“a broader analysis of global trends shows that Harris was fighting against some pretty strong headwinds and that any Democratic victory or overperformance would have turned out to be quite the global anomaly.
By the time 2024 is done, more voters will have gone to the polls than in any other year in history. And among the half of the world’s population living in a country with a national election this year, a clear and consistent picture has emerged: Voters are extremely upset with their governments.
Among democracies* that held elections this year, over 80 percent saw the incumbent party lose seats or vote share from the last election. That includes democracies of all kinds and in all corners of the globe.”
“According to exit polls, 55 percent of men voted for Trump in 2024, compared to 45 percent of women, for a 10-point gender gap — 1 point less than the 11-point gap in support for Trump in both 2020 and 2016.*
Compared to other exit polling results that point to how Trump’s victory may have boiled down to a referendum on President Joe Biden and the economy, this relatively static gender gap may not point to gender as a major factor in the election. But differences in the gender gap across groups of voters — such as growing gaps among Black and Latino voters — can tell us more about the country’s changing partisan landscape. And there’s a reason gender has also been widely discussed in the aftermath of Election Day: The role that gender played in each party’s 2024 presidential campaigns highlights a potential shift in the parties’ approaches to male and female voters, and how voters think about gender and politics.”
…
“Trump’s 11-point gap in support between men and women in 2016 and 2020 was a record, but men have been consistently more likely than women to back Republicans since 1980. From then until 2016, the gender gap in support for Republicans ranged from 0 points (in 1992) to 10 points (in 2000), according to exit polls. (The phenomenon of men consistently showing stronger support for the more ideologically conservative party than women is not limited to the U.S., either.)”
…
“the gender gap isn’t uniform across all groups. For example, white men and women voted more similarly to each other in 2024 than Black or Latino men and women.”
…
“Nonwhite and younger voters had the largest gender gaps”
…
“in 2020 Trump won 61 percent of white men and 55 percent of white women, for a 6-point gender gap among white voters. That gap was just 1 point bigger this year according to exit polls — 60 percent to 53 percent, for a 7-point gender gap among white voters. But the gender gap among nonwhite voters increased by significantly more.
Among Black voters, even as the vast majority of both men and women voted Democratic in both elections, Trump gained 2 points of support among men and lost 2 among women, moving the gender gap from 10 points in 2020 to 14 points in 2024. The gap is even more striking among Latino voters, one of the groups among whom Trump gained the most support overall compared to 2020. Four years ago, 36 percent of Latino men and 30 percent of Latino women supported Trump, a gender gap of just 6 points. That gap nearly tripled in 2024, as Trump’s support among Latino men went up by almost 20 percentage points: He won 55 percent of Latino men and 38 percent of Latino women, for a gender gap of 17 points.”
…
“49 percent of men and 37 percent of women aged 18 to 29 supported Trump, for a 12-point gender gap, 3 points larger than in 2020. The gap among men and women aged 30 to 39 was also 12 points, while it actually shrank among voters over 50.”
“Unauthorized immigrants aren’t broadly eligible for naturalization — and have few paths to citizenship. To qualify for naturalization, someone generally has to have been a lawful permanent resident for five years, married to a US citizen and a lawful permanent resident for three years, or a member of the military.
Additionally, the US is approving citizenship applications at its swiftest pace in years, but it’s not because regulators are trying to skew the election in Democrats’ favor. The government is doing so because there was already a backlog that got worse during the pandemic, the Los Angeles Times reports. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is effectively doing catch-up.
The US naturalized 878,500 people in 2023 and is now processing applications in roughly 4.9 months – a pace that’s comparable to how quickly the government was approving applications in 2013. According to the New York Times, processing time for naturalization applications spiked during the Trump administration as the White House sought to reduce legal and unauthorized immigration.
These new citizens also aren’t guaranteed Democratic voters. Polling has indicated that naturalized citizens lean Democrat, but both parties are likely to pick up some new voters as people undergo this process. According to a survey from the National Partnership for New Americans, 54 percent of naturalized citizens said they’d vote for Vice President Kamala Harris in November, while 38 percent said they’d back former President Donald Trump.
It’s worth reiterating that naturalized citizens aren’t unauthorized immigrants, and that the bulk of them — roughly 83 percent, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services — have been lawful permanent residents for five years. Unauthorized immigrants have limited pathways to citizenship, and many aren’t eligible for naturalization.”
