Archives for category: Elections

Glenn Kessler is the fact checker for The Washington Post. He describes what it is like to check the nation’s most notorious prevaricator.

Kessler writes:

In my 14 years as The Washington Post Fact Checker, nine have been devoted to dissecting and debunking claims made by Donald Trump. Indeed, no person has been fact-checked more often than Trump, as he has bested or outlasted foes — Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — who drew their share of fact checks. And no other person has consistently earned Four Pinocchios — the badge of a committed liar — day after day, week after week.


I first covered Trump as a business reporter in the 1980s, so I was very familiar with his long history of exaggeration and bravado when he burst onto the political stage in 2015 (not counting his brief flirtation with the Reform Party in 2000). “Businessman Donald Trump is a fact checker’s dream … and nightmare,” I wrote in the fact check of his speech announcing that he would seek the presidency.


Now, he has convincingly won a second term via the electoral college and is even on track for the first time in three tries to win the popular vote. After his first two races, I wrote analyses that, in retrospect, misjudged the Trump phenomenon.

In 2016, I noted that “based only on anecdotal evidence — emails from readers — one reason that Trump’s false statements may have mattered little to his supporters is because he echoed things they already believed.” But I expressed hope that “now that Trump will assume the presidency, he may find that it is not in his interest to keep making factually unsupported questions.”

As an example, I noted that during the campaign he had claimed that the unemployment rate was 42 percent, rather than the 5 percent in official statistics. I suggested that he might find himself embarrassed to be contradicted by the official data once he took office.


I was wrong. He embraced the numbers as his own — and then bragged that he had created the greatest economy in American history, even though he had inherited it from Barack Obama.
When Trump was defeated in 2020, my analysis carried a headline that is embarrassing in retrospect: “Fact-checking in a post-Trump era.” I wrote that “his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden suggests that adherence to the facts does matter.”


The Fact Checker documented more than 30,000 false or misleading claims that Trump made during his presidency. Indeed, through that term, Trump was the first president since World War II to fail to ever win majority support in public opinion polls. A key reason was that relatively few Americans believed he was honest and trustworthy, an important metric in Gallup polls. Gallup has described this as “among his weakest personal characteristics.”

As evidence that Trump was hurt by falsehoods, I pointed to Biden’s narrow victories in Arizona and Georgia: “It’s quite possible that at least 9,000 people in Arizona and 5,000 in Georgia were upset enough at Trump’s continued false attacks on native sons Sen. John McCain (R) and Rep. John Lewis (D), even after they died, that they decided to support Biden over Trump.”

The essay appeared before Trump embarked on a months-long campaign to claim that Biden won only through election fraud — a lie debunked in court ruling after court ruling. The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, inspired by his rhetoric, appeared to be an indelible stain. Yet from 2020 on, Trump used his false claim to maintain his Republican support and build a base for his comeback.


In this election campaign, Trump once again resorted to false claims and sometimes outrageous lies, especially on immigration and the economy. He rode a wave of discontent about inflation — a problem in every industrialized country after the pandemic — to falsely claim that the economy was a disaster, despite relatively low unemployment, falling inflation and strong growth.


Last month, the Economist magazine published a cover story declaring that the U.S. economy was “the envy of the world.” Yet exit polls show that two-thirds of voters said the economy was in bad shape.


I do not write fact checks to influence the behavior of politicians; I write fact checks to inform voters. What voters — or politicians — do with the information in the fact checks is up to them.

Trump certainly benefits from an increasingly siloed information system — a world in which people can set their social media feeds or their television channel so they receive only information that confirms what they already believe. It’s perhaps not an accident that Trump’s rise in politics coincides with the rise of social media, which he adeptly used to first attract attention by elevating (false) questions about Obama’s birth certificate.


In this campaign, Trump made many promises that will be difficult to achieve, such as reducing the national debt and cutting energy prices in half. He also said he would reduce inflation, though that’s already been mostly achieved, and many economists say his plan to impose large tariffs on imported goods might spark inflation again.


No matter what happens, or how many fact checks are written, this time I won’t doubt his ability to convince his supporters that it’s all good news — or that the problem is the fault of someone else, facts notwithstanding.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abandoned his independent campaign and endorsed Trump, Trump offered him any job he wanted. He wanted a role in public health.

