Politics

How Trump could lose to Harris because of a red state

Published

2 years ago

November 12, 2024

How Trump could lose to Harris because of a red state

Former President Donald Trump is no stranger to trying to strong-arm his fellow Republicans into changing the rules to benefit him. Nebraska has become the focal point of his latest attempt to game the system ahead of the 2024 presidential election. Looking to prevent a case where Vice President Kamala Harris ekes out a win because of the state’s quirky way of divvying up its electoral votes, Republicans loyal to Trump are running a last-second effort to snatch that victory out of reach.

Forty-eight states assign their electoral votes via a winner-takes-all system, doling them all out to whoever wins the popular vote statewide. But Nebraska’s hybrid system has two of the state’s five electoral votes go to the popular vote winner, while the remaining three are awarded to the winner of each congressional district. (The only other state to use a similar hybrid model is Maine.)

The GOP’s push is attempting to prevent what at first glance appears to be an unlikely scenario

The GOP’s push is attempting to prevent what at first glance appears to be an unlikely scenario: Harris winning the “blue wall” swing states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and Trump winning Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, three Sun Belt states he lost in 2020. In such a scenario, Harris could win 270 Electoral College votes and the presidency with the single electoral vote from Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which President Joe Biden won in 2020.

But if Nebraska gets rid of its way of appropriating Electoral College votes, then the two campaigns would have a 269-269 tie. The Electoral College hasn’t seen a candidate fail to get a majority of votes since the election of 1824. Per the Constitutionthe House of Representatives then chooses the president, and the Senate chooses the vice president. The House would then vote by delegation in a “contingent election,” with Republicans likely controlling a majority of seats in enough states to give the win to Trump.

Trump and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, a Republican, have been calling on state lawmakers to switch to a winner-takes-all system since at least April. The Legislature didn’t make the swap during its regular session, but the state’s congressional delegation thinks Pillen should call an emergency session to force through the change.

If Republicans in Nebraska did change the state’s law, it would happen too late for Democrats in Maine to act as a counterbalance to such obvious shenanigans. As NBC News reported last weekit “takes 90 days for legislation to go into effect in Maine after it is enacted, and Thursday marked 89 days until the Electoral College is scheduled to meet on Dec. 17, meaning it’s already too late for the Maine Legislature to change to a winner-take-all system under normal rules.” Immediate “emergency” legislation would require a supermajority that Democrats lack, leaving their split system — which is likely to award one of the state’s four electoral votes to Trump — on the books.

Trump himself reportedly called on at least one state senator in Nebraska to press the issue, according to The Washington Postbut we still may not see this latest pressure campaign bear fruit. State Sen. Loren Lippincot, a Republican who led the effort to change to winner-takes-all system last year, told the Omaha World-Herald last week that “the proposal remains two or three votes shy of overcoming a filibuster to pass, just as it was at the end of this year’s legislative session.” And on Monday, one of those GOP “no” votes made perfectly clear that he wasn’t going to be swayed to back any last-minute change to the current system.

Despite the wheels seemingly coming off, the campaign to alter the rules in Nebraska puts three things on display.

Despite the wheels seemingly coming off, the campaign to alter the rules in Nebraska puts three things on display. First, we have before us yet another example of the GOP’s ongoing projection issues. In messaging that’s endorsed by the Republican Party, Trump is constantly lying about his political adversaries unfairly attacking himclaiming that his plans to strike out against them if he’s elected again are counterpunches. Likewise, Trump and Republicans made it a point to accuse Democrats in blue states of cheating in 2020 by making it easier for voters of all political persuasions to cast absentee ballots during a global pandemic. And, yet, these same Republicans talk about this naked attempt to weigh the dice in Trump’s favor in Nebraska as if it’s only fair.

