Introduction to Swing States in the Presidential Election of 2024 (General Survey)

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Everybody talks about swing states, but nobody does anything about them. In this essay I will list (easy) and define (a little contested) swing states, and explain why they matter in election 2024. Then I’ll present concerns that transcend swing states (surprisingly few), followed by concerns refracted through particular swing states (surprisingly many). In a subsequent post I will go into detail about particular swing states (to the extent that the horrid state of search allows).

Most press coverage frames election 2024 as “horse race” between two candidates: Biden and Trump (this random headline, “Biden Takes Down Trump With 3-Word Punchline At DC Roast,”[1] is typical of the mentality). Polls determine which horse is ahead. There are a few problems with this. For one thing, election 2024 is, at the very least, a five-way race: Biden, Kennedy, Trump, West, and Williamson. For another, the polls are contested, especially this early in the season (dull normal Americans famously don’t focus on electioneering until after Labor Day). From the Economist, a fine example of contestation:

The election is still nine months away. Historically, polls taken before the summer of an election year have been poor predictors of results. But no former president has sought to return to office since the advent of modern polling. Opinions about the omnipresent Mr Trump are much firmer than they are about typical challenger candidates, who at this stage of the race are usually still fighting to secure their party’s nomination. As a result, even though Mr Trump is not yet the presumptive Republican nominee, current head-to-head polls between him and Mr Biden may be unusually informative.

But surely about Biden, too? That said:

Some pollsters are consistently more accurate than the field. But there are many ways to judge quality. The Economist’s general-election polling average weights polls solely by sample size and recency, so larger and newer polls contribute a greater share to the overall score. On this basis, Mr Trump leads Mr Biden in national polls by 2.3 points. That compares with a 0.2-point lead for Mr Biden in an unweighted average that gives polls from six months ago the same weight as those from this past week. The size of Mr Trump’s lead varies widely by the quality of pollster.

Certainly an interesting perspective from a clever publication. But I think all the digits can be boiled down to one conclusion: The election is close. But we knew that.

Finally, the poll-driven horse-race perspective tacitly assumes that leading in the polls means winning the election, as if the United States had a national popular vote. It does not. Under Federalism (see Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3), states do, their votes are aggregated to determine a winer, and at this point I’m going to resort to a great slab of material from a FAQ at the National Archives, and pray to whatever Gods there be that we don’t actually have to understand this stuff between Election Day and the Inaugural[2]. For those who want to skip the FAQ, and for those who imagine they already undertstand it, GOTO END_FAQ; and if you are still reading, the electoral college (like, say, the “Kollege of Musical Knowledge”) is not a place, but a process:

What is the process?

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

How many electors are there? How are they distributed among the States?

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors….

Spoiler: 538 / 2 = 269! So there could be a tie (in which case the election is thrown into the House, another exciting scenario).

A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators….

The District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a State for purposes of the Electoral College under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “State” also refers to the District of Columbia and “Executive” to the State Governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

How are my electors chosen? What are their qualifications? How do they decide who to vote for?

Each candidate running for President in your State has their own group of electors (known as a slate). The slates are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party in your State, but State laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the electors and restrictions on who the electors may vote for.

What happens in the general election? Why should I vote?

The general election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. When you vote for a Presidential candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s preferred electors.

Most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors….

At this point, we raise the question of “faithless electors.” More:

…to the Presidential candidate who wins the State’s popular vote. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.”

What happens after the general election?

After the general election, your State’s Executive prepares a Certificate of Ascertainment listing the names of all the individuals on the slates for each candidate. The Certificate of Ascertainment also lists the number of votes each individual received and shows which individuals were appointed as your State’s electors. Your State’s Certificate of Ascertainment is sent to NARA [(National Archives and Records Administration)] as part of the official records of the Presidential election.

Speculating freely, but presumbly anybody who interrupted the process of sending the Certificates of Ascertainment to NARA could be charged with interfering with an official proceeding. For some definition of “interrupted.” More:

The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December after the general election. The electors meet in their respective States, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your State’s electors’ votes are recorded on a Certificate of Vote, which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your State’s Certificate of Vote is sent to Congress, where the votes are counted, and to NARA, as part of the official records of the Presidential election.

