Kamala Harris, the worst, most unqualified major party Presidential candidate since Horace Greeley, continued her ridiculous “It wasn’t my fault!” tour last week by telling Rachel Maddow on MS (MSNBC) that 2024 was “the closest presidential election in the 21st Century.”
It wasn’t. It wasn’t even close to the closest. Donald Trump beat Harris in the Electoral College 312-226. Joe Biden beat Trump in 2020 by a tighter margin, 306-232. Trump beat Hillary Clinton 304-227 in 2016. also closer. Only two elections in the 21st Century have been decided by wider margins in the EC, 2008 and 2012.
The 2024 election wasn’t closer than most of the recent elections in the popular vote either. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College in 2000, as did Trump in 2016. Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Clinton in 2016, and Trump in 2020 all needed fewer votes to flip to win the Electoral College than Harris in 2024 too. In short, Harris’s claim had no basis in reality. At all. Whatsoever. Sort of like the claims that she ran a “flawless” campaign. Or the DNC’s spin that Harris lost because America is racist and sexist.
Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? He exaggerated the size of his inauguration crowd in 2017!
Yet there was Rachel Maddow, nodding and smirking away as Kamala flogged her fake history, helping to make her show’s viewers more ignorant and misinformed that they already were, which, he show being on MSNBC, was already considerable.
Nice.
Ethics Alarms 
Anyone who paid any attention election night knows it wasn’t even close. It wasn’t a rout for the Democratic party, but it was a pretty decisive win, in light of the fact that Trump carried all seven of the swing states and it wasn’t really a close vote in any of them. I think this may have been a case where early voting backfired because a lot of democratic voters had already voted by election night and been accounted for, so it was not as easy to leave the big cities for the end and manufac…sorry, count enough votes to put Harris over the top in any of those places.
a slightly different take, with Maddow not being so fawning:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rachel-maddow-presses-kamala-harris-her-passing-buttigieg-vp-over-concerns-about-sexuality.amp
I bet Harris did not expect any pushback for that statement about Pete.
-Jut
Of course, Maddow made a big deal of the Mayor Pete thing. First, foremost and always, Maddow is gay.
True. I suspect that, if Harris had chosen Buttigieg, she would have lost by bigger margins. Contrary to Democrat cant, Buttigieg is not that popular and his track records as South Bend mayor and Transportation secretary were unimpressive, at best. In South Bend, all he had to do was follow what Notre Dame told him to do. He didn’t and left the city in disarray. As Transportation secretary, he mismanaged too many problems to count, including the ports and the toxic train wreck in Ohio. Simply inept.
jvb
John, are you a Domer?
The media spent time prior to the election warning the country that it might takes days or weeks to determine the winner. The TDS sufferers posted memes analogizing the expectation that the winner would be known the same night to totalitarian countries where the elections are mere formalities.
This was not a close election. There are narratives for everything and this is one of the more prevalent ones.
I have to wonder who ginned up the term “narratives?” When did it become acceptable to toss out a narrative rather than actual facts? I’m guessing it’s a PR term or a communications expert term.
I think an election that would have been at least flipped in the popular vote by 1.5% of votes flipping from GOP to Democrat has to be called “close.” Dozens of things could have reversed it—it was close enough that the result can be attributed to moral luck and the butterfly effect. I still believe that if Harris hadn’t chosen an idiot as her VP, she would have eked out a win. Which is scary.
Who’s the bigger idiot? Walz or Harris?
Dead heat.
Fair enough. I think people think Harris is smarter than she is because her now erstwhile* good looks distracted them.
________
*My favorite hard word to use, next to “apocryphal.”
I really don’t think so. For starters she would have needed to pick someone who could best JD Vance in a debate. Vance was on point, on message, didn’t get distracted, didn’t jump down rabbit holes — all the things we wanted to see from Trump against Harris and mostly didn’t.
But I think Trump was just running rings around Harris, looking at it in retrospect. Think of what he pulled off — the Rogan interview, McDonald’s, the garbage truck advert. And probably the crusher, “Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you.”
If Harris picks Shapiro, it might help in Pennsylvania, but still I don’t think enough.
Here is a thought. Given that she never could bring herself to really dump him, maybe Harris should have picked Biden as her VP. :ducks:
1.5 % is 1.5%! The weather can change 1.5%. The VP didn’t have to beat Vance—that debate is usually meaningless and would have been if Knucklehead hadn’t sounded like a moron. At the time, I opined that I thought Walz’s nonsense was a tipping point. There were probably hundreds of Veep choices she could have had to make up the 1.5%. Harris might have lost on the EC anyway, but still…