Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voters prepared for delay in election results, poll finds

election ballots

A new poll finds most voters don't expect to know the results of the presidential race on election night.

George Frey/Getty Images

If the winner of the presidential election is not known on election night, it won't be an alarming surprise to most voters, a new poll shows.

Only 20 percent expect the outcome will be clear the night of Nov. 3, according to polling by Politico and Morning Consult released Monday. Another 19 percent think they'll know the next day if President Trump won re-election or was defeated by former Vice President Joe Biden — with 26 percent anticipating the victor won't be clear for a week and 21 percent thinking the wait will last even longer.

Those numbers are good news for the election officials and good-government groups. They have been working for months to prepare the country for a protracted count if the contest remains close, the totally legitimate consequence of record mail-in voting in battleground states because of the pandemic. Trump says the numbers on election night should be dispositive and that delays mean his baseless predictions of a fraudulent count are coming true.


But other survey results, on an array of issues related to how the election is being conducted, were not as encouraging because they reflect strong levels of apprehension about the electoral process.

Only a small majority anticipates the election will probably or definitely be fair and is even somewhat confident in the Postal Service's ability to handle the unprecedented flood of tens of millions of absentee ballots.

Voters were almost evenly split on whether mail-in ballots would be fairly processed and whether they believe the increased remote voting would result in the sort of "unprecedented fraud" the president has been predicting.

By a large margin, those polled also said they are concerned that:

  • Foreign governments are seeking to influence the election (56 to 35 percent).
  • Technical glitches will cause a miscount of votes (57 to 23 percent).
  • Voting equipment will be hacked (56 to 34 percent).

Perhaps most frightening of all: Three-fourths are concerned there will be violent protests in response to the results of the presidential election, which would be another unprecedented rattling of democratic norms.

Although the Electoral College winner has been clear the last three times, it took until the morning after for President George W. Bush to be sure of re-election in 2004 — and, more famously, five weeks of fighting in Florida and ultimately the Supreme Court for his initial win to be decided in 2000.

Several surveys have shown that most Democrats plan to vote by mail while most Republicans are looking to vote in person. One potential consequence: Election night returns, dominated by reports from polling stations, will suggest a Trump victory. But the subsequent vote totals, as more mailed envelopes are opened and tabulated, will push the majorities more and more toward Biden.

A narrow majority said they were very or somewhat concerned that Trump would declare victory before the results were final. About one-third said the same of Biden.

The poll, of 1,986 registered voters Sept. 25-27, had a 2-point margin of error.


Read More

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

A person holds signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion outside Peace Hall in New Port Richey, Florida on July 18, 2026.

(Thomas Simonetti/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

Don’t look now, but we seem to have a moral panic on our hands.

The term moral panic, at least as a social science concept, is relatively modern. It was coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1972 book “Folk Devils and Moral Panics.” Moral panics emerge when large numbers of people start to freak out about something that doesn’t warrant the freak out.

Keep ReadingShow less
Business owner hanging an open sign at a cafe

Black wealth is rising but the racial wealth gap is widening. From Douglass to Mays to today, the freedom struggle's unfinished business is ownership.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

Salute A True America 250: Black History Lessons on Power Everyone Needs Today

From Emmaus, Pennsylvania and Staten Island to Veterans of Foreign Wars posts in Kansas, Tennessee, N. Carolina and more, as well as the Ohio State Fair's butter cow theme (and deviled egg recipes), the celebration of America 250 continues throughout the rest of the sesquicentennial year.

Added to the recent Sail250 tall ship event culminating in Boston’s harbor attended by millions was part of the country’s s 1776 official birthdate of independence, but the persistent calls for Black freedom of the last two centuries are still ignored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ross Perot

American businessman and politician Ross Perot, Annapolis, Maryland, 1992.

(Photo by Arnold Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

Perot 2.0

On February 20, 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot appeared on Larry King Live and set in motion a significant challenge to the two-party status quo. I’m not asking to be drafted. But if the people want to register me in all 50 states, I’ll promise you this: between now and the conventions we’ll get both parties’ heads straight.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans responded. Volunteers put him on the ballot. By June he was leading in the polls. Even after dropping out of the race for a month (someone should write a book about why he did that), he received 20,000,000 votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States' Constitution and Declaration of Independence on a flag background

The Constitution didn't create American prosperity — geography, immigration, and historical luck did. Here's why that matters for reform debates.

miflippo/Getty Images

The Constitution Did Not Make America Rich

Americans are taught a reassuring story about their country’s success. The United States became prosperous, powerful, and free because the framers wrote an exceptional Constitution. The miracle of Philadelphia produced the miracle of America.

The story appears in classrooms, campaign speeches, judicial opinions, and serious scholarly works. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson have argued that institutions securing property and constraining expropriation help separate rich nations from poor ones. But the popular American version takes that insight and turns it into something much stronger – and misguided: that our prosperity flowed from our particular constitutional design, and that altering it would put the wealth at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less