Each State’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House Chamber to conduct the official count of electoral votes. The Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, presides over the count in a strictly ministerial manner [not, until recently, tendentious!] and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

The President-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the general election.

END_FAQ: So that is the apparatus of the Electoral College. You can see at once that winning votes, per se, does not win the Presidency. Winning votes in states does that. And some states are more equal than others. From Roll Call:

If you really want to identify the voters most likely to pick the next president, you can forget about strong partisans from competitive states [New York, California, Texas, etc.]. It’s swing voters from the swingiest states, like Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, who will really matter if the race for the White House is close [as this race, today, is].

So what matters is precisely what “horse race” coverage does not cover. Now let’s look at what swing states are.

What Are Swing States?

Amazingly, not everybody agrees which states are really swing states. From the Telegraph:

The classification of “swing state” is not official, and pollsters disagree over which states are most important for candidates going into each race.

Broadly speaking, a swing state is where both major parties enjoy similar levels of support among the voting population – with the Democrats and Republicans within a few percentage points of each other in polls.

In this presidential race, the critical states are likely to be Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

So that is eight states: The estimable Cook Political Report has six, not eight: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (but not North Carolina or Florida. Infinite are the arguments of mages). Meanwhile, RealClearPolitics (RCP) goes with seven:

So at RCP, we have states from the Northeast (Pennsylvania), the Great Lakes (Michigan, Wisconsin), the South (Georgia, North Carolina), and the West (Arizona, Nevada). That’s a pleasing grouping! I think the RCP list is the best, because it does not include Florida (making Florida a swing state implies facts not in evidence, i.e., a functioning Democrat Party), and does include North Carolina (Democrats there seem to be making a fight of it). As you can see from the RCP chart, Trump is leading, which worries the Democrats (they worry a lot), even though poll quality is low (except perhaps for internal polling, which costs a lot of money, and which we will never see).

Here are RCP’s seven swing states in the form of a handy map:

You can see at once that this map for 2024 is very similar to the map for 2020:

Similar except for the candidate who is, at this point, winning, of course.

One useful aspect of the swing state perspective is that it limits the field for squillionaires; it’s easier to invest in seven states than all fifty.

General Concerns for All States

Election 2024 has three (at least three) aspects that apply across the board, nationally (although both party apparatuses would doubtless like the nationalize the election as much as possible with their respective talking points[3]). They are: Double Hater Voters, and Events. Let us take each in turn.

Double Hater Voters. From The Daily Beast:

Move over swing voters, independents, NASCAR dads, and soccer moms. So-called “double-haters” might be the most important voting bloc this year.

In case you missed the memo, “double-haters” are voters who don’t like either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. This is an emerging cohort that many of us can identify with (although I try not to venture into “hate” territory).

Every year, we are treated to a plethora of news stories about undecided voters. You know the cliché: people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Because these voters (who somehow manage to make it through life without picking a team) are persuadable, they get a ton of ink and disproportionate attention from politicians. If you like receiving voter mail, tell a canvasser you’re not sure which candidate you like—but that you definitely plan on voting.

Well, double-haters are undecided voters on steroids—at least, in terms of their size. Generally speaking, undecided voters constitute around 10 percent of voters nationwide, while double-haters constitute a whopping 19 percent, or nearly one-fifth of the electorate, according to three separate, respected polls. Obviously, these disaffected voters are likely to have a major say in choosing our next president.

Especially in a 3-, 4-, or 5-way race (depending on ballot access), and even more especially in swing states. (I haven’t found any evidence that Double Haters are concentrated in swing states, so place this concern here).

Events, Dear Boy, Events. 1968 was full of “events.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) declined to seek re-eleciton in March 31. Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on June 5. The Democratic National Convention on August 22–30 was a debacle (I well recall seeing the Chicago cops clubbing an anti-war priest to the ground. I had stayed up late to watch on a black-and-white televsion, and the the priest’s robes contrasted strongly to tear gas.) And we had only one war going on at the time! I don’t see any reason to think that 2024 would be any less volatile, given the right, er, triggers. And then of course the Republicans nominated Nixon (“tanned, rested, and ready“), who won. Such events would clearly nationalize the election, though to what end I cannot know.