The New York Times reported:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who President-elect Donald J. Trump has suggested would have a “big role” in his second administration, wasted no time laying out potential public health measures he would oversee if given the chance.

Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who has no medical or public health degrees and has promoted anti-vaccine conspiracies for years, told NBC News on Wednesday that he would not “take away anybody’s vaccines,” but that he wanted Americans to be informed with the “best information” available so they “can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them.”

“People ought to have choice,” he said, adding that he has “never been anti-vaccine.”

Mr. Kennedy has been a prominent critic of the childhood vaccination schedule and has frequently linked some vaccines to autism and other health issues. Studies have long shown no such connection.

On the topic of adding fluoride to drinking water, which helps to protect teeth, Mr. Kennedy said the mineral was “lowering I.Q. in our children,” despite decades’ worth of studies that show its efficacy and safety.

“I think fluoride is on its way out,” he said. “I think the faster that it goes out, the better. I’m not going to compel anybody to take it out, but I’m going to advise the water districts about their legal liability.”

The treatment of public water with small amounts of fluoride has been widely hailed as one of the most important public health interventions of the past century; the American Dental Association has said that it reduces dental decay by at least 25 percent.

Mr. Kennedy also said that if he were given a position in Mr. Trump’s administration, he would focus on eliminating corruption at public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some departments, including those focused on nutrition, “have to go,” he told NBC. “They’re not protecting our kids.”

“Once Americans are getting good science and allowed to make their own choices, they’re going to get a lot healthier,” he added.

As president, Mr. Trump would have only limited authority to make some of these changes, and some would need congressional approval. But on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would let Mr. Kennedy “go wild on health.”

“I want to be in the White House, and he has assured me that I’m going to have that,” Mr. Kennedy said this week.

Remy Tumin is a reporter for The Times covering breaking news and other topics. More about Remy Tumin

Colorado voters rejected a proposal that was likely to protect school vouchers.

Colorado Public Radio reported:

It’s looking like Coloradans have rejected an effort to enshrine school choice in the state Constitution. 

As of 9:45 p.m., Amendment 80 was losing, with 52 percent opposed to 48 percent in support. This measure, which would have been the first of its kind in the nation, needs 55 percent of the vote to go into the state constitution.

It would have added language stating each “K-12 child has the right to school choice” and that “parents have the right to direct the education of their children.” It explicitly named charters, private schools, home schools and “future innovations in education” as options guaranteed by the state constitution.

Opponents celebrated the amendment’s apparent defeat.

“We find it really encouraging that people understand what this ballot measure was really trying to do, which was to create a pathway for a private school voucher system,” said Kevin Vick, president of the Colorado Education Association. “And we’re also really encouraged that Colorado voters really value public schools and don’t want to see that happen.”

A legislative analysis concluded that the measure would have no immediate impact on education in Colorado but could have opened the door to future changes to laws and funding for education.

Vick said the vagueness of the measure would have created a “legal quagmire,” which he said, in a worst-case scenario could have meant millions of dollars taken out of the public education system. 

The battle over the measure drew millions of dollars from both sides and complaints against proponents alleging deceptive campaign practices. Amendment 80 was a nuanced ballot issue and difficult for many to understand.

When Denver voter Kyle Slusher first read Amendment 80, he thought giving children options would be a good thing. 

“But if it is actually just creating a lane for private schools to take from public school funding, that’s not obviously something that needs to be occurring,” he said.

After doing more research he changed his mind and voted “no.”

Advance Colorado, a conservative action committee that doesn’t disclose its donors, proposed the amendment. They argued Amendment 80 would protect families’ right to choose the school — public, private or home school — that they deem is the best fit for their child. It was also backed by Ready Colorado, the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Colorado Association of Private Schools.

The measure was opposed by a coalition that included the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado PTA, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado, Colorado Democrats, Stand for Children, the ACLU Colorado and others.

