Month: November 2024

“I want the United States to be the leader if there’s any kind of gold backing to a currency.”

– Judy Shelton

Economic advisor to former President Donald Trump, Judy Shelton, joins GoldTelegraph’s Alex Deluce for a captivating conversation spanning a wide range of subjects.

Judy Shelton is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the book Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money.

She is the former Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and former U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. She has testified before the U.S. Senate Banking, Senate Foreign Relations, House Banking, House Foreign Affairs, and Joint Economic Committee.

In their conversation, Deluce and Shelton explore a series of compelling topics, highlighted by Judy’s riveting career stories, including her interactions with figures like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and other influential central bankers.

One of the most powerful revelations she shared was Paul Volcker’s frank admission: he had always believed the United States would eventually return to the Bretton Woods system.

For those unfamiliar, Volcker was referencing the pivotal moment known as the Nixon Shock in 1971, when President Nixon abruptly suspended the U.S. dollar’s convertibility into gold, shattering the foundation of the Bretton Woods system.

At that historic moment in history, Volcker served as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs.

This marked the transition to a pure fiat monetary system.

Deluce and Shelton get into a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, which include:

• The US Dollar

• The U.S. National Debt as a Security Threat

• Federal Reserve’s Role in America’s debt and Financial Instability

• Historical Perspectives on Monetary Policy

• Potential Return to a Gold-Backed System

• Comparisons Between Soviet Central Planning and Current Economic Policies

• BRICS Countries and Global Financial Shifts

• Treasury Bond Backed by Gold and the Potential for Gold Backed Stablecoins

TIMESTAMPS:

0:49 – How much does the US dollar’s global dominance depend on the upcoming election?

2:08 – Is debt a threat to U.S. national security?

3:20 – How responsible is the Federal Reserve for America’s current debt level?

7:54 – How has the Federal Reserve contributed to the financial instability we face today?

13:22 – How do you see today’s shifting global landscape, given your deep background in historical analysis?

19:46 – Are we on the verge of another major global monetary shift, and what might it look like?

29:13 – Was there a specific moment or event early in your career that sparked your interest in the study of gold?

34:09 – Memorable stories from your conversations with Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker and Robert Mandel

39:22 – How do you define sound money?

46: 14 – How interconnected are sound money, economic opportunity, stability, and global peace, especially in today’s polarized world?

49:51 – Why do you think so many policymakers dismiss and mock gold, even as global demand is at records and central banks are stockpiling?

54:13 – How does the Fed’s dual mandate open it to political vulnerabilities, and could a rules-based system address these issues?

59:37 – How does the Fed’s centralized control over interest rates affect what is supposed to be a market-based economy?

1:02:48 – Are central banks aggressive policies eroding or undermining capitalism and the concept of free markets?

1:06:23 – Are BRICS nations positioning gold to become a unit of account and medium of exchange, potentially bypassing the traditional financial system?

1:09:38 – Could imposing tariffs on countries that move away from the dollar actually help America maintain its financial muscle?

1:14:47 – What gives you hope for potential reforms that could create a monetary system supporting economic freedom and stability for everyone?

1:16:58 – Could we potentially see you in the next administration advocating for these policies?

Watch the full interview below:

GOLD TELEGRAPH CONVERSATIONS #1:
JUDY SHELTON

“I want the United States to be the leader if there’s any kind of gold backing to a currency.” – @judyshel

Economic advisor to former President Donald Trump, Judy Shelton, joins me for a captivating conversation spanning a wide… pic.twitter.com/gmk9GqBCPz

— Gold Telegraph ⚡ (@GoldTelegraph_) November 3, 2024

By Philip Marey, Senior US Strategist at Rabobank (also available in pdf format)

Summary

• We analyze a 2022 survey from AP VoteCast to understand what drives US voters. We find that voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives, punishing the Biden-Harris administration. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. However, voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” were also more likely to favor a Democrat, suggesting that Biden did not get all of the blame for the disappointing economy or that voters made a trade-off between the economy and other issues.

• On social policy issues, voters are more likely to vote for a Republican if they think that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, if they think that the racism issue is not too or not at all serious, if they were not too or not at all concerned about COVID and if they strongly favor increased border security.

• We also found that demographic characteristics determined US voter behavior. Men are more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, women and non-binary people are more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true for Black, Latino and Asian people. White people are more likely to vote Republican. People with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican, but – at a given income level – college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat.

• While this confirms several stereotypes, we also find some more nuanced results. For example, the probability of voting Republican increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment, then it falls back a little. Moreover, if we take a closer look at the Hispanic vote, we find that Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican. Finally, it should be noted that the regression results imply that Black men are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women.

• We also find that pop culture affects voter behavior, with people having a favorable view of Taylor Swift more likely to vote Democrat – even within their age cohort– and those with an unfavorable view of her more likely to vote Republican.

• For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, our results show that in demographic terms Kamala Harris more closely resembles the typical Democratic voter than Joe Biden, which could help explain the increase in enthusiasm among Democratic voters after she replaced him at the top of the ticket. However, our results also explain why Harris has difficulty convincing Black men to vote for her: they are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women more generally, even if she is not on the ticket.

Introduction

The 2022 US midterm elections presented a complex political landscape. This report uses data from the AP VoteCast survey to delve into the various factors that shaped voter behavior and electoral outcomes, focusing on three key areas: the impact of economic anxieties on voting behavior, the changes in policies on abortion and immigration, and the demographics of American voters. The 2022 midterms occurred against a backdrop of significant economic uncertainty, with inflation emerging as a dominant concern among voters. As inflation hit a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022, Americans expressed growing anxiety about their financial wellbeing, despite a low unemployment rate of 3.6%. By November 2022, inflation had started to fall, but was still very high at 7.1%.

The 2022 midterms also demonstrated the rapid evolution of voter priorities. Just two years earlier, during the height of the pandemic, healthcare and public health concerns dominated the political discourse. By 2022, these issues had taken a backseat to inflation. However, despite the changes in priorities compared to the 2020 elections, voters were still concerned with  non-economic issues. Figure 2 and 3 show the responses of voters to “Which one of the following would you say is the single most important issue for you?”

The economy was the main concern among both Democrats and Republicans, with 33.2% and 63.2% of respondents choosing it respectively. However, for Democrats climate change, abortion and healthcare followed closely. For Republicans, at some distance, immigration and crime were mentioned most often.

Regarding abortion, The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had a significant impact on the 2022 midterm elections. For about a quarter of voters, the Court’s decision was the single most important factor in their midterm vote. This figure increased to more than 3 in 10 among groups traditionally aligned with prochoice positions: Democratic voters, younger women, and first-time voters. These voters predominantly supported Democratic candidates. The impact was particularly pronounced among women of color. Majorities of Black and Hispanic women reported that the Supreme Court decision influenced their voting behavior. Finally, a key issue for Republican voters in 2022 was immigration, because of a surge in the number of migrant apprehensions at the southern border. Democrats, however, ranked immigration as their last concern.

The data set from the 2022 midterms offers valuable insights into US voter behavior. It reveals that while economic concerns were at the forefront of voter priorities, these were not the only factors driving electoral decisions. The economic anxieties that dominated the political discourse led to a Republican majority in the House. However, the data also underscores the continued significance of non-economic issues, such as abortion and immigration, in shaping voter behavior. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade emerged as a pivotal factor, underscoring the powerful role of social issues in mobilizing the electorate.

