US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Incredibly harmful’: why Trump’s FBI and DoJ picks scare civil liberties experts

      by

      By tapping two combative ultra-loyalists to run the FBI and the justice department, Donald Trump has sparked fears they will pursue the president-elect’s calls for “revenge” against his political foes and sack officials who Trump demonizes as “deep state” opponents, say ex-justice department prosecutors.Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, who Trump has nominated to run the FBI and Department of Justice, respectively, have been unswerving loyalists to Trump for years, promoting Trump’s false claims that his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden was due to fraud.Patel was a top lawyer on the House intelligence panel under rightwing member Devin Nunes for part of Trump’s first term and then held a few posts in the Trump administration including at the national security council advising the president.Bondi, a recent corporate lobbyist and an ex-Florida attorney general, defended Trump during his first impeachment and was active on the campaign trail during the late stages of his 2024 run.Patel and Bondi have each echoed Trump’s calls for taking revenge against key Democrats and officials, including ones who pursued criminal charges against Trump for his aggressive efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat and his role in inflaming the January 6 attack on the Capitol that led to five deaths.Trump has lavished praise on both picks, calling Patel a “brilliant lawyer” and “advocate for truth”, while hailing Bondi as “loyal” and “qualified”. But critics say their rhetoric and threats are “incredibly harmful to public trust” in the two agencies undermining the integrity of the FBI and justice department, and potentially spurring violence.Patel promised last year on Steve Bannon’s show to “go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media … who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections”.Patel, 44, who last year published a “deep state” enemies list as part of a book, added:“We’re going to come after you … Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice.”At the end of his first term as Trump scrambled aggressively to block Biden’s win, he briefly tried to install Patel as number two at the FBI or the CIA for support, but the idea died when the then attorney general, Bill Barr, vowed “over my dead body”.Meanwhile, Bondi, 59, told Fox News last year that when Trump wins “you know what’s going to happen: the Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The investigators will be investigated. Because the deep state … they were hiding in the shadows.”Bondi added: “But now, they have a spotlight on them, and they can all be investigated, and the House needs to be cleaned out. Because now we know who most of them are; there’s a record of it, and we can clean house next turn. And that’s what has to happen.”Fears about the two nominees were compounded by Trump’s comments on Meet the Press on Sunday when he said he wouldn’t tell the justice department to prosecute his political enemies, but added threateningly that the House members on the panel that investigated the January 6 insurrection “should go to jail”.Ex-justice department prosecutors worry that Trump’s two picks will exact retribution against Trump foes, undermining the independence of both the justice department and the FBI and damaging the rule of law.“The rhetoric of Bondi and Patel is incredibly harmful to public trust in our government institutions and the reputations of individual public servants,” said Barbara McQuade, a former top prosecutor in eastern Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan. “There’s absolutely no public evidence of wrongdoing to ‘rig’ the 2020 election.“Pledges to prosecute the prosecutors and investigate the investigators based on the complete absence of evidence is reckless because even if investigations do not materialize, unhinged members of the public will hear these bombastic accusations as a call to action.”Similarly, the former justice department inspector general Michael Bromwich said: “Bondi and Patel are election deniers, in the face of the adjudication of more than 60 cases rejecting claims of election fraud in 2020. This is alarming.“Members of the Senate judiciary committee have a duty to explore the basis of those often-repeated beliefs. If Bondi and Patel maintain that the election was stolen, they either are liars – and lying under oath is a crime – or they are so detached from reality that they shouldn’t be trusted to run a two-person convenience store, much less the DoJ and the FBI.”The former federal prosecutor and Columbia law professor Daniel Richman likens Trump’s nominees to his heavy reliance in his real estate career on Roy Cohn, the late mafia lawyer and chief counsel to rightwing senator Joseph McCarthy.