Particular Concerns in Swing States

I was surprised to find that many aspects of 2024 that I thought would apply nationally turn out to need a swing state lens. Let’s look at Economics, Demographics, and Taylor Swift (!).

Economics. As it turns out, “the economy” is actually worse in swing states than it is in the country as a whole. From Bloomberg:

The Bloomberg Economics Misery II index — an analysis of cumulative inflation rates over four years, plus the latest unemployment rate — illustrates how differing economic conditions across the US can impact the electoral vote.

The index is higher in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than in those that reliably vote either Republican or Democratic in presidential elections.

There also are lots of different ways voters might think about the economy. Biden’s team doubtlessly is hoping a soft landing will help voters forget about the surge in costs for their weekly shopping.

Our suspicion, though, is that voters have long memories on inflation. If that’s right, our Misery II index should be a good guide to how economic conditions will shape the vote.

— Stuart Paul, US Economist

I’ll say. Joe Biden owes me six hundred bucks. Bloomberg provides a handy chart:


Over the past 60 years, the national Misery II index has averaged 17.95% in election years when the incumbent party retained the presidency. It’s now just over 23%.

Demographics. Bloomberg on population shifts:

The population shifts are more pronounced in some battleground states than others, and they don’t uniformly favor Biden. But in aggregate, they offer a reason for optimism for the president’s campaign, even as polls show him trailing his likely opponent, Donald Trump: A Bloomberg analysis of state population forecasts found swing-state counties that Biden won in 2020 will have on net gained almost twice as many people by election day as those that voted for Trump.

Handy chart:

Taylor Swift. I had to. From the Guardian:

What is true, though, is that Swift currently possesses unprecedented power: an endorsement from the most beloved [gad] singer in the United States could potentially tip the balance in what’s likely to be a close election. A reported billionaire, Swift can reroute economies, trigger congressional action and spur tens of thousands of people to register to vote. While her endorsement is unlikely to sway a voter who is undecided between Trump and Biden – if such an American exists – experts believe Swift could convince people who don’t feel energized by Biden to vote for him anyway.

But whether Swift will wield that power or instead stay out of the electoral fray remains unclear. Although Swift endorsed Democrats in 2018, she has in recent years increasingly withdrawn from such overt displays of partisanship or making controversial statements. That change that has coincided with her return to the top of the celebrity food chain and, in the process, left some Swifties feeling like their idol could do better.

Interestingly, somebody went to the trouble of measuring interest in Swift in the swing states:

Taylor Swift’s new (and existing) fans have sent Google searches around the popstar up by 216% across the swing states. So how could this affect the election?

By analysing search trend data over the past year, AceOdds has calculated which states have had the highest surge of Taylor Swift fans and compared them with the latest poll results and the number of electoral votes available to reveal where her influence may hold the most power in the election.

A handy chart:

Four of our seven. Looks like Swift would have to move a lot of votes from Trump’s column to Biden’s. But maybe she can! And maybe the race is even tighter than we think.d

NOTE: There are other aspects that, like a Trump conviction and “the youth vote” that I don’t at this point know whether to use a national or a swing state lens; so I omitted them for now. Identity verticals (Blacks, Muslims, etc.) vary strongly by state, and will be covered, for swing states, in the next post.


I hope readers have enjoyed this superficial romp; in the next post, I’ll go more deeply into individual states, where the really interesting detail is to be found. Readers, if you can recommend local sources on electoral politics — blogs, weeklies, columns, newsletters, twitter accounts — please list them in comments (or send them to me in mail). These sources will be useful to me not only for the companion post for this post, but throughout the election season. Thank you!


[1] One can only wonder whether this year’s Gridiron Club shindig was also a superspreader event.

[2] Allow me to introduce the contrarian thought that a national popular vote, especially if done digitally, would be a single point of failure. #JustSaying.

