controlled states to ban schools from teaching about systemic racism — “memory laws,” Snyder calls them — which “feeds into this authoritarian turn” by providing cover for the new attempts to disenfranchise more non-White voters. “They’re trying to ban the discussion of things like voter suppression, and it’s precisely the history of voter suppression which allows us to see it for what it is,” Snyder said.

It all boils down to this: “One of our two political parties is currently on an undemocratic track. That’s just the way it is, I think, for the 2022 and 2024 cycles.”

Many others are sounding similar alarms. A survey of 327 political scientists released this week by Bright Line Watch, a project by scholars at Dartmouth College, the University of Chicago and the University of Rochester, found widespread concern: The experts collectively estimated a 55 percent likelihood that at least some local officials will refuse to certify vote counts in 2024, a 46 percent likelihood that one or more state legislatures will pick electors contrary to the popular vote, and a 39 percent likelihood that Congress will refuse to certify the election.

It Looks Like The GOP Is Planning To Steal Future Elections

There was no "massive fraud" in the 2020 election, and election officials (even Republican election officials) did a good job of verifying and protecting the election results. Why then, are Republican state legislatures passing laws to give themselves control of state election boards and the power to overturn election results?

There could only be one reason. They know they can't win elections fairly (especially presidential elections) so they are giving themselves the power to steal those elections. And the Republicans in Congress are happy to let them have that power.

If this is allowed to happen, it will be the death of our democracy.

Congress Must Protect Both Right To Vote & Election Results

State GOP legislatures are passing voter suppression laws around the country. Two bills are languishing in the Senate that would counter those efforts and protect the right of every citizens to vote -- HR-1 (which would protect voter rights) and HR-4 (which would require Department of Justice approval before a state can change voting rules). Both are good bills and should be passed, but something else must also be done. Congress must also protect the legitimate results of elections (and not allow states to overturn those results).

The following is part of an editorial written by the editorial board of The New York Times:

Republican-controlled state legislatures are whittling away at the integrity of electoral democracy in the United States, rushing to pass laws that make it harder for Americans to vote and easier for partisans to tamper with election results.

It is a legislative assault motivated by the failure of President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign and justified by baseless allegations about the legitimacy of his defeat. Mr. Trump and his supporters pursued indiscriminate lawsuits to overturn the results and then, urged on by Mr. Trump, some of his supporters stormed the Capitol to halt the completion of the election process. Now they are seeking to rewrite the rules to make it easier for Republicans to win elections without winning the most votes.

This effort is inimical to the most basic principles of free and fair elections: that all who are eligible should have an equal opportunity to vote, that all votes should be counted and that the losing side should accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome. . . .

In a statement published this week by the left-leaning think tank New America, more than 100 leading scholars of government warned that election laws in some states “no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections.” The statement warned that “our entire democracy is now at risk.”. . .

The vote-counting process necessarily relies on the judgment and integrity of local officials. No rules can perfectly prevent malfeasance. But Congress can take steps to protect the integrity of the election process.

One important measure included in H.R. 1 is to require a paper record of every vote, so that outcomes can be verified independently.

But the bill needs to go further. Congress also should establish uniform rules for vote counting, certification and challenges. It should also clarify its own role in certifying the results of presidential elections to prevent the possibility that a future Congress would overturn a state’s popular vote. . . .

The power of the states to administer elections is unquestioned, but it is not unlimited. In a representative democracy, the legitimate power of the representatives cannot extend to acts designed to undermine democracy.

If Democrats can find 50 votes for reform, they should not postpone necessary interventions in the illusory hope of a bipartisan breakthrough, nor allow Republicans to filibuster.

American history is sometimes narrated as a gradual expansion of participatory democracy, as workers and women and Black people gained the right to vote. The reality is less flattering. Participation has expanded, and it has contracted. Democracy has strengthened and waned. The gains in the second half of the 20th century are now eroding. There is a narrow window of opportunity to intervene.

GOP Lost Fair Election - So They're Rigging Future Elections

The Republican Party doesn't believe in democracy, and they haven't believed in it for quite a while.

They lost the last presidential election by more than 7 million votes. A party that believes in democracy would alter their policies to reflect those the voters want. But the GOP is not doing that. 

Instead they are trying to rig future elections so they can return to power. They don't care what the voters want. They only care about seizing and remaining in power -- and for them that means changing the rules to keep millions of people from exercising their right to vote. And that have a whole bag of dirty tricks to accomplish that.

The following is part of an article by Michael Wines in The New York Times on the nasty GOP efforts:

Led by loyalists who embrace former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election, Republicans in state legislatures nationwide are mounting extraordinary efforts to change the rules of voting and representation — and enhance their own political clout.

At the top of those efforts is a slew of bills raising new barriers to casting votes, particularly the mail ballots that Democrats flocked to in the 2020 election. But other measures go well beyond that, including tweaking Electoral College and judicial election rules for the benefit of Republicans; clamping down on citizen-led ballot initiatives; and outlawing private donations that provide resources for administering elections, which were crucial to the smooth November vote.

And although the decennial redrawing of political maps has been pushed to the fall because of delays in delivering 2020 census totals, there are already signs of an aggressive drive to further gerrymander political districts, particularly in states under complete Republican control.

The national Republican Party joined the movement this past week by setting up a Committee on Election Integrity to scrutinize state election laws, echoing similar moves by Republicans in a number of state legislatures.

Republicans have long thought — sometimes quietly, occasionally out loud — that large turnouts, particularly in urban areas, favor Democrats, and that Republicans benefit when fewer people vote. But politicians and scholars alike say that this moment feels like a dangerous plunge into uncharted waters.

The avalanche of legislation also raises fundamental questions about the ability of a minority of voters to exert majority control in American politics, with Republicans winning the popular vote in just one of the last eight presidential elections but filling six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court.

The party’s battle in the past decade to raise barriers to voting, principally among minorities, young people and other Democrat-leaning groups, has been waged under the banner of stopping voter fraud that multiple studies have shown barely exists.