“Still casting about for a Roy Cohn replacement, Trump has gone to people like Bondi and Patel whose loyalty comes from their utter dependence on his favor,” Richman said.Richman added: “But their lack of experience with the agencies he wants them to lead promises a rocky road ahead, both for them and the agencies.”Richman noted: “Presidents can pardon and otherwise kill cases and his loyal minions can disrupt agency operations, but I suspect they will soon be railing at what they call ‘resistance’ and what everyone else calls rule-following.”Such concerns about both nominees have been reinforced by their eager echoing of Trump’s conspiratorial obsession of going after “deep state” foes, as well as their old ties to Trump and backgrounds.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPatel, who lacks experience leading an agency, shares Trump’s obsession and vindictiveness towards political critics and the press who Trump has branded an “enemy of the people”.Last year in his book Government Gangsters, Patel went further in an appendix where he included 60 “members of the Executive Branch Deep State” that consisted largely of top Democrats and Trump critics. Patel also wrote that Trump “must fire the top ranks of the FBI”.“Then, all those who manipulated evidence, hid exculpatory information, or in any way abused their authority for political ends must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Patel said.Patel’s incendiary comments and writings could lead to confirmation problems by the US Senate during hearings. Chris Wray, who Trump appointed as director after firing James Comey in 2017 and who Trump has often criticized, has three years left in his 10-year term, so he would have to resign or be fired to make way for Patel.“Kash Patel is manifestly unqualified,” said the ex-federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig. “Given his intemperate support for retribution against the deep state and Trump’s political ‘foes’, he is temperamentally unqualified for the job.”While Bondi is an equally staunch Trump loyalist, she is expected to have fewer confirmation problems. Trump tapped her for the post within hours of his first candidate for AG, the ex-Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, dropping out after serious allegations arose of sexual misconduct that led to a House ethics inquiry while he was in office.Still, Bondi’s vociferous election denialism and attacks on the so-called “deep state” represent a sharp break historically with the rhetoric of attorneys general which critics are raising strong fears about.After Trump’s defeat in 2020, Bondi co-chaired the law and justice section at the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute, which has supplied a few of Trump’s new picks, including billionaire Linda McMahon for education secretary.Bondi also spent several years as a lobbyist for the powerhouse Florida firm led by the Republican fundraiser Brian Ballard, where her clients included Amazon, General Motors, and the government of Qatar.Often seen as a political operator, Bondi has ties to Trump that go back further and have raised some red flags. When Bondi was Florida’s attorney general in 2013, Trump donated $25,000 to a Pac backing her re-election. The donation’s timing drew scrutiny given that Bondi’s spokesperson told a newspaper just days before the donation that the AG’s office was reviewing a class-action lawsuit by New York which had been filed against Trump University for fraud.Veteran prosecutors warn that if the Senate confirms Bondi and Patel they could create a climate for violence against Trump’s foes.“I’m more worried about threats, harassment and political violence than I am in the success of baseless investigations,” McQuade said. “Bondi and Patel will be unable to get bogus charges past a grand jury, a judge or a trial jury, but someone who believes this deep state nonsense could decide to take matters into their own hands.”Looking ahead, Bromwich stressed too that if Patel and Bondi pursued baseless inquiries, they could boomerang.“Lawyers and investigators who willingly participate in the pursuit of a revenge and retribution agenda risk losing not only the respect of their peers but their future livelihoods. In particular, lawyers who initiate investigations and pursue prosecutions without factual predicates risk being the subject of ethics complaints and the loss of their law licenses.” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Tim Walz ‘surprised’ that he and Kamala Harris lost election to Donald Trump