[3] For Democrats, abortion, a success for them in the midterms; for Republicans, immigration. On abortion, Trump seems to be trying to steal the Democrats clothes (why not just say “safe, legal, and rare“?); Biden is doing the same on immmigration. (I confess that I see immigration as a labor market issue, driven by the effects of the Covid pandemic on the working class, not a salient aspect of either party’s discourse.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. Mark Gisleson

    I believe Taylor Swift’s fans trend rural and that her urban fans are rural transplants. In that context I would expect Swift’s clout to be strongest where Trump is strongest making it unlikely she could have an actual impact.

    Absent compelling (i.e., real) data suggesting she could for sure tip the election, Swift will just do pro voter registration PSAs without pushing any particular candidate or party. That still lets her target her efforts in ways that benefit one candidate over the others but with less of an impact on the election (or her business model).

  2. Paris

    I didn’t know teenage girls were such an important part of the electorate. Team Biden is desperate lol.

    1. lambert strether

      When the election is this tight, desperation is warranted. Also, I think many Swift fans started as teens, but a decade ago.

      1. ChrisPacific

        I think the Taylor Swift thing is just an excuse for a good old-fashioned witch hunt. She endorsed Biden in 2020 and I don’t remember anybody (even Trump) suggesting back then that it was a factor in his victory.

        I don’t think there is much evidence that celebrity endorsements move the needle in elections, even from extra famous ones like Taylor Swift. There’s more evidence that it backfires and hurts them commercially if it’s significantly out of step with their fan base – the Dixie Chicks post-Iraq being a good example. That doesn’t seem to have been a problem for Swift after 2020, which suggests either that her fanbase was intending to vote that way already, or they just ignored it and focused on her music.

        1. Dr. John Carpenter

          I would tend to agree with you here. Though Swift’s fan base is much broader than others here think (she stopped being a strictly rural phenomenon ages ago and is long past the teenybopper thing), I don’t think she’s ever led them to do anything they weren’t predisposed to do in the first place. For all the talk of her power, Taylor Swift only strikes me as being good at selling Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift lifestyle accessories. Don’t get me wrong. She’s been very successful at that. I’ve just noticed this growing narrative of “Taylor Swift voters” that I’d need to see more existence to believe exist.

          (And as a side note, I’ve been casually interested in Taylor Swift the Phenomenon for a while, just because I am a student of pop music. Though I would agree she’s the biggest pop star we’ve seen in quite some time, I think there’s a lot of uncritical media consensus about her actual “power”. Of course, what is power anyway? But this growing narrative that she could be kingmaker in the coming election seems rather far fetched to me. Aside from the fact that I think she’s too smart a business woman to risk alienating a large chunk of her audience by choosing a side, previous Biden endorsement notwithstanding, I just haven’t seen evidence that she has the power to command anyone to do anything they weren’t predisposed to do anyway. I could be way wrong on this. It’s something I’d love to see someone smarter than I tackle.)

          1. JustAnotherVolunteer

            I think Taylor Swift leans closer to the Dolly line on influence:

            “There’s such a thing as innocent ignorance, and so many of us are guilty of that,” Parton says. “When they said ‘Dixie’ was an offensive word, I thought, ‘Well, I don’t want to offend anybody. This is a business. We’ll just call it ‘The Stampede.’ As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it. Don’t be a dumbass.”

            “That’s where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose,”

            Hence her recent call to vote with no further endorsement.

          2. ChrisPacific

            She combines extreme success with an unprecedented degree of control over her own career, for a young female artist at least. I think that’s interesting, and so is how she got to that point (there were plenty of blood, sweat and tears). If I was assembling an expert panel on how to make it in the music business without getting chewed up, and she was available, I’d book her in a heartbeat. She’s the Madonna of the current generation.

            An expert panel on anything else… not so much.

  3. Michael Fiorillo

    Williamson dropped out two weeks ago and West’s campaign is troubled, to say the least – see his painful interview with Briahna Joy Gray on her Bad Faith podcast. RFK, Jr is going to, and already has, shed many potential Democratic defector votes because of his horrendous [position on Israel and Gaza.

    I’d say it’s a two-and-a-half-person race, maybe, but that we’re mostly stuck with Uncle Joe vs Orange Man, unless the D’s do something unexpected.