School choice is popular in Colorado, with nearly 40 percent of public school students choosing a school outside their assigned neighborhood school. The 30-year-old school choice law has bipartisan support. Critics of the measure argued that the constitutional amendment wasn’t needed because laws giving Coloradans the right to attend the school of their choice for free already exist.

But proponents worried about what they said were increasing attempts to erode choice by local school boards, the state legislature and the State Board of Education. Proponents said Amendment 80 would be a backstop to any legislative attempt to reverse decades of bipartisan work to expand choice for students.

Voters in Nebraska voted against using public funds to pay for private schools.

LINCOLN — Voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected Nebraska’s new school voucher or scholarship program, steering public dollars spent to public schools.

Supporters of using state tax dollars to offset the costs of a private K-12 education have argued that families unhappy with their public schools need more options.

But rural and urban supporters of public schools, the Nebraska State Education Association and private foundations supporting public schools won the day.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said he was proud to see right- and left-leaning counties agree that vouchers were the wrong choice.

“It confirms what we knew, the majority of Nebraskans don’t want public dollars going to private schools,” Royers said. “What really stood out to me is the consistency.”

Royers hopes state senators move on

Royers said he is hopeful that state senators will follow the will of the voters and move onto other more pressing issues in education that teachers and parents can work on together.

Support Our Schools argued that diverting even small amounts of public money toward private K-12 schools with a scholarship program or vouchers risked long-term support for public education.

They pointed to the experiences in other states with voucher programs, including neighboring Iowa, which has seen the national rankings of its public schools slide since that program began.

They argued that school choice programs typically end up largely benefiting the people already making the choice to send their children to private schools.

And they said such programs risked creating greater concentrations of poverty in some schools by draining them of students who often act as stabilizing force

Everyone knew it would be a close election. Few anticipated Trump’s sweeping victory over Kamala Harris. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris. This is their next-day reaction.

By 

American voters have made the choice to return Donald Trump to the White House, setting the nation on a precarious course that no one can fully foresee.

The founders of this country recognized the possibility that voters might someday elect an authoritarian leader and wrote safeguards into the Constitution, including powers granted to two other branches of government designed to be a check on a president who would bend and break laws to serve his own ends. And they enacted a set of rights — most crucially the First Amendment — for citizens to assemble, speak and protest against the words and actions of their leader.

Over the next four years, Americans must be cleareyed about the threat to the nation and its laws that will come from its 47th president and be prepared to exercise their rights in defense of the country and the people, laws, institutions and values that have kept it strong.

It can’t be ignored that millions of Americans voted for a candidate even some of his closest supporters acknowledge to be deeply flawed — convinced that he was more likely to change and fix what they regarded as the nation’s urgent problems: high prices, an infusion of immigrants, a porous southern border and economic policies that have flowed unequally through society. Some cast their votes out of a profound dissatisfaction with the status quo, politics or the state of American institutions more broadly.

Whatever drove this decision among these voters, however, all Americans should now be wary of an incoming Trump administration that is likely to put a top priority on amassing unchecked power and punishing its perceived enemies, both of which Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed to do. All Americans, regardless of their party or politics, should insist that the fundamental pillars of the nation’s democracy — including constitutional checks and balances, fair-minded federal prosecutors and judges, an impartial election system and basic civil rights — be preserved against an assault that he has already begun and has said he would continue.

At this point, there can be no illusions about who Donald Trump is and how he intends to govern. He showed us in his first term and in the years after he left office that he has no respect for the law, let alone the values, norms and traditions of democracy. As he takes charge of the world’s most powerful state, he is transparently motivated only by the pursuit of power and the preservation of the cult of personality he has built around himself. These stark assessments are striking in part because they are held not just by his critics but also by those who served most closely with him.

We are a nation that has always emerged from a crucible with its ideals intact and often toughened and sharpened. The institutions of our government, hardened by nearly 250 years of disputation, turmoil, assassinations and wars, held firm when Mr. Trump assailed them four years ago. And Americans know how to counter Mr. Trump’s worst instincts — actions that were unjust, immoral or illegal — because they did so, over and over, during his first administration. Civil servants, members of Congress, members of his own party and people he appointed to high office often stood in the way of the former president’s plans, and other institutions of our society, including the free press and independent law enforcement agencies, held him accountable to the public.

