[Unpaid Copy] More On The 2024 Autopsy & the Up and Coming Trump Clown Car Show:

Trump's victory is not as decisive as you might think, and how Democrats can turn their fortunes (if they learn the right 2024 lessons).

Feel free to check the entire blog archives from “Political Pulse” & “Salzillo Report” on the 2024 primary cycle, rural outreach, redistricting litigation, base dynamics, campaign organization, the current media landscape, the issues at stake, Project 2025, Build Back Better, the progressive movement, the 2024 Election autopsy, the true story about former 2024 VP contender Gina Raimondo, and much more.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz via conservativenewsjournal.com. One of the biggest mistakes of 2024 might have been the insulating of Governor Walz and Vice President Harris from more campaign appearances and press exposure early on.

Where do I begin on the 2028 speculation? Oh wait, the Commerce Secretary. Only in the current corporate media ecosystem today can this type of speculation occur immediately after the previous cycle. As per usual, the Beltway punditry finds the new heir to the Democratic Party in yet another career pro-corporate centrist politician well-connected with the talking heads, so that she can push herself out there with no pushback whatsoever.

For any needed clarification, the New York Times listed Gina Raimondo as one of the emerging party leaders to watch for in 2028, with strong support from the donor class, and her self-made designation as a “rising star” in the Biden Cabinet. No mention of any controversies in the Commerce Department. To wit, no mention of the blowback over finalizing semiconductor grants—which includes the use of automation and foreign labor at US fabs contrary to Commerce’s own rules, as I have recently been informed of firsthand—or the questions raised about her conflicts of interest in AI and tech issues.

Just as there is no reference to the well-publicized reports and criticisms of her tenure in Rhode Island from neglecting those with disabilities at Eleanor Slater Hospital. Or the legacy of her Point Judith Capital-sponsored pension system gutting, or her administrative mishaps across the board in state government from online social service benefits (UHIP) to child welfare (DCYF), extreme budget cuts across the board to state programs, tax breaks and subsidies for wealthy corporations and past campaign contributors, privatization of public education in Providence and all across the state, expansive LNG fossil fuel projects, the Gina Jam on the Washington Bridge, dismal business climate rankings and lingering inequalities in the state that last to today, and last but not least, RI’s dismal national rankings on the pandemic response (last in vaccine distribution under her tenure), while ship-jumping for Washington DC.

For those thinking of running for President in 2028 and concerned about Raimondo’s fundraising capacity, rest assured you still have time to let voters know about her true record. If you don’t have the time to look into news reports on your time, don’t worry, because The Gina Raimondo Files does a lot of that for you, as do past commentaries from here on Substack, Medium, and Linkedin.

Looking shorter term, you may have heard the news of some of Trump’s more recent appointments, like Matt Gaetz for AG (the best possible person to hold sex traffickers accountable in the DOJ, wink wink, nudge nudge), Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary (whose qualifications include being a TV commentator who criticizes women serving in the military), Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk as the government efficiency leaders (sponsored by Starlink and SpaceX crony capitalism), and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence (which would actually be relatively normal outside of her being an Assad apologist for his dastardly treatments of civilians and falsely claiming the US was inventing bioweapons in Ukraine, among other things).

And we’re still waiting on the fate of fluoride critic and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for HHS Secretary (whose concerns on chronic diseases should and would be taken seriously if not for the full-blown conspiracies elsewhere. For example, his views on COVID and Ashkenazi Jews).

All of which reminds us as the clown car starts to unload that buyers’ remorse can and will come quick. I have buyers’ remorse as a citizen of this nation, and I didn't even vote for the guy.

This should inspire Democrats to make a proper course correction. As for myself, I have much to say about what happened in 2024.

First off, Trump did persuade certain new demographics of voters. That much is clear with the Hispanic/Latino vote. Latinos are more up for grabs. This is not entirely new as we know from 2000 and 2004 with George W. Bush cracking 40+% of support back then, but it brings more meaning now as Trump won Latino men outright. He garnered 46% of the Latino/a vote overall, compared to just 32% in 2020.

Trump garnered 13% of African American voters, a slightly new (albeit greatly overstated) GOP high from 2020 and 2016, and he won many first-time voters. In contrast to usual pre-2024 voting patterns, Trump outperformed with young men.

Regardless, this election cycle is looking much more and more like one decided on the premise of turnout, not on how the electorate actually shifted.