      by

      In his first television interview since their defeat in the 5 November presidential election, Tim Walz said he was “a little surprised” that he and his fellow Democrat Kamala Harris lost the race to the Republican ticket headed by Donald Trump.“It felt like at the rallies, at the things I was going to, the shops I was going in, that the momentum was going our way,” the Minnesota governor told KSTP, one of his state’s news outlets, in an interview published on Thursday. “So, yeah, I was a little surprised.“I thought we had a positive message, and I thought the country was ready for that.”Walz said “history will write” whether the outgoing vice-president erred in choosing him as her running mate before Trump clinched his return to the White House.“Are there things you could have done differently? Since we lost, the answer is obviously yes,” Walz remarked. “On this one, I did the best I could.”During the conversation with KTSP, Walz also described the frantic morning after Harris called him on 6 August asking him to serve as her vice-president if she were elected. His acceptance led to him being flown to Philadelphia on a private jet to be introduced at Temple University – where he said he and Harris shared a humorous moment.“She turns to me and she says: ‘Well, let’s not screw this up,’” Walz recalled. “And we went out there.”Walz’s election debrief with KTSP came after his participation in the presidential race with Harris initially generated excitement with Democrats. His midwestern, former high school football coach persona charmed on the campaign trail at first, and his popularity surged after he perturbed Trump by labeling him and his allies “weird”.Nonetheless, Walz became less visible as the Harris campaign adopted more conventional strategies on the home stretch. Many ultimately regarded Walz as having performed less effectively than his Republican counterpart, US senator JD Vance of Ohio, by the time the two men debated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHarris ended up losing the electoral college to Trump by a 312-226 margin. The Republican candidate also captured the popular vote 49.9% to 48.4%, leaving him free to attempt to deliver on promises of mass deportations of immigrants and retribution against those who worked to hold him accountable for trying to forcibly overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.Walz told KTSP he “certainly got to see America” during his failed run for the vice-presidency but is now prepared to focus on his gubernatorial agenda in Minnesota.“It was a privilege to do that,” Walz said. “Coming back here now and having the privilege to do this work feels really good.” More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk revealed as sole funder of RBG Pac that claimed Trump and Ginsburg were aligned

      by

      Elon Musk has emerged as the sole financial architect behind a provocative political action committee that appropriated the name of late US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to bolster Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, according to federal campaign finance reports released on Thursday.The RBG Pac, funded entirely by the world’s richest man with a $20.5m donation in the final two weeks of the campaign, ran advertisements and mailers suggesting an ideological alignment between Trump and Ginsburg on abortion.That’s a narrative that Clara Spera, the justice’s granddaughter, denounced as fundamentally misleading.“The use of her name and image to support Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, and specifically to suggest that she would approve of his position on abortion, is nothing short of appalling,” she told the New York Times in October.​​The RBG Pac’s strategic advertising push arrived at a critical political moment, following months of Democratic attacks on Trump’s abortion stance. Its website featured a photo of Trump and Ginsburg with the caption “Great Minds Think Alike” – a claim that directly contradicts Ginsburg’s well-documented judicial philosophy and her personal opposition to Trump.“Why did Ruth Bader Ginsburg agree with Donald Trump’s position on abortion?” the website asked. “Because RBG believed that the federal government shouldn’t dictate our abortion laws.”The Pac claimed that Trump doesn’t support a federal abortion ban – something Trump himself said on the campaign trail – although he will face pressure from Republicans and opponents of abortion to enact one once he takes office anyway.Spera has shared in the past that Ginsburg’s dying wish in September 2020 had been that she was not replaced on the court until a new president was sworn in. That request was ignored by Trump when he appointed Amy Coney Barrett, who would later be part of the conservative majority overturning Roe v Wade.Musk’s political spending far exceeded this single Pac, ballooning to more than $260m in the 2024 election cycle. His primary vehicle was America Pac, which raised about $252m, with Musk making high-profile campaign appearances and conducting voter outreach initiatives that included controversial $1m giveaways in swing states.The billionaire’s political donations also extended to a $3m contribution to a Super Pac linked to Robert F Kennedy Jr and nearly $1m directly to Trump’s campaign committee.Now with the Trump win, Musk is positioned to play a significant role in the incoming administration. He’s set to co-lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency” alongside biotech entrepreneur and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, pledging to dramatically reduce federal bureaucracy. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden library reportedly under threat by Democrats enraged by Hunter pardon