Mr. Trump and his movement have all but taken over the Republican Party. Yet it is also important to remember that Mr. Trump can’t run for another term. From the day he enters the White House, he will be, in effect, a lame-duck president. The Constitution limits him to two terms. Congress has the power — and for some ambitious Republicans, perhaps the political incentive — to set a course away from Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic agenda, if it chooses to pursue it.

Governors and legislatures across the nation have spent months shoring up their state laws and Constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties, including access to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Even states that voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, including Kentucky, Ohio and Kansas, have rejected the most extreme positions on abortion. Other institutions of American civil society will play a crucial role in challenging the Trump administration in the courts, in our communities and in the protests that are sure to return.

The rest of the world, too, has no illusions about the leader who will soon again represent the United States on the world stage. The countries of the NATO alliance were shocked, during the first Trump administration, by his willingness to undermine that long and valuable partnership. But European nations, defying Mr. Trump’s predictions, not only came together with the United States in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but also expanded their ranks right up to Russia’s border.

For the Democratic Party, rear-guard action as the political opposition will not be enough. The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election. It took too long to recognize that President Biden was not capable of running for a second term. It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system — which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.

The test for members of this new Congress will begin soon after they take their oath. The president-elect has promised to surround himself in his second term with enablers prepared to pledge loyalty to him, who will be willing to do whatever he commands. But a president needs the Senate to approve many of those appointments. Senators can stop the most extreme or unqualified candidates from taking cabinet positions like defense secretary and attorney general, as well as seats on the Supreme Court and the federal bench. They can act to keep clearly unfit candidates from holding any powerful position. The Senate did that in 2020, when it blocked Mr. Trump’s attempts to seat unqualified people on the board of the Federal Reserve, and the chamber should not hesitate to do so again.

Perhaps the most important responsibility lies with all of those who will serve in a second Trump administration. Those he appoints as attorney general, as secretary of defense and to other top leadership roles should expect that he may ask them to carry out illegal acts or violate their oaths to the Constitution on his behalf, as he did in his first term. We urge them to recognize that whatever pledge of loyalty he may demand, their first loyalty is to their country. Standing up to Mr. Trump is possible, and it is the duty of every American public servant when appropriate.

But the final responsibility for ensuring the continuity of America’s enduring values lies with its voters. Those who supported Mr. Trump in this election should closely observe his conduct in office to see if it matches their hopes and expectations, and if it does not, they should make their disappointment known and cast votes in the 2026 midterms and in 2028 to put the country back on course. Those who opposed him should not hesitate to raise alarms when he abuses his power, and if he attempts to use government power to retaliate against critics, the world will be watching.

Benjamin Franklin famously admonished the American people that the nation was “a republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Trump’s election poses a grave threat to that republic, but he will not determine the long-term fate of American democracy. That outcome remains in the hands of the American people. It is the work of the next four 

Voters in Houston turned down a much-needed $4.4 billion bond issue to renovate and upgrade schools. The vote was widely viewed as a rebuke of the state takeover, which ended democratic control of the schools, and of state-imposed Superintendent Mike Miles.

Houston ISD Superintendent Mike Miles called voters’ rejection of the district’s proposed $4.4 billion school bond — the largest school bond in Texas history —  “unfortunate and wrong” in a statement Tuesday.

Miles conceded the bond election after approximately 60% of the roughly 350,000 voters who cast early or mail-in ballots voted against both propositions of the proposal, according to preliminary early election returns from the Harris County Clerk’s Office. HISD has made history as Texas voters have never rejected a proposed school bond measure exceeding $1 billion…

The district’s bond proposal was split into two propositions. Proposition A would have allocated $3.96 billion for school building renovations and expansions, including safety and security infrastructure, while Proposition B would have spent $440 million for technology equipment, systems and infrastructure.

HISD aimed to spend $2.3 billion for rebuilding and renovating 43 schools and $1 billion for lead remediationsecurity upgrades and HVAC improvements. The district planned to spend $1.1 billion to expand pre-K, build three new career and technical education centers and make technology upgrades without raising taxes if the bond passed…

The rejection of the district’s first school bond campaign in 12 years follows a vocal, monthslong grassroots opposition effort, where bond opponents encouraged people to vote against the bond due to the state takeover and a lack of trust in Miles and the Board of Managers.