      1. Michael Fiorillo

        So she did, making herself an even less viable candidate than she was before. Sure, you can say she faced media caricature and sexism, but that doesn’t change the fact that she has no base. In fact, the very existence of her candidacy is testimony to the lack of opposition in the Democratic Party. The Greens represent a more bona fide opposition, which is not saying much.

        It’s one thing to have a Williamson-type candidate for purposes of policy contrast and protest, but to suggest that she represents anything more than symbolic opposition is going too far. By November, she will likely have been forgotten, and West wondered about with concern by his fans and supporters. There’s going to be three candidates, with RFK, Jr perhaps remaining viable (not a certainty) long enough to play spoiler, a la Perot in 1992.

    1. Martin Oline

      Although I like West’s politics I would never vote for him. He has stumbled so badly in organizing any campaign effort and has clashed repeatedly with other organizations. It reminds me of Eugene McCarthy’s bid in 1968. Some (who worked for his campaign) have said he was acting as a spoiler (for the usual suspects) to attract any domestic dissent. He took no interest in his own campaign. Like McCarthy, West is a bumbler from an ivory tower, probably running due to ego, and would be a disaster if elected. I will likely support Jill Stein.

      1. JohnnyGL

        I agree on West, but I think Stein has earned that reputation, too. And I’ve voted for her in the past, multiple times.

        I seriously feel like the Green party is an op to make 3rd parties look ridiculous and discredit them.

      2. Feral Finster

        West means well, but he needs to understand what it takes to win, and gentle chiding of liberals is not it.

  4. ChrisPacific

    Florida as swing state might be a historical perspective. It definitely used to be, and it was famously pivotal for Bush/Gore.

    These days it looks pretty red. I wonder what happened in the last 20 years to explain that shift.

  5. none

    Sounds like the DNC’s railroading of Bernie Sanders will result in two Trump terms, 2016 and 2024. Thanks, Obama!

    1. Feral Finster

      Team D would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders.

      That said, even if Sanders were to win, Team D would make damn sure to kneecap his agenda at every opportunity. He’d be lucky to be a Jimmy Carter 2.0. More likely, he’d be more like Obama.

  6. Rip Van Winkle

    Well I’m putting this marker down that Hillary is president before Election Day.

    1. Adam1

      Now that you mention it, I was noticing Hillary has been appearing in my news feeds quite a bit lately. Someone is trying to re-raise her profile right now.

  7. albrt

    The Green Party nominee, probably Jill Stein, seems like a bigger potential factor than West or Williamson at this point. The Greens claim to have qualified in North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona so far, but I could only confirm two of those with a quick search:



    Hard to know what to make of No Labels, but they are on the ballot here in Arizona.

    1. JonnyJames

      Sadly, in the anti-democratic Winner-Takes-All (Fist Past the Post) electoral system, it is extremely difficult for a third party to be successful. It would take an unprecedented abandonment of the D/R duopoly and massive voting for the Greens, for example. That is extremely unlikely, the Greens don’t have the money to saturate the MassMedia with ads – very few will even know who they are. This is a rigged game, and it will take a huge amount of MONEY, for starters, to become a viable candidate. Then there are the MassMediaCartel gatekeepers who ignore and/or smear third party candidates.

  8. Verifyfirst

    I’m hoping Schumer’s speech on Israel (which Pelosi endorsed) shows Dems are getting scared about losing due to their unequivocal support for Genocide. (Also nice to see AIPAC getting some attention–like why don’t they have to register as foreign agents, and what is their US tax status versus the US lobbying and running of candidates that they do).

    Biden’s upcoming loss being attributed to his Israel support would be a big win. (In reality, the outcome will depend, as it always does, on who actually bothers to vote. “None of the above/stay home” will certainly win again, but which faction will get out more voters I cannot guess).