      by

      Senior Democrats are reportedly considering withholding contributions to Joe Biden’s future presidential library amid a mounting backlash over his decision grant a blanket pardon to his son Hunter.The threat has emerged as simmering anger among congressional Democrats – already building over the president’s insistence on seeking a second term before belatedly stepping aside as the party nominee in favour of Kamala Harris – has burst into the open over Sunday’s pardon, which Biden had previously vowed not to give.Axios reported that party grandees were considering taking out their “rage” on Biden’s library project. Planning for the library, in the president’s home state of Delaware, is being spearheaded by the White House deputy chief of staff, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal, senior adviser to Jill Biden, the first lady.“If they had their shit together, they would have been doing the work on this over the summer – right after he announced he was stepping aside,” the site quoted one unnamed Democrat as saying. “Now, it’s just too late. Hopefully they are rightsizing their expectations and budget!”Presidential libraries – a tradition begun by Franklin D Roosevelt – are generally funded by a combination of private donors, state and local governments, and university partners. Maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration, they are used to house presidents’ papers and documents after they leave office.A source familiar with Biden’s project played down the possibility of donations being withheld, telling Axios: “That sentiment hasn’t come up in a single donor conversation, and work is well under way.”However, the fact that it is being publicly mooted is a sign of the internal party disenchantment following the pardoning of Hunter Biden, 54, who was convicted of lying on gun ownership application forms and separate charges of tax evasion. He had been due to be sentenced on both convictions this month. The act of clemency came less than a month after a demoralising election defeat that many privately blame Biden for.Biden, in his statement, said his son “was treated differently” than other people who had been late paying taxes because they were undergoing addiction problems. Biden pardoned his son for all possible offences committed between 2013 and 2024 – foreclosing the possibility of the incoming Trump administration reopening a case against the younger Biden that might be driven by the president-elect’s often-repeated desire for “retribution” against his political enemies.The judge in the tax case, Mark Scarsi, accused the president of “rewriting history” in a ruling penned after the pardon. He added that Hunter Biden’s tax offences had been committed after the period of his drug and alcohol addiction.A procession of Democratic senators and congressmembers have publicly accused Biden of putting his feelings for his son above the national interest and handing Donald Trump an excuse to abuse the presidential clemency powers.Even Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate and normally a loyal ally of the president, damned him with uncharacteristic reticence this week, telling reporters “I’ve got nothing for you on that” when asked his view.But party insiders say the outrage is a lightning rod for lingering resentment over Biden’s refusal to drop his bid for a second term until it was too late for Harris or other presidential contenders to be stress-tested in primaries and launch a well-prepared presidential campaign.“The pardon is simply a resentment delivery vehicle, like dressing on lettuce,” Philippe Reines, a veteran strategist who helped prepare Harris for September’s debate against Trump – which she was widely viewed to have won – told the New York Times.David Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama, said the pardon gave “a free throw for people who think they can gain political advantage” from separating themselves from an unpopular, outgoing president.“But,” he added, “there’s also genuine concern and anger about the way the last year went down.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘This is not time for retreat or apathy’: Black women dissect Harris loss