Data and model

Our analysis is grounded in a comprehensive dataset primarily sourced from AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey conducted after midterm and general elections in the US comprising more than 100 thousand respondents. This data provides direct insights into the demographics, sentiments, and perceptions on various economic and non-economic topics of individual voters. AP VoteCast, initiated in 2018, combines interviews with randomly sampled registered voters from state voter files and self-identified registered voters from NORC’s AmeriSpeak® panel and nonprobability online panels.

To examine the relationships between voters’ attitudes and their candidate preferences, we employ a logistic regression model. The regression analysis of the data at the individual level helps us understand how these various factors interact and influence voting behavior. We can analyze the impact of economic factors and social policy issues, given the demographic characteristics and vice versa. This means that we can isolate the pure effects of economic factors, social policy issues and demographic characteristics on voter behavior at the micro level, rather than effects at the macro level that are distorted by the composition of the sample.

Empirical results

Our regression results can be described as follows. In 2022, voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives. This is a plausible result since the Democrats (the Biden-Harris administration) were in charge of economic policy. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. Interestingly, also voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” favored a Democrat. So some voters were willing to forgive Biden or thought that he was not (fully) to blame for the economic conditions. We should not forget that high inflation in 2021 and 2022 was not restricted to the US, although the empirical evidence suggests that excessive fiscal policy has made it worse. Also, some voters could be making a trade-off between the economy and other issues. For example, if you oppose making abortion illegal, you may be willing to tolerate some economic adversity from the party that is pro-choice.

Now let’s turn to these social policy issues. Voters who thought that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases were more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, voters who though that abortion should be legal in most cases were more likely to support a Democratic candidate. Voters who were not too or not at all concerned about COVID were more likely to vote Republican, while voters who were somewhat or very concerned favored the Democrats. Compared to voters who strongly favored increased border security, those who only somewhat favored this or opposed this were more likely to vote Democrat. Those who thought the racism issue was not too or not at all serious were more likely to vote Republican compared to those who thought it was somewhat or very serious.

These questions were all about political issues, but we also found that demographic characteristics – even after correcting for economic and social policy issues – determined voter behavior. In particular, women and non-binary people were more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true of Black, Latino and Asian people. Age also matters, as people above 30 are more likely to vote Republican. This probability increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment. People of 65 and older are also more likely to vote Republican, but not as much as the cohort below. If we look at education, we find that college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, people with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican. This may seem contradictory because people with a higher education tend to have a higher income. However, our regression allows us to identify the effects of education given a certain level of income and vice versa. So if two persons with the same education differ only in their income level, then the one with the higher income is more likely to vote Republican. And if two people with the same income level differ only in their level of education, then the higher educated person is more likely to vote Democrat.

To summarize, the Republican voter in 2022 could be characterized as an older white male with a higher income but no college degree who judged economic conditions as poor, who thought that abortion should be illegal, strongly favored increased border security, was not too or not at all concerned by COVID and thought that the racism issue was not too or not at all serious. In contrast, a Democratic voter was typically a younger college-educated woman of color with a lower income who judged economic conditions as good or not so good, who thought that abortion should be legal, did not strongly favor increased border security and was concerned about COVID and racism.

While table 1 may confirm several stereotypes, the regression results show some nuances. Take age for example: the tendency to vote Republican rises with age, but falls back a little for people of 65 and older. We have also taken a closer look at ethnicity and found that not all Hispanic groups exhibit the same voting behavior. In particular, Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. This can likely be attributed to the tougher foreign policy stance of the GOP regarding Cuba. Hispanics from all other countries of origin are more likely to vote Democrat. Finally, since the regression isolates the effect of being Black from being a man, the results explain why Kamala Harris is currently having trouble getting support from Black men. Note that these regression results are based on the 2022 midterms, so well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. It shows that Black men being less likely to vote Democrat than Black women is not specific to presidential elections. While former president Obama recently suggested that Black men “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president”, Democrats should probably better ask themselves why one of their key demographics has been drifting toward the GOP for some time now. The Democrats’ “Opportunity agenda for Black men” that they are now suddenly rolling out may be too little too late for this year’s election.

The Taylor Swift effect

The 2022 midterms also highlight an intriguing connection between pop culture and political preferences. In 2020 Taylor Swift released the song “Only the young” – a political anthem aimed to encourage young adults to “speak up and stand for what is right.” It made references to the surprise victory of Donald Trump in 2016 and how the young voters were outnumbered. Swift’s influence reflects broader trends in youth political engagement. Her public support for Democratic candidates, particularly her advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and opposition to systemic racism, aligns with issues that resonate strongly with younger voters. This alignment is significant given that Swift’s fan base largely consists of Millennials and Gen Z, demographics that statistically lean more liberal and are generally more receptive to social justice movements. The “Taylor Swift effect” thus serves as a microcosm of larger cultural shifts influencing political engagement among younger voters.

This raises two interesting questions: are Taylor Swift fans more likely to vote Democrat, and if so, is this simply a reflection of their age cohort being more liberal, or are “Swifties” (Taylor Swift fans) actually more likely to vote Democrat than other people with the same demographic characteristics? We find that people with a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, those with a “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of her are more likely to vote Republican. Note that the regression takes into account age, so even within the subset of Millennials and Gen Z those with a favorable view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In this sense, the “Taylor Swift effect” is real. After the debate between Trump and Harris on September 10, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” Swift’s endorsement could help raise the voter turnout among a demographic that is culturally close to the values of the Democrats.

Conclusion

Our findings reveal that while economic anxieties drove many voters towards Republican candidates in 2022, social issues and demographics provided countervailing forces, contributing to the Democrats’ stronger-than-expected performance. In our midterm preview in 2022, we explained that based on economic performance, Biden’s approval rating and the usual midterm loss for the party occupying the White House, the Republicans should be heading for a landslide victory in the midterms, but that the more modest polling results suggested that other factors, such as abortion, could be leading to Republican underperformance, as it did on Election Day.

For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is likely a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, while Kamala Harris may have been picked as Vice-President to balance the 2020 Democratic ticket, our regression results show that she is not just another demographic of the Democratic Party, but she actually gets close to representing the typical Democratic voter. This could help explain the recent enthusiasm among Democratic voters that was absent when Biden was on top of the presidential ticket. This also meant that picking Tim Walz as VP candidate was necessary to balance the ticket and attract swing voters. However, our results also show that Black men have been less likely to vote Democrat than Black women well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. Taking a key demographic for granted could hurt the Democratic Party well beyond the 2024 presidential election.

Also available in pdf format.