Second, the demand to change Nebraska’s rules also shows how attempts to reform the Electoral College can backfire. Maine switched away from a winner-take-all system in 1969, and Nebraska did so in 1991. As of 2008, neither had had an election in which the electoral votes were split between candidates. Since then, it’s happened twice in both states: in Maine in 2016 and 2020, and in Nebraska in 2008 and 2020. Both states made changes that seem eminently reasonable at first glance — but it’s not the fix that many would have assumed at the time.

In theory, splitting up a state’s electoral votes may be more democratic and encourage candidates to compete in states that might otherwise be deemed safe for one and unwinnable for the other. In Omaha, the biggest city in the “blue dot” of Nebraska, Harris and Trump are spending resources they probably wouldn’t if Nebraska were still a winner-take-all state. But in a world where gerrymandering exists, what is intended to be a pro-democratic reform has the potential to be used anti-democratically instead if it became more widespread, watering down the will of the voters instead of enhancing it.

And, finally, the fact that we have to even consider any of this is patently ridiculous. The Electoral College is an elitist, antidemocratic mess that’s resulted in almost all this century’s presidential elections coming down to a handful of voters in a handful of states. Forget tinkering around the edges. We need to get rid of the Electoral College system completely. This outdated relic leaves the U.S. open to the kind of shenanigans that Trump and his allies are trying to pull in Nebraska when what we need is a system that lets candidates focus on winning the most votes nationwide.

CORRECTION (Sept. 26, 2024, 12:25 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated the results of the 2016 presidential election in Nevada. Hilary Clinton won the state, not Donald Trump.

Hayes Brown

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

Politics

Poll: Republicans’ gas price problem is even worse than it seems

Published

55 minutes ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Gas prices are high. Americans think they’re even higher.

Three in five Americans believe gas prices in their area have risen by more than they actually have, according to an analysis of new results from The Blue Light News Poll. It’s those perceptions that candidates will be running against this fall.

Voters’ anxieties about fuel prices could give Democrats a boost ahead of the midterms, further strengthening the Democratic voting base and putting strains on the MAGA coalition as the increasingly unpopular war in Iran drags on. A plurality of Americans — 46 percent — say the change in gas prices will impact how they plan to vote come November.

Most voters overestimated the change in gas prices in their area, according to the analysis of polling and granular pricing data provided by OPIS, a Dow Jones company that tracks gas prices. That includes majorities of voters who supported President Donald Trump and also those who supported former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Roughly one in four Americans say gas in their local area has risen by $3.00 or more. But no zip code has actually seen that degree of change on average in the year and a half since Trump took office, as of early July.

Frustrations over cost of living could be reinforcing existing negative views of the Trump administration: Harris voters are far more likely to overshoot the cost jumps than Trump voters, making it harder for Republicans to peel off Democratic voters.

And the analysis shows a fracture among Trump voters. Self-identified MAGA Republicans were more likely to underestimate cost increases than non-MAGA Republicans — another crack in the president’s winning coalition as Republicans scramble to hold it together for the midterms.

“It is a particularly tough dance that many Republican candidates will have to endure for the next three months,” said Arizona GOP strategist Barrett Marson. “How do you feel the pain of your voters without feeling the wrath of Donald Trump?”

What’s more, American’s perceptions do not quickly change even when prices do. The Blue Light News Poll asked about gas prices in both May, when they were near their peak, and July, when they had dipped.

The results were the same in both.

“President Trump and his energy team anticipated these temporary market disruptions, communicated them openly to the American people, and implemented an aggressive plan to mitigate any impacts,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers. “As the U.S. military degrades the terrorist Iranian regime’s ability to attack commercial vessels and disrupt the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, oil and gas prices will plummet back to pre-conflict levels.”

Gas prices could swing votes

Americans’ frustrations with prices and the economy overall are changing how they say they will vote in the fall.

Of the 46 percent of Americans who said gas prices will have an impact on their vote, just under 40 percent said they are considering voting for a different party than they normally would, including 49 percent of MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of non-MAGA Republicans.

“Three quarters of the country is confronting higher gas prices and feeling it,” said longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “That leaves them … very vulnerable to the economic pain and very vulnerable to the economic argument the Democrats are going to make.”