      by

      Misogynoir, the intersection of racism and sexism, was the main reason behind Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 general election, a panel of Black female experts argued, noting how post-election coverage has failed to contend with how white supremacy undergirded the election results.In a conversation titled “Views from the 92%: Black Women Reflect on 2024 Election and Road Ahead”, several academics dissected how and why the vice-president lost, particularly given Trump’s problematic history.The panel was hosted by the African American Policy Forum, a social justice thinktank co-founded by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University.“Racism is designed in such a way to make you question your humanity, but sexism is also. Sexism is really a power move,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “When you combine those two things together, I think that that best explains what [Harris] experienced.”Throughout the 2024 election campaign, Trump and other conservatives launched an onslaught of racist and sexist attacks against Harris: repeatedly claiming that Harris “slept her way” into political power, was unintelligent and that she was not a Black woman.Such attacks are unsurprising given American’s history with racism against Black women, the call participants said. But what was especially frustrating were platforms Trump was given to spread disinformation, Crenshaw argued, specifically calling out Trump being featured at the 2024 National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) convention.Karen Attiah, the former co-chair of the convention, who stepped down after the announcement that Trump would be interviewed, said the interview was a “viscerally painful experience” which was excused by many “white liberals”. During the contentious interview, Trump questioned Harris’s race, saying she suddenly “became a Black woman”. “Is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman.” Trump was also repeatedly combative with the interviewer Rachel Scott, the senior congressional correspondent for ABC News, accusing her of being “rude”.“The responses that I personally got for stepping down from white allies or people who are white leaders, was, ‘Well, he was racist and he destroyed your conference, but we needed to see that’ and I was like, ‘At the expense of our dignity[?]’,” she said.Following the general election on 6 November, exit polling showed that 53% of white women voters still supported Trump, calling into question who the legitimate allies of Black women’s interests are, said Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.“After going through this last presidential election, we really have to reassess and have real deep conversations about when these people say they’re your allies. What does that really mean?” she said, arguing that internal organizing of Black women needed to continue taking place.“There was a majority of white women who voted against democracy, against women’s interests, for a racist, for somebody who is proud to have taken away our right to choose.”Crenshaw also called out the mainstream media for failing to hold Trump accountable, as well as post-election coverage that ignored voter suppression tactics carried out by Trump supporters, including a multimillion-dollar initiative led by the billionaire Elon Musk.“Donald Trump was the biggest beneficiary of identity-based preferential treatment in terms of his media coverage,” she said. “He was like a Teflon-coated pan. Unlike Kamala, who was rendered by the media like a static, clean repository, anything would stick to her over and over again. It’s hard to imagine anybody other than a wealthy white male claiming he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it, and then prove to us that this is, in fact, virtually true.”In light of Trump’s win, Black women – who voted for Harris more than any other demographic, need to be prepared to deal with racist attacks from far-right Republicans, argued Barbara Arnwine, president and founder of Transformative Justice Coalition.“It is critical for Black women to not just talk about our magic … We gotta talk about how we fight, how we become a fighting formation, how we are able to know that these battles are going to come, that these kind of things are going to be said, that these kind of attacks are going to be launched.”Looking forward, experts emphasized the importance of continuing to organize internally despite feelings of despondency.Rebuilding freedom schools – educational programs in marginalized communities – creating spaces of communication on social media, akin to “Black Twitter”, targeting disinformation being spread by artificial intelligence, and addressing ongoing attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion are just some of the potential strategies, said the speaker Fran Phillips-Calhoun, an Atlanta Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta.“This really is not time for retreat or apathy,” said Phillips-Calhoun. “We really do have to turn inwards so we can build again.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      California Democrat Adam Gray unseats Republican as last House race decided

      by

      Democrat Adam Gray captured California’s 13th congressional district on Tuesday, unseating Republican John Duarte in the final US House contest to be decided in the 2024 elections.Gray’s win in the farm belt seat that cuts through five counties means Republicans won 220 House seats this election cycle, with Democrats holding 215 seats.Gray won by a margin of fewer than 200 votes, with election officials reporting on Tuesday that all ballots had been counted.Duarte captured the seat in 2022 when he defeated Gray by one of the closest margins in the country, 564 votes. He was often listed among the most vulnerable House Republicans given that narrow margin of victory in a district with a Democratic tilt – about 11 points over registered Republicans.Gray said in an earlier statement: “We always knew that this race would be as close as they come, and we’re expecting a photo-finish this year, too.”Duarte told the Turlock Journal he had called Gray to concede, adding “That’s how it goes.”“I’m a citizen legislator, and I didn’t plan on being in Congress forever,” Duarte told the newspaper, though he didn’t rule out a possible future campaign.In a tough year for Democrats nationally, the party picked up three GOP-held House seats in California.Both Gray and Duarte stressed bipartisan credentials during the campaign.Gray, a former legislator, was critical of state water management and put water and agriculture at the top of his issues list. He also said he wants improvements in infrastructure, renewable energy and education.Duarte, a businessman and major grape and almond farmer, said his priorities included curbing inflation, crime rates and obtaining adequate water supplies for farmers in the drought-prone state.There is a large Latino population in the district, similar to other Central Valley seats, but the most likely voters statewide tend to be white, older, more affluent homeowners. Working-class voters, including many Latinos, are less consistent in getting to the polls. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The resistance starts here: inside the 6 December Guardian Weekly