By Jesse Colombo of the Bubble Bubble Substack

In my debut Substack article on September 6th, I theorized that Chinese futures traders would return from their summer hiatus with renewed vigor, to drive gold prices sharply higher once again in an encore of their spring performance, when they pushed prices up by $400, or 23%, in just six weeks. When I wrote that article, gold was trading at $2,497 an ounce; today, it stands at $2,738 an ounce. I’m now providing an update because the trend I anticipated is unfolding as expected, and I believe the most thrilling, explosive phase is still to come.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) gold futures were the primary vehicle behind the gold frenzy in March and April, a surge that subsequently spilled over into international gold prices:

A fascinating Financial Times article from that time titled “Chinese Speculators Super-Charge Gold Rally” highlighted how trading volume in SHFE gold futures had surged by 400%, propelling gold prices to record highs:

The spring Chinese gold trading frenzy can also be seen in the chart of long open interest in SHFE gold futures:

Following the Chinese-driven gold frenzy in the spring, it was as if a switch flipped off on April 15th, leading SHFE gold futures to trade sideways for five months. In my original September 6th article, I explained that SHFE gold futures were merely taking a pause, likely setting the stage for another surge similar to the one seen in the spring. I also noted that a decisive close above the 585 resistance level would trigger a new rally in gold prices—not only in China but globally. As the chart below shows, that’s precisely what’s happening:

As shown in the chart below, the international spot price of gold in U.S. dollars traded in a choppy manner from April until mid-September, when it hit an inflection point and began climbing vigorously once again. This timing is no coincidence; it aligns with SHFE gold futures breaking out of their trading range, drawing Chinese traders—known for their strong affinity for gold—back into the market.

Technical analysis of SHFE gold futures implies that the international gold price in U.S. dollars should reach approximately $3,000 per ounce during the current rally. This projection relies on the concept of a “measured move,” where the price following a consolidation pattern or trading range is expected to rise by the same number of points as the rally preceding the consolidation. The diagram below illustrates how measured moves work:

The chart of SHFE gold futures below shows a 105 yuan/gram rally in the spring, followed by a five-month trading range. This suggests that the current rally should also reach 105 yuan/gram, projecting a target of 690 yuan/gram, or roughly $3,000 per ounce. This target is also logical because $3,000 is a significant psychological level, and major levels like that typically act like a magnet for prices. And, in case $3,000 seems ambitious, it’s only a 9.3% increase from current levels. I’m confident that gold will climb even higher in the course of this bull market, though it may pause or consolidate around the $3,000 level for a time to catch its breath.

Gold analysts and investors who closely follow developments in China often monitor whether the domestic Chinese gold price trades at a premium or discount compared to the international price. In recent months, China’s domestic gold price experienced an unusual discount of up to $40.60 per ounce against the international price. However, this discount has quickly reversed following the breakout in SHFE gold futures, with Chinese gold now trading at a $1.10 per ounce premium over the international price. This transition from a discount to a premium is an indication that gold trading activity in China is starting to heat up once again.

Another sign that gold trading activity in China is heating up is the recent increase in SHFE gold futures trading volume over the past two months. As seen in the chart, volume surged dramatically during the spring rally. While trading activity is currently rising in a measured and orderly way, I expect it to ramp up significantly as the rally progresses toward $3,000. That’s when the real frenzy in Chinese gold trading will likely begin in earnest.

Despite rising gold prices and increased trading activity, the high cost of gold has actually dampened physical consumer demand in China. According to Bloomberg, overall demand fell by 22% to 218 tons in the three months leading to September, with jewelry consumption dropping 29% to 130 tons and bar and coin purchases declining 9% to 69 tons. This suggests that the rapid price surge has created sticker shock for many Chinese consumers, who are likely waiting for a price dip to buy at more favorable levels.

The reality is that high gold prices are here to stay, however, with even further increases ahead as global debt, money supply, and inflation continue to rise. Soon—possibly during the intense “frenzy phase” I mentioned—physical gold buyers may recognize that prices aren’t dropping and, driven by the fear of missing out (FOMO), start buying aggressively before prices climb even higher. This shift in behavior will only add further fuel to the fire.

Another factor supporting the bullish outlook for gold in China is the country’s struggling economy, weighed down by the collapse of massive bubbles in real estate and the stock market. In response, the Chinese government recently announced a plan to issue special sovereign bonds totaling approximately 2 trillion yuan ($284.43 billion) this year as part of a new fiscal stimulus. Fiscal and monetary stimulus programs are typically bullish for gold because they add to national debt, debase the currency, and drive inflation higher. Burdened by a substantial overhang of bad debt, inflated asset prices, “zombie” companies, and a rapidly aging population, China is now on a path toward an addiction to stimulus to keep its economy afloat—much like the United States, Europe, and Japan.

In conclusion, the stage is set for Chinese traders and investors to continue fueling a powerful rally in gold prices, pushing it to $3,000 and then beyond. Now that SHFE gold futures have broken out of their consolidation and trading activity is heating up once again, all indicators point toward a renewed surge that could mirror or even surpass the intensity of the spring rally. Meanwhile, China’s economic struggles and increasing reliance on stimulus add further support to the bullish outlook for gold. As global debt and inflationary pressures rise, and with Chinese physical gold investors and consumers likely to return in droves once they recognize that high gold prices are here to stay, the conditions are primed for an explosive phase in the gold market. This momentum, driven by both domestic factors in China and international dynamics, is likely just the beginning of an even greater upward trend.

Also watch the video presentation of this report:

The Bubble Bubble Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support Jesse’s work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

“Undeniably,” admits Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman to podcaster Joe Rogan, “immigration is changing our nation.”

 The two men spoke about a wide variety of political topics ranging from how Donald Trump won in 2016 to how immigration stands as a key issue in the election today.

Specifically, Fetterman played the Democratic Party card, claiming that Republicans in 2024 “had an opportunity to do a comprehensive border-bipartisan-and that went down because Trump, he declared that that’s a bad deal after it was negotiated with the other side.”

Rogan then brutally ‘fact-checked’ the stammering senator, pointing out the reality that that the deal made many concessions that Republicans concerned about the border found to be unacceptable.

“But, didn’t that deal also involved amnesty,” responded Rogan,“and didn’t that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year?” 

Silence from Fetterman.

Rogan continued:

“I think it was 2 million people. So still the same sort of situation. And their fear is exactly what I talked about, that these people will be moved to swing states and that that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.“

Finally, the PA Senator responded

“I’ve never witnessed those kinds [illegals voting] of a thing… I don’t think there’s that level kinds of organization.“

But Rogan once again would not allow the politician to ‘lie’ pointing out that “there is an organization that’s moving these people [illegals] to swing states.”

“There’s a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states.

And then there’s been calls for amnesty. There’s been calls for allowing these people to have a pathway to citizenship and allow them to vote.

The fear that a lot of people have is that this is a coordinated effort to take these people that you’re allowing to come into the country, then you’re providing them with all sorts of services like food stamps and housing and setting them up and then providing a pathway to amnesty.

And then you would have voters that would be significantly voting towards the Democrats because they’re the people that enabled them to come into the country in the first place, first place and provided them with those services.

This is a big fear that people have and that you’re rigging this system and that this will turn all these states into essentially locked blue like California is.”

Fetterman’s responds:

“undeniably,” adding that “immigration is changing our nation.”

“I haven’t spent a lot of time in Texas but it’s very clear that immigration has remade Texas and I think it’s generally, it’s a good thing.”

Watch the discussion on immigration below:

John Fetterman eventually admits to Joe Rogan that Democrats’ ‘Border Bill’ merely converted illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, rather than preventing illegal immigration:
John Fetterman: “I’ve never witnessed those kinds of a thing.” [Illegals voting]
I don’t think… pic.twitter.com/sEs6Xd0pEJ

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) November 2, 2024

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”

Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress:

“It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.”

Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory:

“When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.

If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.”

Jamie Raskin says Democrats will only uphold the peaceful transfer of power if they view the election as fair:
Jamie Raskin: “When I say we will support a free and fair election, no we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, steal it with the Department of… pic.twitter.com/wiczm4yz0I

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) November 2, 2024

Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.”