Lisa Lerer of The New York Times told readers what to expect after Trump’s victory.

Donald Trump told Americans exactly what he planned to do.

He would use military force against his political opponents. He would fire thousands of career public servants. He would deport millions of immigrants in military-style roundups. He would crush the independence of the Department of Justice, use government to push public health conspiracies and abandon America’s allies abroad. He would turn the government into a tool of his own grievances, a way to punish his critics and richly reward his supporters. He would be a “dictator” — if only on Day 1.

And, when asked to give him the power to do all of that, the voters said yes.

This was a conquering of the nation not by force but with a permission slip. Now, America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its 248-year history. 

After defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, who would have become the first female U.S. president, Mr. Trump will bring his own historic firsts into the White House: the only president convicted of dozens of crimes, accused of dozens more and twice impeached.

So Trump won. In state after state, Harris got fewer votes than Biden in 2020.

Once Trump won Pennsylvania, the race was over.

She brought joy and the promise of bipartisanship to the race. Voters rejected her optimism and chose the glowering, angry man.

I am frankly frightened for the future.

Trump’s victory may be the death knell for NATO. It certainly is the end of US support for Ukraine in its fight for freedom. It’s great news for Putin. It may mean high tariffs and more inflation. It may mean the repeal of Obamacare, leaving millions of people without health insurance. It may mean the roundup of 10-15 million immigrants–men, women, and children; the erection of thousands of detention camps to hold them; and mass deportations. It may mean the prosecution of Trump’s “enemies”: Joe Biden; Kamala Harris; Nancy Pelosi; Liz Cheney; and anyone else he chooses. It surely means a pardon for the J6 insurrectionists.

I didn’t expect that voters would choose a 78-year-old man who built his campaign around fear and hatred: racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia; a man who tried to overturn the 2020 election by inciting an insurrection; a man who lies incessantly.

One piece of great news in an otherwise nerve wracking evening: Voters in Kentucky voted 65% to 35% against vouchers. This victory for public schools follows a long line of similar successes in every other voucher referendum.

A possible bit of good news is that Mo Green was beating Michelle Morrow in the race for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction. Of 5.5 million votes counted, Green was ahead by about 130,000 votes. Green is an experienced educator. Morrow is a home schooling mother and a rightwing extremist. She is noted for saying she wanted to see Barack Obama executed on pay-per-view TV. Frankly, given how little she knows about the schools and how far-out her views are, it’s shocking that she won almost half the votes.

In Massachusetts, voters overwhelmingly banned future use of the MCAS as a high school graduation requirement. The last number I saw was 87%.

If there is any good news in your neck of the woods, please let me know.

Catherine Martinez reports about Florida:

Voters in Florida rejected a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the state legislature to change school board election from non-partisan to partisan.

Janice Strauss wrote:

Good news coming from NY’s 19th Congressional District (mostly the Southern Tier area of NYS): local hometown graduate, Josh Riley, beat MAGA Marc Molinaro for Congress. Josh accepted no PAC money, he is very pro-public schools, and included many of his former teachers in numerous campaign activities.

Wtiting on the MSNBC website, experienced journalist Molly Jong-Fast says that women can’t risk another Trump term. The issue that will be decisive, she believes, is reproductive rights. Women had them for 50 years, then Trump’s Supreme Court abolished them. Never before has the Supreme Court taken rights away.

She writes:

In 2016, in her presidential campaign against Donald TrumpHillary Clinton prophesied, “In a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement, and as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make-or-break moment.” Trump, of course, was elected and proceeded to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, thus positioning a conservative-majority Supreme Court to rubber-stamp the most arrant conservative nonsense. And top of that Republican wish list was overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

Now, in 2024, we’re seeing what happens when women’s bodily autonomy is threatened and stripped away. We’re seeing a striking gender gap when it comes to support for Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump, with early voting polls showing a 10-percentage-point gender gap. And when we look at the policies Trump has helped enact versus the promises Harris has pledged, it’s no mystery why.