Donald Trump will win more votes than 2020, but not by much, especially given population increases from 2020 to 2024. Vice President Harris, on the other hand, will have garnered millions less votes than Joe Biden did in 2020. That is the story of this election, and how Trump won the popular vote. Interestingly, it appears that Trump will win less than 50% of the vote. That means that, even with depressed turnout on the Democrat side, Trump was still not able to get a majority of the popular vote.

I repeat: Trump’s voters turned out, matching or slightly exceeding 2020 numbers. In most cases, Harris’s numbers dropped off consistently, and at larger rates relative to Trump’s increases, which can be seen especially at the state level.

To be sure, battleground states saw roughly similar, or even higher turnout, compared to 2020, for both sides. That is more of the exception. To show some examples below:

In New Jersey, the Vice President got almost 500,000 less votes than Joe Biden did in 2020. Trump only gained around 40,000 votes from 2020 to 2024.

In New York, Harris got almost 900,000 less votes than Joe Biden did in 2020. Trump only added slightly less than 200,000.

Illinois is really telling. More than 500,000 less Democratic votes compared to 2020, while Trump is still 30,000 short of his 2020 numbers as of last count.

In Virginia, Trump only added a little less than 90,000 votes from 2020 to 2024. Harris dropped more than 100,000 from Biden’s 2020 numbers. You can see something similar in New Mexico as well, along with Maryland.

Even in Colorado, Trump actually lost 3,000 votes from 2020, but shrank his margin statewide because Harris lost almost 100,000 Biden votes.

And although Trump is down 600,000 from 2020 in California, his margin is smaller there because roughly 3,000,000 less Democrats turned out this year for Harris.

These trends occurred in red states, like Utah. The drop-off trends are also very clear in Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio especially, as they are in Kansas and Nebraska. The only non-battleground states that arguably showed real increasing strength for Trump are Texas (especially in the Rio Grande border counties that were last won by Republicans like William Howard Taft and Benjamin Harrison), and maybe Florida (although turnout totals are slightly down for both candidates). In Florida’s case, that Trump electoral strength likely comes from northern conservative transplants post-2020.

However, the Trump turnout machine, where it did make slight increases, got them right where they wanted them. Most notably, rural turnout numbers were up for Trump almost everywhere.

“So what,” you might say? Well, Trump might’ve won new voters, but not by as many votes as Harris lost her voters. Maybe some of them did vote for Trump or Jill Stein & Cornel West. It is more probable many of them did not show up at all.

There will be more questions about whether voting groups were taken for granted, like African Americans. Back in late September, as NOTUS reporter Jasmine Wright covered very well, black campaign vendors were outraged over how little the presidential ticket was working with minority-owned firms. Instead, they hired white-owned firms in outreach to communities of color. It is a complaint that represents how the base has been taken for granted, complaints that have been consistently made by some people on the ground. Similar issues popped up in 2016 with Hillary Clinton, reared their ugly heads even in the Obama years, and were a problem before 2008.

What may explain Trump’s urban improvement might very well be the drop-off on the other side (even in the likes of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City), and not a major electoral shift outside of the Latino electorate (which clearly focused on pocketbook issues) and younger voters.

(So if you know someone in the community who voted for Trump for the first time this cycle, in spite of his incendiary and anti-democratic rhetoric, his disastrous tariff proposals that will increase costs for American families if implemented, and his crazy clown car cast of characters, do not be surprised if they tell you that they felt long taken for granted by the Democratic establishment, and that “at least Trump tried speaking to them”).

One last thing. Clearly, there will be questions about rural outreach among Democrats. The pick of Governor Tim Walz for VP was on point. The visiting of rural counties was also welcome news. However, it is also getting clearer much more could have been done, as Politico recently documented, beyond those very good steps. To offer just one example, the Vice President’s campaign team refused calls from rural supporters in October to have Kamala Harris herself tout her rural agenda at a rural health clinic. A larger, more detailed rural policy outline could have been presented. This will also be part of the 2024 Democratic Party autopsy.

Which goes to the main point that a national campaign truly matters. If the battleground states are the only ones that matter to either party, they are missing the true value and opportunity elsewhere, and the downsides of not engaging with people outside of the Main 7. That easily sums up the turnout game of 2024, maybe more so than the persuasion element. Don’t just come in for votes at the 11th hour folks. Political capital is meant to be used and burned, not to be preserved and stored in a bank.

There will be more to come on what might have been missed down ballot, so stay tuned for more of the 2024 autopsy series.