However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it.

The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized the challenge.

Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.

Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy:

“If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”

Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election, but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members.

We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts.

Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.

I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Some Clarity This Week?

We get the election and the Fed this week, both of which should provide us with some clarity.

The Fed

Let’s start with the Fed because I think the Fed is easy:

• Cut 25 bps. That’s what they were planning to do, and Friday’s jobs report gives them the ammunition to do so.
• Push back on the pace of rate cuts going forward. This will be relative to the last meeting since the market has already dialed back significantly on rate cuts in 2025. They will mention a more balanced concern between a potentially better job market (see NFP – An Ugly Report) and signs that inflation may be stabilizing above their target level. The jobs data was definitively impacted by hurricanes and strikes, but the JOLTS Quit Rate really caught my eye, as it dipped to levels that we haven’t seen since mid-2008.
• Higher neutral/terminal rate. We discussed this in a Much Higher Neutral Rate at the beginning of October. Markets have moved to the lower end of our band (3.5% to 4%), but there is room for that to edge higher (though we might be getting greedy). We had a lot of reasons for expressing this view, but one that stands out is this simple chart. Look at where rates have been and what the economy has done, and it is difficult to argue that 5% and higher was very restrictive.

The market has moved closer to our views, and we expect that it will continue to do so. Actually, the 10-year yield up at 4.38% is above the top end of our range, but we remain reluctant to fight it (at least not yet) as market positioning (amongst other things) makes us nervous – see Bond Vigilantes in last weekend’s report.

Expectations

This might be a good way to segue from bond markets and the Fed to election prognostications.

• Who had a weak jobs report = 10 bps higher on the 10-year yield?

We did think that the rally in bonds after the report would fade. But going from 4.22% all the way to 4.38% was a much bigger fade than I would have expected. I did think that stocks would fade, and they did close well off their highs, but they were above their opening levels, so I got this wrong. What is surprising is how resilient stocks were in the face of bond yields rising for the wrong reason (not due to economic strength), but it was the first day of the month and the first big “buy the dip” opportunity in the past month as well.

But I digress. The main point of this section, ahead of the election section, is to point out that sometimes, even if you knew the data in advance, it would have been difficult to make money. A weak jobs report sending Treasury yields to a fairly large one-day loss doesn’t seem obvious – even in hindsight.

We discussed some of our scenarios and views on the election in last weekend’s report (Who Wins and What Does it Mean?). Since then, the betting markets have reversed course to some degree, making even those markets closer than they were last weekend.

I’m also hearing more people question whether the “Trump Bump” is real. This is the view that he tends to get more votes than the polls indicate. With a sample size of 2, where the 2nd time certainly wasn’t as strong as the first time, I’m pretty dubious about this view heading into Tuesday.

I do remain convinced, despite being told I’m dead wrong, that a lot of “undecided people” will be flip- flopping their thoughts right until the moment they vote (kind of like how many market participants will second guess their well-thought-out Fed strategies between noon and 2pm ET on November 7th).

The Election

Frankly, I think that there are too many permutations to properly analyze this. There is virtually no scenario that would “surprise” me. I don’t think all scenarios are equally likely, but I could be convinced that a lot of them are possible.

Also, with the cop-out in the previous section, I’m not sure it is easy to interpret how markets will react to what could be quite complex outcomes.

Having said that, it would be irresponsible not to have some sort of a playbook coming into this week. That is particularly true as I will be on Bloomberg TV at 9pm ET on election night trying to digest the information real-time.

Best Case for Markets:

• A clear winner on the presidential side with gridlock established. If we can wake up Wednesday morning (better yet, go to bed on Tuesday night) knowing that there is a clear and obvious winner for president and that there will be gridlock, we can buy stocks and bonds. I don’t think there is a better case for the market than this, and we should get some indications if this is happening quite early in the evening.

Worst Case(s) for Markets:

• I think that there are two bad cases for markets, both of which are very different.
• A clear sweep. Anything where it is clear that the presidential election has been decided and that the winning party will have both the House and the Senate firmly in control would likely be bad for markets. The “mandate” would (rightfully so) convince that party that they can implement even some of their more extreme policies. I don’t see that being good for the deficit. For stocks it might turn out to be good, but I think, at least initially, the response to this would be negative. It is ironic that we could get a situation where the country really supports one ideology and Wall Street doesn’t like it, but that’s my sense of how this would play out.
• A prolonged and hotly contested election result. I’m thinking more at the presidential level. Even there, I think if the House and the Senate are split, even a hotly contested presidential result might not hurt markets, at least not for a few days. While the Geopolitical Intelligence Group staunchly believes that we will have a legal and normal transfer of power and that all the systems (and the checks and balances) will work, the longer any dispute lingers, the more likely it is to affect domestic behavior.
  • There is a risk that if this goes on for an extended period, our enemies (or competitors) will take advantage of what they might view as an opportunity. The media (and nation) will be fixated on internal issues and there may be a perceived power vacuum if the contested election reaches vitriolic levels (which cannot be discounted with the power of social media). If you missed Academy’s latest Around the World, this might be a good time to catch up on the issues we focused on this month.

Beyond that, I just think there are too many possibilities. We might not know who will control the House or the Senate right away. Again, I think that any uncertainty will be digested by the market if gridlock looks likely.

I think that a few days of contested results and recounts is pretty much built into markets. However, I’m not sure if contested results extending well into the following week, with rhetoric getting increasingly nasty, is priced in (I’d like to say that this possibility is extremely low, but I’m not sure that it’s that low).

It would be great if election night gives us clarity, even if that clarity is bad for markets, but that is not a certain outcome. I do think that many people are being a bit cavalier about how easily we will absorb a “contested” election – since I think it very much depends on how hotly that election is contested (if we get to that point at all).

Not sure this is much of a game plan for the election, but it is the best that I can come up with at the moment.

Bottom Line

We will get through this election. The system will work as intended and we will adjust and adapt our strategies appropriately.

Yes, there is a lot of heated “debate” occurring in social media and it is easy to get disheartened. But I think that is really just at the extreme and gets far too much attention relative to the people working together to get the country, the economy, and even the globe on a good path forward!

Due to some misspent youth, I am well aware of the Sex Pistols. They had songs like “Anarchy in the U.K.” (what would have been my walk up song if they had those when I played sports) and “God Save the Queen.” So, a lot of what we are hearing and seeing (as many of our Geopolitical Intelligence Group members remind our clients) is not new. It just receives a lot more attention than it should. And now, I cannot resist one message about “unintended consequences” because that is a favorite subject of mine. The Queen’s Jubilee had the Queen floating down the river Thames. Word leaked that the Pistols were going to perform “God Save the Queen” somewhere along the route and annoy the entourage and many of the spectators. So, as I recall, they implemented some rule about no performances within a certain distance from the Queen. Problem solved? No, the band, or their organizers, put them on a barge and they followed the Queen to play the song – making the entire experience for the Queen likely much worse. Unintended consequences are always worth thinking about!

But in any case, decades later, England is still functioning and the “dire” warnings never materialized, so I think much of the concern is misplaced and will be largely forgotten (or at least tuned out) as we move forward!

Good luck with this week and I cannot believe that we still make it dark extra early on purpose!