    1. Pat

      Oh, I’ll believe that they are scared when they stop proclaiming what Israel should do and take action themselves. It isn’t as if Schumer or even Pelosi couldn’t use their position to make a difference. But it would mean actually giving AIPAC the finger. But they cannot even support legislation that supports anti genocide protesters right to the first amendment or even stronger that makes it clear that anti Zionism is not automatically antisemitism. I am sure we all know that it is too much to wish for on the record sponsorship of legislation making financial and military support of internationally recognized genocide illegal for any part of the United States government including the Presidency no matter how unlikely it is to pass.

      Making speeches about Netanyahu is quite honestly only misinformation meant to mislead the public about their actual position.

      1. JonnyJames

        Exactly, it’s all BS and blah blah as usual, that’s what the politicians are put there for. Besides, don’t like Genocide Joe? Whaddya gonna do? Vote for DT? He’s also a racist Zionist genocidal freak. Two senile geriatric crooks – and they call that a “choice”. Might as well punch me in the face.

  9. Dr. John Carpenter

    Lambert, thanks for this. I’ll think be sharing this as the silly season drones on.

  10. Gregorio

    I’m firmly in that double hater category, so much so that I refuse to even consider voting for a presidential candidate with a D or an R after their name. No matter how bad the third party choices may be, I’ll pick one in protest of the undemocratic machinations of the plutocratic duopoly.

  11. JonnyJames

    Elections? Seriously? Elections Inc. are a lucrative PR stunt that generates billions for the DNC./RNC, The MassMediaCartel, consulting firms, advertising and marketing firms, and politicians. We can “vote” to rearrange the deck chairs, but the ship is going down. It’s also a great distraction for the plebs to fight among themselves and tilt at windmills while the oligarchy continue to asset-strip the place. I can’t afford to participate in Democracy Inc. – I don’t have enough money to bribe the judges and politicians.

    It won’t make a damn bit of difference which duopoly D or R faction is in charge or the next Puppet Emperor. Sorry, I can’t be bothered to pay attention the freak show. I’ll watch an old episode of Twilight Zone instead.

  12. scott s.

    As far as the Electoral College FAQ, this seems mainly a synopsis of what Congress passed in 2023 in an attempt to forestall future “fake electors”. It has never been in effect for an actual election so doesn’t seem definitive.

    The Constitution has only two actual requirements for electors “but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector”. The second qualification was actually an issue in 1876.

    More troubling, is what the Constitution doesn’t say. For elections to Congress “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members”. Pretty clear. Unfortunately nothing like that for President. Amendment XII “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted” .

    Note that in Article I, the “President of the Senate” is given no specific power, except of vote in case of ties. It seems to come down to “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings”. Accepting the vote of the Electors I would argue is a “proceeding”, so at the end of the day it is a question of the rules Congress puts in place. Since under the revised term schedule the new Congress takes office on 3 Jan, the rules have to be adopted between then and the receipt of the Electoral ballots.

    In this respect I think the old calendar was better, in that terms ended in March so the existing Congress (which met in Dec) could deal with Electoral challenges (as in 1876).

  13. Felix_47

    “A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators”….Open borders should change the mix in certain states. Would the millions of the last few years make a difference?

  14. lampoon

    Lambert, Arizona State Legislative District 17 in the Tucson area is considered an important swing district for the Democrats to achieve majorities in the State Senate and House, which the Republicans now control by narrow one seat margins. LD 17 is a sprawling district, the product of Republican gerrymandering. It is now roughly equally divided among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, with Independents being slightly more numerous than the other two. A good source of local political news for the Tucson area is the Tucson Agenda on Substack, started by a couple of veteran journalists. It can be found at

  15. seabos84

    I doubt many on this site wonder why more people are focused on Princess Kate’s fake family pics than the circu$ paid for by the oligarchs.
    I know that part of appearing smart WTO elections is citing this precinct in that district which tells us how State ABC is gonna go blue green red whatever, cuz, no one has won the Presidency without winning New Hampshire!
    I’m way too lazy to look up national turnout numbers for 2016 and 2020.
    Is this year gonna be The Record Dud, worse than the 100 million in 2016 who said
    ‘a plague on both your houses’?
    Will legitimate fear of the Orange Menace get hordes out, again?
    Is Princess Kate in Area 51!
    ‘Your lips move, but I can’t hear what you’re saying.’

Comments are closed.