…
“This Republican talking point appears to refer to a “parole” program the Biden administration has approved for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans amid instability in their home countries. Under the program, people can temporarily enter the US for two years, pay for their own travel, and fly into the country. There is no evidence that people are being flown specifically to swing states, and as a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesperson told Vox, DHS does not choose the airports that parolees fly into, and it also doesn’t control or choose where parolees settle down.
Additionally, parolees do not have a path to citizenship and as a result would be unable to vote in future elections.
As legal immigrants, asylum seekers do have a path to citizenship; according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 3.3 percent of those naturalized in 2023 came to the US as asylum seekers — roughly 29,000 people. While that might be enough to swing a state as close as Georgia was in 2020, it’s not enough to affect the outcomes in all the states Musk listed, even if Democrats were flying people there. Which, again, they aren’t.
In addition, most naturalized citizens have settled in states that are not swing states, with California, Texas, Florida, New York, and New Jersey topping the list, per USCIS.”
…
“It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and noncitizens have very rarely been found to be illegally voting. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning nonprofit that focuses on voting rights, election officials responsible for the counting of nearly 23.5 million votes in 2016 identified just 30 possible cases of noncitizen voting for investigation.
Noncitizens are able to vote in some local elections for positions like City Council and school board in some jurisdictions in Vermont and California, but they aren’t able to vote anywhere in federal elections.”
“That 53-seat majority will be a boon to the GOP agenda next year. But three of Republicans’ wins were in solidly red seats in West Virginia, Ohio and Montana. They flipped a true swing state in Pennsylvania but suffered losses in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. That means they’ll fall well short of the 57 seats they might have had, thanks to undervoting, smaller Trump coattails and well-funded and disciplined Democratic opponents.
This was the fourth straight cycle in the Trump era that Senate Republicans struggled to win purple states. In theory, Trump could have pulled some of their top recruits over the finish line — he outperformed Senate GOP candidates in every single battleground state.”
“On a ranked choice ballot, instead of picking one candidate from a list, voters rank each candidate in order of preference. If one candidate wins an outright majority, then that person wins; if not, then the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated, and their ballots are re-tallied and allotted to whomever they picked as their second choice. This process repeats until one candidate passes 50 percent.”
“Americans in 10 states cast votes on ballot measures to protect or expand abortion access, and in seven, the measures for abortion rights won. That brings the total to 13 states approving abortion rights referendums since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.”
“Understanding the full scope of Vance’s answer requires a quick recap of how Trump’s lawyers wanted January 6, 2021, to play out. The so-called Eastman memo outlined the necessary steps to prevent a transfer of power. It proposed that officials in a handful of states won narrowly by Joe Biden should submit alternative slates of electors and that then-Vice President Mike Pence should invoke his unilateral authority “without asking for permission—either from a vote of the joint session [of Congress] or from the [Supreme Court]”—to count only the Trump-supporting slates from those states.
If state legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other disputed states failed to take the bait, there was a backup plan in which Pence would cite “all the evidence and the letters from state legislators calling into question the executive certifications” as grounds for refusing to count the votes from seven disputed states.
“At the end of the count, the tally would therefore be 232 for Trump, 222 for Biden,” Eastman wrote. “Because the 12th Amendment says ‘majority of electors appointed,’ having determined that no electors from the 7 states were appointed…TRUMP WINS.”
It’s unknown whether this would have worked. Certainly, it would have drawn an immediate lawsuit from the Biden campaign, but it’s unclear how the Supreme Court would have viewed its role in such a dispute.
Crucially, Pence refused to play his part in the scheme. For doing so, he’s become a pariah in Republican politics—though he deserves to be remembered for maintaining his courage in the face of both a literal and metaphorical partisan mob.
Vance indicated in the All-In interview that he would be willing to do the opposite. Asked twice whether he would refuse to certify the election, Vance fell back both times to his claim that he would have simply asked states to submit alternative slates of electors and allowed Congress to have a debate about what to do.
That’s a cowardly response that fails to give a clear answer, but there can be no doubt about the signal Vance is sending. He is effectively saying that he’d have followed the path outlined in the Eastman memo—a path that would allow the vice president to claim he was merely letting Congress debate the outcome, and then use the chaos and uncertainty created by that same debate to throw out the results from certain states in pursuit of a different outcome.”
…
“It’s also worth engaging with the underlying notion here: that the country or Congress needs to debate the results of the election. That is also nonsense.
The country did debate the 2020 election. For months. Votes were cast, results were tallied, and the Electoral College determined the winner. The final certification of the results is not the time or place for that debate to take place. Indeed, the Trump campaign took advantage of many other opportunities that are built into the system to challenge results in specific places, and none of those efforts found systemic fraud or other reasons to doubt the outcome.”