OPEC+ agreed to push back its December production increase by one month, the second delay to its plans to revive supply as faltering demand in China and swelling supplies from the Americas pressure prices.

but… but “Reuters sources” inside the Biden oil selling department said OPEC would flood the market any second https://t.co/ICGWItFYL0

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 3, 2024

No reason was given for the delay.

“Market conditions won out,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of oil research at Onyx Commodities Ltd.

“OPEC+ showed it couldn’t ignore the current macroeconomic economic realities centered on China and Europe, which point to weaker oil demand growth.”

OPEC Plus had first announced in June that it would gradually increase production by an estimated 2.2 million barrels a day, or around 2 percent of global supplies, in October.

That had been a major source of concern for the markets.

Then, in September, the group announced a delay until at least December.

And this is how Reuters and its “sources” manipulate the oil market pic.twitter.com/YsRe1Ft2Xy

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2024

The OPEC+ move is “modestly positive,” said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS Group AG in Zurich. The market will focus instead on Iran’s response to Israel’s attacks and the outcome of US elections, he said. However, JP Morgan analysts wrote that “with geopolitical concerns temporarily set aside, attention is once again shifting back to market fundamentals.”

We suspect the election will matter… a lot.

“Given all the geopolitical tension in the Middle East and, perhaps more importantly, the upcoming US presidential elections, it makes perfect sense for OPEC+ to postpone the unwinding of the voluntary cuts for an extra month,” said Jorge Leon, senior vice president at consultant Rystad Energy AS.

These eight OPEC+ countries reiterated their collective commitment to achieve full conformity with the Declaration of Cooperation, including the additional voluntary production adjustments.

“For me, the impact is more important on sentiment than the numbers,” said Amrita Sen, director of research at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd.

“The market has been incorrectly viewing OPEC+ as wanting to flood the market to regain market share,” but instead, their “primary focus remains keeping oil inventories under control.”

Prices are headed into the $60s next year, and potentially lower if OPEC+ opens the taps, according to Citigroup and JPMorgan analysts.

That poses a financial threat for Riyadh, which needs levels closer to $100 a barrel to cover the ambitious economic plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to the IMF.

The market outlook the group faces ultimately hinges on the outcome of US presidential elections on Nov. 5, Currie added.  “The real geopolitical risk has yet to come, which is the shockwave from the US election,” he said. “Not only will it jar fragile flash points around the world, but it will also reveal the all-important path that Chinese stimulus takes in response.”

Via Middle East Eye

China and Russia’s response to Israel’s attacks on Iran has drawn widespread criticism, with many deeming the reactions insufficient and delayed.

The Tehran-based Ham-Mihan daily newspaper emphasized that given the extensive promotion of strategic relations between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing in recent years, there was an expectation that Russia and China would officially condemn the attacks on Iran.

The newspaper wrote: “Three days passed after the Israeli military attack on sites in three Iranian provinces before China’s foreign ministry responded. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson also commented on the attack only hours afterwards. In the end, neither Beijing nor Moscow condemned Israel’s actions.”

The daily continued to criticize the stances of these two countries, comparing them to some European nations that have tense relations with Iran.

As western sanctions against Iran have increased in recent years, Tehran has strengthened economic ties with Moscow and Beijing, with one key outcome being the sale of cheap oil to China.

However, the expansion of these political ties has consistently faced criticism within Iran and discontent has intensified following recent direct conflicts between Iran and Israel.

Calls for direct military action against Israel

A newspaper affiliated with Iran’s so-called “hardliners” has called for direct military action against Israel, arguing such attacks are essential for ensuring regional stability.

In an article titled “Killing the Dog”, the Agaah daily emphasized the need to intensify military confrontations with Israel, saying: “Attacks on the interests of the Zionist regime worldwide guarantee the security of the region.” The report featured images of Israel’s political and military leaders alongside suggested targets, including military and economic centers.

This is not the first instance Agaah has advocated direct action against Israel. Last month, the daily released a list of sites that could potentially be targeted by Hezbollah’s missiles and drones. The list included food factories, power facilities, technology plants and chemical production sites. 

Moreover, the Dimona nuclear plant was identified as a target for Hezbollah, reportedly within range of Iran’s Fateh-110 missiles.

Ex-legislator: Iran’s diplomacy hampered by internal conflicts

The former head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission has criticized the government’s handling of “extremist” groups within the country, saying they are undermining diplomatic efforts.  

In an op-ed, Hashmatullah Falahat Pishe argued that the failure to unify domestic political forces has led to setbacks in the nation’s foreign policy. “Diplomacy is accepted and trusted globally when it reflects a unified and strong voice within a country. Therefore, the key obstacles to diplomacy here are internal,” he wrote, adding: “Mr Pezeshkian’s government must address these issues first.”

Falahat Pishe also mentioned Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent visits to nine Middle Eastern countries, stressing that the activities of extremist groups in Iran have undermined these diplomatic efforts.

“This shows the government has not yet resolved its internal challenges with extremist factions. The government must first prove its ability to address foreign policy issues internally. Only then can diplomacy succeed,” he concluded.

Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” last night – playing herself across from Maya Rudolph’s version of her in the show’s cold open.

Kamala Harris spent THREE HOURS rehearsing for this cringe fest on SNL.

Complete with the fake black accent.

This is a tough watch. Good Lord. pic.twitter.com/B3RbafOsH9

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 3, 2024

It was essentially an exact copy of Trump’s appearance in 2015, except not funny.

Kamala Harris SNL skit DIRECTLY copied Trump’s from 2015.

Can she do ANYTHING original at all? https://t.co/RX3zMprYfo pic.twitter.com/wwbdVJgig1

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 3, 2024

What’s more, it may have violated election laws.

As Michael Shellenberger points out, “The producer of Saturday Night Live said neither Harris nor Trump would appear on the show “because of election laws.” Last night, about 60 hours before polls open, he put Harris on the show in a warm & humanizing sketch. He and NBC violated the equal time provision of the law.”

On October 1, 2024, Hollywood Reporter published this article. It said, “In a recent interview ahead of the show’s 50th season, SNL creator and long-running maestro Lorne Michaels revealed that he hadn’t reached out to the real-life candidates, and he didn’t intend to before the… pic.twitter.com/3olU8qMmeT

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 3, 2024

Continued:

That article linked to a September 19 interview between Michaels and SNL cast members, Colin Jost and Michael Che. Weirdly, however, the September 19 does not contain the Lorne Michaels quote referred to in the October 1 Hollywood Reporter article. Even more weirdly, neither does the WayBack Machine’s first capture of the article on September 19.

The reason that’s weird is that many media outlets reported on Michaels’ statement in early October.

NBC clearly violated the law. In a 2022 fact sheet, FCC writes, “FCC rules seek to ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the airwaves – outside of bona fide news exemptions – than their opponent.”

I will interview @BrendanCarrFCC about this at 11:45 ET on an X Spaces— please tune in https://t.co/PaCiLoVUfP

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 3, 2024

 

Authored by Lawrence Wilson, Allan Stein, John Haughey, Nathan Worcester, Jackson Richman, Arjun Singh, Jeff Louderback, Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

The 2024 presidential election on Nov. 5 likely hinges on the outcome in seven battleground states.

Battlegrounds—also called swing or purple states—are where support for Democratic and Republican candidates has been split in recent presidential elections. Current swing states are Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Most other states consistently break for the same political party and aren’t considered competitive.