Before Roe was struck down, and seemingly as a trial run, in 2021 Texas passed Senate Bill 8, which made abortion after six weeks illegal in Texas. The Supreme Court had a chance to stop the law on the shadow docket. The justices declined, a harbinger of things to come. A year later, the Supreme Court overturned the law that codified abortion.

A sea of trigger laws written for this eventuality followed; some red states banned abortion as quickly as they could. Republicans wrote bills that banned abortion broadly, with little or no cutout for the life of the woman. The idea was simple: make doctors afraid to treat. Texas courts have several times rejected requests to provide specificity about the health exception. 

In Louisiana not only can you not get an abortion; you may struggle just to get first-trimester pregnancy care. “We were stunned by just how much regular medical practice for pregnant people has been disrupted,” Michele Heisler, the medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, told NPR. Elsewhere in the country, things are looking similarly bleak. According to a 2023 report from The New York Times, “All told, more than a dozen labor and delivery doctors — including five of Idaho’s nine longtime maternal-fetal experts — will have either left or retired by the end of this year.” Medical care for women is under threat, and it extends far beyond what’s traditionally discussed as abortion, especially by Republicans who demonize an entire category of lifesaving health care. 

After Roe was overturned, a lot of us were sure this would mean women would die. We were told we were being hysterical. But “the SB 8 effect” was real.According to Nancy L. Cohen, president of the Gender Equity Policy Institute, “There’s only one explanation for this staggering difference in maternal mortality. All the research points to Texas’ abortion ban as the primary driver of this alarming increase.” And it wasn’t just pregnant women who died. Infant mortality also increased by about 13%, according to a study from Johns Hopkins, which also stated, “This suggests that SB 8 was driving this increase in infant mortality.” It’s now three years later. Women have died. 

In the one election since the fall of Roe, the 2022 midterm election, there was warning of a red wave, projecting that Republicans planned to compensate for Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. 

But Republicans underperformed, and Democrats kept the Senate and almost kept the House. Two years later, conservative pundits wishcasted that women have gotten over losing that constitutional right. But evidence supports the theory that if anything, women are more enraged than ever.

Brian Stelter was CNN’s media critic for many years. He had a regular show called “Reliable Sources.” CNN went through a period of reorganization, and he was fired. The reorganization was a failure, CNN leadership changed. Brian was rehired. He now again writes and reports for CNN.

He wrote today:

Quick – choose a memorable moment from this presidential election year. What did you pick? Maybe Jake Tapper and Dana Bash‘s CNN presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump? Maybe Kamala Harris‘s DNC convention speech, or Trump’s sit-down with Joe Rogan, or his garbage truck photo op? This campaign has been chock full of made-for-TV spectacles and surprises.

But if I had to pick just one moment, I’d choose the day in August when Trump claimed that the VP’s very real crowd was faked. “She ‘A.I.’d’ it, and showed a massive ‘crowd’ of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN’T EXIST!” Trump falsely shouted on Truth Social.

The episode encapsulated so much about this election. Trump’s use of social media to spread conspiracy theories; an insistence on creating his own reality; a disbelief that his Democratic rival could draw a big crowd at all; a disregard for the fact-checkers who debunked his post. 

Plus, I bet many of you have already forgotten about AI-crowd-size-gate. That’s been another trademark feature of this campaign: exhaustion! 

Reality itself has been contested during this election year. “The refusal to accept basic, verifiable facts has some observers concerned about a repeat of 2020 false claims of a stolen election if Trump loses,” NPR wrote while debunking Trump’s crowd size lie. It can be incredibly dispiriting for journalists. Imagine trying to convince a skeptic that the Harris rally you covered did, in fact, have a crowd. But it also reaffirms the importance of journalism to vet and verify information.

 >> One last point: Trump was scratching at something deep when he said the Harris crowd “didn’t exist.” On this Election Day, some Trump fans find it unfathomable that Harris could win. Frankly, it’s also true that some Harris fans find it hard to believe that Trump could regain power. But someone is about to win. This week, America’s TV networks and newswires are like mediators, helping the country accept whatever the result will be.