To better understand public perception of gas prices, The Blue Light News Poll asked Americans how the price of gas in their area had changed since Trump took office. Respondents could choose between buckets like “$1 to $2 higher per gallon,” “$1 to $2 lower per gallon,” or say prices had stayed roughly the same.

More than three-fourths said gas prices in their area have gone up.

Using OPIS data, Blue Light News compared each respondent’s answer against the actual average cost of regular gas in their zip code during the first week Trump was in office and the week prior to the July poll, which was conducted by the independent polling organization Public First from July 12 to July 15.

That comparison revealed the difference between the pain the American public is feeling and where actual gas prices stand — and, in particular, how that pain is expressed differently among Democrats and Republicans. Roughly 70 percent of Harris voters and 54 percent of Trump voters overestimated the increase in gas prices in their area, according to Blue Light News’s analysis.

“Democrats are highly motivated,” as a voting base, Marson said. “The longer the war goes on, probably the less motivated Republicans will be.”

The perception of higher gas prices is linked to how people see the economy — and who they blame for it.

Across the country, 57 percent of Americans say the cost of living is worse than they “can ever remember it being.” Those who overestimate gas price increases had more than twice the odds of agreeing with that statement, even after controlling for demographics and their 2024 vote.

Similarly, a plurality of Americans — 43 percent — blame Trump more than former President Joe Biden for the state of the economy overall. Those who overestimated their local increase in gas prices had nearly twice the odds of saying the same, compared with those who perceived the change in gas prices correctly or who underestimated the change.

It’s already affecting the battlegrounds

In the country’s most competitive races, Republicans will have to answer for the perceived cost pressures of rising gas prices more often than Democrats.

Thirteen of the most competitive districts have experienced gas price increases higher than the national average, according to Blue Light News’s analysis. Of those, nine are currently represented by Republicans.

In California’s 22nd District, where Republican incumbent Rep. David Valadao will face off against progressive political newcomer Randy Villegas, average prices across the district had gone up $1.17 by early July — the third highest increase of any district, according to Blue Light News’s analysis.

Villegas said in an interview that he thought frustration over gas prices would mobilize turnout in the fall, driven by how the cost of gas is “tied to every other thing.”

“It’s the cost of gas when you’re driving to the grocery store, when you’re driving to, you know, see a doctor,” he said. Or, the cost of gas when driving 7 to 8 hours away to “go get cheaper health care.”

Valadao did not respond to requests for comment.

In Colorado’s 8th District, where gas prices have risen by $0.73 on average since Trump took office, Republican incumbent Rep. Gabe Evans blamed local Democratic policies for increased costs more than the Iran war.

While “what’s happening halfway around the globe has some impact on global energy prices,” Evans said, high gas prices in the district are “a direct result of the local economic policies — the anti-energy policies — of the state Democrats who run the state of Colorado.”

But The Blue Light News Poll results from this month show voters don’t necessarily feel the same. Roughly 63 percent of Americans selected “the war with Iran” as the primary reason why gas prices have increased since Trump took office, including 59 percent of Trump voters and 70 percent of Harris voters.

By the middle of May, the average price of gas across the country reached its highest point of the Trump administration to date: $4.50 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In July, average prices dipped to $3.78 per gallon, the lowest average price since March.

Still, in both months, more than 75 percent of Americans said gas prices had gone up, Blue Light News’s polls show. And in both months, roughly 23 percent said prices had gone up by $3.00 or more.

This week, Trump said the upcoming midterms would not impact how he goes about fighting the war with Iran. “I can’t think about that having to do with this,” he said, referring to the elections. “I think people are very impressed.”

Politics

Capitol agenda: House GOP budget faces Senate reality check

Published

8 hours ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Capitol agenda: House GOP budget faces Senate reality check

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been frank about the rocky road the reconciliation effort faces and careful not to guarantee he’ll be successful…
Read More