The battleground states account for 93 of the nation’s 538 electoral votes. The winner needs at least 270 electoral votes—more than half—to win.

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris appear nearly tied in those seven states, according to current polling averages. And all of those states currently are considered tossups that could go either way, according to Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan elections rating group.

How long it will take for Americans to know the results in the seven swing states depends on the individual states’ laws.

State Election Laws Differ

Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are conducted by each state.

Unofficial results often are reported soon after polls close, sometimes within hours. News organizations often announce presumed winners of national races within hours or by the early morning of the next day.

But the official result takes longer for several reasons.

State laws vary regarding when to count ballots that are mailed in, dropped off, or cast during in-person early voting.

Though they go by different names, all seven battleground states allow some kind of absentee or mail-in voting. And all offer early in-person voting, which is now underway throughout most states.

Some state laws allow for early ballots to be tallied before Election Day. Others prohibit counting before polls close.

Mailed ballots received after Election Day still will be counted in some states, as long as they were postmarked by Nov. 5. The deadline for receiving them varies by state.

Poll workers demonstrate how ballots are are received, processed, scanned, and securely stored on Election Day during a press tour by the Philadelphia City Commissioners, at the Philadelphia Election Warehouse in Philadelphia on Oct. 25, 2024. Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

Verifying Voters

Counting ballots not cast in person can take more time.

Some states—Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan—require a voter’s signature on a mail-in ballot to be verified.

In Georgia, officials must verify that the driver’s license number or state-issued identification number included on the returned ballot matches what’s on file for the voter.

In Wisconsin, an adult witness must sign the ballot being returned, verifying the voter filled out his or her own ballot.

In North Carolina, a voter using an absentee ballot must sign a certificate witnessed by a notary or two adults who also provide their addresses.

Pennsylvania requires proof of identification to be submitted when requesting an absentee or mail-in ballot. But no challenges may be made to mail-in or absentee ballots at any time based on signature analysis, the commonwealth’s rules stipulate.

Provisional ballots can complicate the process further.

A provisional ballot usually is used when a voter shows up at a precinct to vote and his or her name doesn’t appear on the list of registered voters.

After being marked, a provisional ballot is slipped into a secrecy envelope and kept separate from the regular ballot box. After the polls close, that ballot will be counted only if the voter is confirmed as eligible to vote.

But even after all ballots have been tallied, the results still aren’t official.

Each state has a canvass period and certification process in which officials formally certify their state’s results, which usually takes place around three weeks after Election Day.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission lists each state’s certification deadline online.

Voters cast their ballots during Michigan’s early voting period in Dearborn, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2024. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Arizona

Arizona has 11 electoral votes and about 4.4 million registered voters.

Candidate Joe Biden flipped Arizona in his favor in 2020, besting incumbent Trump by fewer than 10,500 votes or 0.3 percent.

The deadline in Arizona to register to vote in this election cycle was Oct. 7. In-person early voting began two days later and continued through 7 p.m. on Nov. 1.

Voters on the state’s Active Early Voting List automatically receive a ballot by mail. Those can be returned by mail or at drop boxes at the state’s polling places.

Counties can begin tabulating those ballots after early voting begins. Early ballots that come in on Election Day will be tabulated in the days immediately following the election.

But before any are counted, election officials must compare the signature on the ballot envelope to the voter’s signature on file.

If the signatures match, the ballot is counted immediately. If the signature is in question, election officials are to try to contact the voter to confirm the ballot’s validity. 

Military members and other overseas citizens can cast their ballots by fax or by uploading to a secure system maintained by the secretary of state. Ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Voting in person in Arizona requires valid identification.

Anyone who attempts to vote on Election Day has “the right to cast a ballot,” according to the Arizona secretary of state. But provisional ballots only will be counted if the county recorder can verify the voter’s eligibility.

On Election Day, polling locations in the 15 Arizona counties close at 7 p.m. Anyone in line at that time is allowed to vote.

After polls close, ballots are either tabulated at the polls or at a county’s central counting location.

Arizona provides livestream viewing of county vote-tabulation rooms and publishes details online about measures used to keep electronic voting equipment secure.

Maricopa County is home to about 2.4 million registered voters—more than 60 percent of the state’s electorate.

A glass-enclosed room, which is open to the public for observing the verification process, is located at the electoral center in Pinal County, Ariz., on Oct. 18, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

Maricopa counts votes at its own centralized location, the Maricopa County Tabulation and Elections Center (MCTEC) in Phoenix. The facility provides livestream viewing of signature verification, early-ballot processing, and ballot tabulation.

Officials there warned on Oct. 22 that it may take between 10 and 13 days to tabulate the results of the Nov. 5 election.

In the aftermath of the 2020 contest, Trump and other Republicans alleged that Arizona’s election was rife with voter fraud. Ultimately, lawsuits against Arizona and Maricopa County officials were dismissed. In 2020, county officials certified the results 17 days after Election Day.

Election Day voters in Maricopa County usually make up 10 to 15 percent of the vote in the county. To vote in person, Arizonans must present identification, get a new ballot printed, fill it out at the voting location, and feed it into a tabulator.

After polls close, rules direct bipartisan employees of Maricopa County to put memory drives from tabulators into tamper-proof packages and take them to MCTEC. There, workers verify they’ve been kept secure and load election results into the election server, periodically releasing updated race results.

On Election Night, Arizona’s election results will be available online after 8 p.m. and will be updated sporadically.

State statute requires that bipartisan appointees validate the accuracy of the vote-tabulation system through a random hand-count audit of 1 percent of early ballots and 2 percent of votes cast at a voting center.

Canvassing begins on Nov. 11. Canvassing is the process of accounting for every ballot cast. It ensures each valid vote is included in the official results.

During the canvass, election officials resolve discrepancies and check for accuracy before certifying the results as final.

If a county hand-count audit is held, each recognized party on the ballot appoints representatives to participate. County officials have until Nov. 21 to certify their results.

A statewide canvass will be conducted on Nov. 25. The deadline for Arizona to certify election results is Dec. 2.

Election workers open envelopes and sort ballots at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center in Phoenix on Oct. 23, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

Nevada

Nevada has six electoral votes and nearly 2.4 million registered voters.

All active registered voters were sent ballots by mail, unless they opted out. And most Nevadans traditionally vote early or by absentee ballot.

In 2020, a little more than 77 percent of the state’s voters cast ballots. Only about 11 percent voted on Election Day. The rest voted early in person or returned absentee ballots.

To be counted in Nevada, mailed ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by the county no later than four days later, on Nov. 9.

Early in-person voting in Nevada began on Oct. 19 and runs through Nov. 1. On Day 1 of early voting, 42,237 Nevadans cast ballots.

Tallies of those early ballots can’t be released before polls close at 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Under Nevada law, “compromising the secrecy of the ballot by releasing results early is a crime,” according to Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar.

Even on Election Day, eligible citizens can register to vote and cast a ballot in the state.

In the hopes of speeding up results, new guidance from Aguilar instructs election officials to start tabulating early voting returns and mail ballots at 8 a.m. on Election Day.

By 6 p.m., county clerks and registrars are to provide their first election results to the secretary of state’s office for verification.

“This year, the country will be looking to Nevada to determine the winner of the presidential election,” Aguilar stated in a news release.