…
“What Eastman proposed (and what Vance is nodding along with) is a reversal of all that: a substitution of the vice president’s and Congress’ opinion for the will of the voters. That’s not constitutional, democratic, or even populist. It’s just authoritarian.”
“Crypto has spent a record $119 million in the 2024 federal elections, magnitudes more than it has ever spent before. This huge number means that crypto accounts for almost half of all corporate political contributions in this cycle. Its spending since 2010, totaling $129 million, puts the industry second only to fossil fuels, according to a report from the progressive consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
“It’s already 15 percent of all known corporate contributions since the Citizens United ruling,” says Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen who authored the report on crypto election spending, referring to the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates for virtually unlimited corporate spending in elections through outside groups.
Crypto’s ballooning political war chest and voracious appetite to dangle money in front of lawmakers speaks to the power it has amassed over the past decade and a half, even as it has struggled to gain any real traction with the public.
Three-quarters of Americans who’ve heard of crypto aren’t confident in its safety and reliability, a 2023 Pew Research survey found, and only 7 percent of Americans used crypto last year, according to the Federal Reserve. Crypto’s reputation suffered in particular from the controversy surrounding crypto companies in the last few years, especially the catastrophic meltdown of FTX. Though the first cryptocurrency was launched in 2009, it still hasn’t penetrated as a mainstream payment method, with very few retailers allowing customers to pay directly with cryptocurrency. It remains mostly a vehicle for speculative investment.
Despite that — or because of it — crypto companies have redoubled their efforts to help elect pro-crypto politicians and lobby for policies that would boost the sector’s growth. The industry wants the influx of money it’s spending to send the clear message that the crypto craze isn’t over — and in fact, isn’t a craze at all, but the lasting future of finance. “Crypto is here to stay,” Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, recently wrote in public comments regarding regulation.
The sector’s most strident champions want you to believe that it’s a key issue for voters in the upcoming election, right next to inflation and health care. The industry is shouting from the rooftops that politicians can’t ignore crypto — and trying its hardest to make sure we won’t be able to either.”
…
“After a rough few years of being walloped by scandals and government crackdowns, crypto is facing an existential crisis. There are already some patchwork regulations governing the world of digital currencies, but one key issue remains hotly debated: Which government agency should oversee them?
In the US, securities like stocks and bonds have to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which comes with a host of disclosure requirements and other rules to protect investors.
As far as the SEC is concerned, the law already puts most cryptocurrencies squarely under its purview, and the agency has been aggressively pursuing enforcement against crypto exchanges like Coinbase and Binance, alleging that they’re running unregistered securities exchanges. But the crypto industry doesn’t want to be regulated by the SEC — it wants to fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) instead.
“The CFTC is a much smaller agency with far fewer resources,” says Molly White, a crypto researcher and critic who has been tracking the industry’s political spending.”
…
“One major change this election cycle is how much more visible and vocal the Trump-supporting faction of crypto proponents has become. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who founded the crypto exchange Gemini, tried to donate roughly $1 million worth of bitcoin each directly to the Trump campaign, apparently unaware it would exceed the FEC contribution limit. Venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz have both affirmed that they’re joining Team Trump too. Other backers include Jesse Powell, co-founder of the crypto exchange Kraken, and Charles Hoskinson, co-founder of the ethereum blockchain.
It’s worth noting that when Bankman-Fried was still the biggest face of crypto, he was known as a Democratic megadonor. We only found out later that he’d contributed roughly the same amount to Republicans through dark money groups.
Trump, for his part, was a harsh crypto critic in the past, but has recently done a 180, saying he would end Biden’s “war on crypto,” and that he would fire Gensler, the SEC chair. He even recently announced a family crypto project, run by the Trump Organization, called The DeFiant Ones — a play on “decentralized finance” — that would, according to Trump, help Americans who have been “squeezed by the big banks and financial elites.”
But crypto’s partisan inclinations are more complicated than simply supporting Republicans.
The industry’s spending is funneled mostly through the pro-crypto super PAC Fairshake, which has already spent $93.8 million this election cycle and is the second best-funded super PAC in the election, after Trump-backing Make America Great Again Inc. Fairshake’s backers include Coinbase, which has contributed a total of $50 million to the 2024 elections so far, and Ripple, a blockchain payment network that spent $49 million. (Both Coinbase and Ripple have faced SEC lawsuits.) Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz has also contributed $47 million to Fairshake.
Fairshake largely focuses on House and Senate races, and has been largely nonpartisan, supporting and opposing politicians of both parties based on their crypto stance.”