      by

      As Donald Trump continues to shape his incoming White House administration, there have been sporadic gasps at his controversial choices of top posts but little by way of a unified response from Democrats, nor evidence of a party coming together to evaluate what lay behind its defeat.For this week’s big story, Washington bureau chief David Smith contrasts the subdued atmosphere in Democrat and progressive circles with the Women’s March of 2017 which brought a million people into Washington in a show of resistance. Some of those Smith speaks to talk of feeling jaded and disillusioned; however others are determined that not only will they work to preserve progressive policies but have learned from past missteps.It’s a story of smaller, community-based activism and gathering strength to face specific policies once Trump assumes office. In what is a dark time of year for the northern hemisphere, the seeds of hope are small but visible nonetheless.As we head towards a new year and a change of US administration, the Guardian Weekly will continue to bring you stories from around the world from places where optimism is taking root.Get the Guardian Weekly delivered to your home addressFive essential reads in this week’s edition1Spotlight | Clean-up begins as Lebanon faces uncertain futureAn under-resourced Lebanese army has the job of ensuring Hezbollah’s compliance with a fragile truce while defending national territory, reports William Christou from Beirut2Health | Against the grain: how salt took over our dietsMost of us consume far too much salt, which can lead to high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes. But you can retrain your palate, explains Rachel Dixon3Feature | The call of natureAcross the globe, vast swathes of land are being abandoned to be reclaimed by nature. To see what happens to the natural world when people disappear, look to Bulgaria, says Tess McClure4Opinion | The Arab world is changing beyond our recognitionThe Arab world is increasingly divided between those who are losing everything, and those who have everything, argues Nesrine Malik5Culture | How The Play That Goes Wrong got it all so right A farce about a gaffe-f illed amateur dramatic whodunnit has become one of Britain’s greatest ever theatrical exports. Chris Wiegand finds out howGet the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home addressWhat else we’ve been readingTerry Griffiths was a household name in 1980s Britain, when a televised snooker craze gripped the nation. The Welshman, who died this week aged 77, became a world champion of the sport despite only making his first century break at the age of 24 – unthinkable in the modern game, as this informative obituary by Clive Everton explains. Graham Snowdon, editorI’m fascinated by stories of Hollywood’s heyday, and Stephen Bogart paints an illuminating picture of the lives of his parents, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The first paragraph of Xan Brooks’ interview is simply astonishing. Clare Horton, assistant editorOther highlights from the Guardian website Audio | What’s going on with fluoride? – Full Story podcast Video | Australia’s social media ban for under-16s is now law. There’s plenty we still don’t know Gallery | Feeling blue: how denim built AmericaGet in touchWe’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email weekly.letters@theguardian.com. For anything else, it’s editorial.feedback@theguardian.comFollow us Facebook InstagramGet the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump didn’t win by a historic landslide. It’s time to nip that lie in the bud | Mehdi Hasan