A banner marks a voting site on the first day of in-person early voting at the Thunderbird Family Sports Complex in Las Vegas on Oct. 19, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

“Voters deserve available results on Election Night; releasing results sooner will increase transparency, help us combat misinformation, and alleviate pressure on election officials … [and] this change is a win for our entire state.”

Clark County—home to Las Vegas and 71 percent of Nevada voters—has 132 polling and drop box locations.

Once county clerks and registrars confirm all polls are closed and the last voter has voted, the secretary of state’s office plans to release unofficial results online. Results are expected to be updated routinely until the final update after the canvass of the vote by the counties.

Ballots are tabulated on voting devices and saved on removable media that are taken by two election board members to a receiving center or counting place, according to Nevada law.

“If practical,” the law stipulates, those election board “members must be of different political parties.”

Members of the general public are allowed to observe the delivery of those voting components in sealed containers and watch vote-counting.

Nevada’s electronic voting system isn’t connected to a network or the Internet, and it can’t connect wirelessly. All components go through a series of tests and audits before they can be used.

And components have a chain of custody, with “tamper evident” security seals. Access to them is limited to authorized personnel.

City or county clerks supervise the operation of the central counting places.

As soon as the returns from all the precincts and districts have been received by the board of county commissioners, the board shall meet and canvass the returns.

Counties have up to 10 days to certify elections.

In 2020, the Nevada GOP sued, citing claims of fraud. So the election was not officially finalized until the state’s Supreme Court certified the results on Nov. 24.

This year, Nevada’s deadline to certify its election results is Nov. 26, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Clark County Election Department poll workers check in voters at a table as people vote at the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas on Oct. 21, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Wisconsin

Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes and more than 3.5 million active registered voters.

As of Oct. 29, more than 1.1 million absentee ballots had been sent out, and a little more than 511,000 had been returned.

The ballots must be returned by mail or in person at a ballot drop-off location by 8 p.m. on Nov. 5, when polls close.

Absentee ballots are counted by being put through a tabulator at polling places on Election Day. To be counted, the envelope must include a signature from the voter along with one from a witness and the witness’s address.

They also can be processed at what’s known as a “central count” location, common in larger municipalities, such as Milwaukee.

To vote on Election Day, Wisconsin residents must show a photo ID that meets state standards when checking in at a polling place. State law does not authorize or require a voter’s signature to be verified.

At each polling place, there normally are seven election inspectors led by a chief inspector who is coordinated by the municipal clerk. Municipal clerks also can appoint tabulators to help count votes.

The group of inspectors normally includes Democrats and Republicans. Under state law, the party that garnered the most votes in the territory covered by the polling place during non-presidential election years “is entitled to one more inspector than the party receiving the next largest number of votes at each polling place.”

Wisconsin has a three-step process for certifying elections.

After polls close and ballots have been entered into the machines for voting, poll workers convene their “board of local canvassers.” Anyone, including the media, may observe and record the proceedings from a designated area.

Municipal clerks transmit results to Wisconsin’s 72 county clerks, who are required to post unofficial results on their websites. Wisconsin doesn’t have a statewide system for reporting unofficial results on Election Night, and there isn’t a central official website where results will be reported.

People vote early at a polling site at the Warner Park recreation center in Madison, Wis., on Oct. 30, 2024. Scott Olson/Getty Images

“The municipality, or the county, on behalf of the municipality, is responsible for ballot retention post-Election Day,” a spokesperson for the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission told The Epoch Times. “The two entities would need to work together to determine which option is best.”

Counties have 14 days to transmit their certified results to the state.

This year, that’s Nov. 19.

The state elections commission will canvass the election and report the state’s official results by Dec. 1.

Michigan

Michigan has 15 electoral votes and more than 8.4 million registered voters.

The state uses all paper ballots, which are fed into a tabulator in each precinct to calculate the results, Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini told The Epoch Times.

Michigan law allows so-called “poll watchers” to be present in a designated public viewing area where they can observe the process at a polling place, early voting site, or place where absentee voter ballots are being processed. 

Early in-person voting is open at regional sites within each county for a minimum of nine days and for up to 28 days ending on Nov. 3.

Counties were allowed to start the early-voting period as late as Oct. 26.

Early votes are tabulated when cast, Forlini said.

Absentee ballots are received and stored securely by township clerks, he said.

Workers process absentee ballots for the 2024 general election at Huntington Place in Detroit on Oct. 29, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

To be counted, mailed absentee ballots must be received by the voter’s local clerk by 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Ballots returned by military and overseas voters must be postmarked by Nov. 5 and received within six days after Election Day.

As of Nov. 2 at 7 a.m., nearly 2.8 million voters—about 38 percent of the electorate—had voted early or returned an absentee ballot. The numbers are updated online daily by the state.

Cities and townships can provide written notice to the secretary of state and begin processing and tabulating absentee ballots early. But totaling the vote count and generating, printing or reporting election results isn’t allowed before 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Some counties have a centralized absentee-vote-counting center, according to Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown. 

Polls close at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

At that time, precinct officials—including at least two Republicans and two Democrats—will canvass the election to ensure that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who received a ballot, Forlini said.

Precinct officials then print results from the tabulator, remove the computer memory stick that was locked into the tabulator, and seal both, along with their paperwork, in three tamper-proof envelopes. 

One is directed to the county clerk. One goes to a probate judge. And one remains with the local clerk, according to Forlini.

Ballots are placed in sealed containers, and the serial number of the seal is recorded in the ballot book. Ballots remain with the local clerk, Forlini said.

Precinct results are then delivered to the county clerk.

Some counties, such as Macomb, deliver them in person. Others, including Oakland, do so by modem, using an air-gap computer that has not been connected to the internet.

In an October interview on CBS, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson estimated that unofficial election results for her state will be available by the end of the day on Nov. 6.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 11, 2024. Bonnie Cash/Getty Images

But Michigan’s results remain unofficial until the Board of State Canvassers audits them and certifies the election.

That county-level canvass process begins the day after Election Day and must be completed within two weeks. This year, the deadline is Nov. 19.

The Board of State Canvassers meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Nov. 22. The meeting will be livestreamed.

Under Michigan law, the state must canvass and certify the election results no later than the 20th day after the election, which falls on Nov. 25 this year.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has 19 electoral votes and a little more than 9 million registered voters.

Oct. 21 was the last day to register to vote in Pennsylvania. In 2020, slightly more than 76 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the presidential election.

The period for “early on-demand voting” differs by county. The deadline to apply for a “no-excuse mail-in” or absentee ballot was Oct. 29 at 5 p.m. Some locations accepting those ballots in person had already closed before Oct. 29.

The deadline to return a mail-in or absentee ballot is 8 p.m. on Nov. 5. Pennsylvania law requires voters to return their own ballots. A voter with a disability may use a form to designate someone else to deliver his or her ballot.

Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania law prevents counties from opening any ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, when voting starts at more than 9,100 polling places.

On the morning of Election Day, Pennsylvania poll workers can begin counting mail-in ballots.

They’ll begin counting in-person ballots when polls close at 8 p.m. Poll workers will continue counting into the next day, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State.

Poll watchers from political parties with candidates on the ballot can observe the counting. The locations for vote tabulation vary by county.

In Philadelphia County, home to more than 1.1 million voters, ballot tabulation will take place at the Philadelphia City Commissioners Office & Election Warehouse, a spokesman for the Philadelphia City Commission told The Epoch Times in an email. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections, led by three city commissioners, will count the ballots, he said.

A person drops off a mail-in ballot in Doylestown, Pa., on Oct. 15, 2024. Registered voters in Pennsylvania can vote “on demand” by requesting a mail-in or absentee ballot, filling it out, and dropping it off all in one visit to their county election office or other designated location. Hannah Beier/Getty Images

Each county must submit the initial results to Pennsylvania’s Department of State by 3 a.m. on Nov. 6.

Unofficial results will be published online starting after 8 p.m. on Election Night and will be updated periodically.

The county boards will meet to canvass the election results by 9 a.m. on Nov. 8. During that process, they’ll reconcile results to ensure the number of people who voted in each precinct matches the number of ballots.

Election officials also will check provisional ballots and process those that are eligible to be counted. By 5 p.m. on Nov. 12, counties must submit their results to the Department of State. Military-overseas ballots must be delivered by that time.

By Nov. 25, counties must certify their election results. After reviewing them, Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt will certify election results statewide.

By Dec. 11, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro must sign a certificate of ascertainment, appointing electors. At noon on Dec. 17, those electors meet at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg to vote for the new president and vice president.

North Carolina

North Carolina has 16 electoral votes and almost 7.8 million registered voters.

As of Nov. 1, more than 4.1 million ballots had been cast. That’s about 53 percent.

In-person early voting started in all 100 counties on Oct. 17 and ended on Nov. 2 at 3 p.m.

On the first day, a record 353,166 ballots were accepted at polling sites statewide, according to preliminary North Carolina State Board of Elections data.

That surpassed the previous first-day record set in 2020 by 1.3 percent.

A long line of potential voters wait outside an early voting site in Asheville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Several counties affected by Hurricane Helene had a large voter turnout on the first day of early voting. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

By Election Day in 2020, when the state went for Trump, about 65 percent of North Carolinians had cast their ballots.

That was up from 62 percent of voters casting early ballots in 2016. Trump won the state’s electoral college votes that year, too.

This year, the state’s official voter registration deadline was Oct. 11. But any voters providing acceptable photo identification will be allowed to register and vote during early voting.

North Carolinians were able to request absentee ballots online or in person through Oct. 29. The deadline was extended until 5 p.m. on the day before Election Day for active military families or U.S. citizens outside the United States.

North Carolina absentee voting has been adjusted since Hurricane Helene ravaged the western part of the state on Sept. 28. Now, voters from the 25 counties hit hardest by Helene’s flooding and mudslides can return absentee ballots to any early voting site during early voting.

Those counties are Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Clay, Cleveland, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancey.

The State Board of Elections website offers detailed information for voters affected by the disaster.

North Carolina also provides detailed information online about the state’s voting procedures designed to protect election integrity, including the staffing of two “judges” from at least two different political parties at each site. Additionally, the chair of each political party in a county can appoint observers to monitor early voting and Election Day voting.

On Election Day, voters without the required photo ID still can vote by filling out a form explaining why they don’t have identification, or by casting a provisional ballot and showing valid identification at their county board of elections office by 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

After the polls close in North Carolina on Election Night at 7:30 p.m., the counting of all received ballots begins. Results are updated every 5 to 10 minutes online as they are approved by county boards of elections.

But results still will be unofficial.

A voter checks her information while checking in for early voting in Hendersonville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

The day after the election, bipartisan teams at every county board of elections will conduct an open-to-the-public hand-count audit to ensure voting equipment recorded voters’ choices accurately, according to the state board of elections.

The state board of elections chooses two groups of ballots to count from each county, either from individual precincts or early voting sites, or all the absentee ballots cast in a county. The state tells each county which groups to count. Examined in the audit is always the top contest on the ballot—this year, the presidential race.

Also counted are absentee by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 5 and those received from military members serving overseas. They can arrive as late as 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

Each county board is scheduled to certify results in open-to-the-public meetings 10 days after the election on Nov. 15. The State Board of Elections is scheduled to meet on Nov. 26 at 11 a.m. to certify the election results.

Georgia

Georgia has 16 electoral votes and more than 8.2 million registered voters.

The deadline to register to vote was Oct. 7.

Early voting began on Oct. 15 and ended on Nov. 1. And Day 1 smashed records, according to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

More than 310,000 cast ballots, he said, up from 136,739 on the first day of voting in the 2020 presidential election and up from 134,962 on Day 1 of voting in the 2022 midterms.

As of Nov. 2, more than 4 million ballots had been cast either in person or by mail and numbers were being updated periodically online. That’s 55.3 percent turnout.

On Election Day, polls will be open in the state from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

Voters not able to show valid identification to poll workers can vote by provisional ballot and will have three days to resolve questions of eligibility. Any voters in line by 7 p.m. still will be allowed to vote.

Georgia’s State Election Board voted 3–2 on Sept. 20 to establish a rule requiring ballots to be hand-counted on the evening of the election after the polls close. But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney blocked that rule on Oct. 15, saying the change was “too much, too late.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holds up a mobile device during a news conference at the State Capitol in Atlanta on Oct. 23, 2024. Alex Wong/Getty Images

McBurney also repeated criticisms that others, including Raffensperger, had leveled at the change—that there were no procedures in place under the new hand-count rule, and that the counting process would result in delays that would undermine voter confidence in the results.

Absentee ballots are verified in Georgia by elections workers as they are received. Information on each ballot is cross-checked with an official photo ID on file with the state, according to a spokesman for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

On Election Day, elections workers will begin tabulating early and absentee ballots at 7 a.m., the spokesman said. Absentee ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Nov. 5 to be counted, he said.

When the polls close, each poll station manager, accompanied by two poll officers serving as witnesses, will record the number of ballots scanned and generate three paper “tapes,” receipts with election results from each scanner. 

One tape is affixed to the polling station’s door for public view. Another is stored in an envelope, along with the memory card with scanning machine data to be sent to the county election superintendent. The third tape is stored in an envelope along with a polling recap form. 

All the voting data—the scanner memory card, the paper ballots, the voting machine access cards voters use to operate voting machines, and electronic poll books with voter information—are placed in sealed containers.

These are delivered to the county election superintendent by the poll manager and at least one other poll worker or law enforcement officer.

Georgia state law requires that results from precincts are consolidated by the county election superintendent and counted in public view.

The rules say that the counting “shall not cease” until the results are all tabulated, barring an emergency. The results are then reported to the secretary of state.

Lee County poll workers look for watermarks on voting paper during poll worker training in Leesburg, Ga., on Oct. 2, 2024. Becca Milfeld/AFP via Getty Images

In 2020 a water leak, originally reported as a burst pipe, led to a counting delay of several hours at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena polling station in Fulton County.

After the election, paper ballots are stored by the clerk of the county superior court with other county records. If there is no contest to the election they may be destroyed after two years.

State rules require each county election board to meet by 3 p.m. the Friday after the election, this year on Nov. 8, to conduct a review of precinct returns.

The election must be certified by 5 p.m. on the Monday after Election Day. This year, that Monday is Veterans Day. So the deadline will be extended to the next day, Nov. 12.

But even the certification deadline is the subject of a legal battle in Georgia.

McBurney ruled on Oct. 15 that election officials cannot refuse to certify results by the required deadline, even if they suspect fraud.