      by

      Remember the “big lie”? In 2020, Donald Trump lost the presidential election so Republicans just brazenly lied and insisted he won.In 2024, we have a new post-election lie from the Republican party. Trump didn’t just win, they say, but he won big. He won a landslide. He won an historic mandate for his “Maga” agenda.And it was Trump himself, of course, on election night, who was the first to push this grandiose and self-serving falsehood, calling his win “a political victory that our country has never seen before” and claiming “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate”.Republican politicians, masters of message discipline, quickly followed suit. The representative Elise Stefanik called his win a “historic landslide” while the senator John Barrasso called Trump’s a “huge landslide”. “On November 5 voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it,” wrote the “Doge” co-heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the Wall Street Journal on 20 November.None of this is true. Yes, Trump won the popular vote and the electoral college. Yes, Republicans won the Senate and the House. But, contrary to both Republican talking points and breathless headlines and hot takes from leading media outlets (“resounding”, “rout”, “runaway win”), there was really nothing at all historic or huge about the margin of victory.Repeat after me: there was no “landslide”. There was no “blowout”. There was no “sweeping” mandate given to Trump by the electorate. The numbers don’t lie.First, consider the popular vote. Yes, Trump became the first Republican for two decades to win the popular vote. However, per results from CNN, the Cook Political Report, and the New York Times, he did not win a majority of the vote. Barack Obama did in both 2008 and 2012. Joe Biden did in 2020. But Donald Trump failed to do so in 2024.And the former president’s margin of victory over Harris is a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, “smaller than that of every winning president since 1888 other than two: John F Kennedy in 1960 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968”, as an analysis in the New York Times noted last month. In fact, in the 55 presidential elections in which the popular vote winner became president, 49 of them were won with a margin bigger than Trump’s in 2024.We actually know what a landslide in the popular vote looks like: the Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeated the Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 by an enormous margin of 22.6 percentage points!Second, consider the electoral college. Trump won 307 votes, which is 37 more than is needed to secure victory in the electoral college. But it’s still far fewer than Bill Clinton won in 1992 (370) and 1996 (379) and far fewer than Barack Obama won in 2008 (365) and 2012 (332). And it is pretty similar to what Trump himself won in 2016 (304) and what Biden won in 2020 (306). Trump’s margin of victory in the electoral college ranks 44 out of the 60 presidential elections in American history.We actually know what a landslide win in the electoral college looks like: the Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election with a whopping 525 electoral college votes in 1984!By the way, did you know that Trump won the crucial blue wall states – Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by 231,000 votes? So if just 116,000 voters across those three swing states – or 0.7% of the total – had switched from Trump to Harris, it is the vice-president who would have won the electoral college … and the presidency!Third, consider the so-called “coattails” effect, where a presidential candidate’s massive margin of victory also boosts their party’s numbers in Congress. In 2024, Republicans flipped the Senate and held onto the House but Trump still ended up having “limited coattails”, to quote from the New York Times analysis. Of the five battleground states (Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) which held Senate races in November, the Republican candidate triumphed in only one of them (David McCormick in Pennsylvania, by a narrow 16,000 votes). Democrats held on to the other four.So where were the Trump coattails in the Senate?Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, Republicans held onto control of the chamber with the aid of an extremely partisan and anti-democratic gerrymander in North Carolina, signed off by a conservative-majority state supreme court. They are on course for what the CNN election analyst Harry Enten is calling a “record small majority”.So where were the Trump coattails in the House?And yet, the president-elect and his army of Republican sycophants cannot stop bragging about the landslide that wasn’t. You almost have to admire their chutzpah.But there is also method to their megalomania. As the political scientist Julia Azari has observed, when a president and a party claim a sweeping mandate it has “historically been connected to unprecedented expansions of presidential power” and can become a way “to give an unchecked executive the veneer of following the popular will”.Trump, the 49.9% president, doesn’t represent the popular will. Yes, he won the election fair and square, and won the popular vote for the first time, but if we are to prevent him from expanding his power in the Oval Office we must resist this new Republican election lie. We must not allow him to pretend that he has some sort of special “mandate” for controversial policies and personnel.Repeat after me: there was nothing unique or unprecedented about the election result last month. Republicans may feel they won a huge victory over the Democrats. And Trump may feel his election win was historic. But, to borrow a line from the right, the facts don’t care about their feelings.

      Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo More