Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Millions of voters will be very sore losers, either way, poll shows

2020 election

Trump and Biden supporters are equally likely to say they will not accept the results of the election if their candidate loses.

Kyle Rivas/Getty Images

The intensity of the presidential campaign appears to be creating a huge number of sore losers in waiting.

More than two out of every five supporters of President Donald Trump, and of former Vice President Joe Biden, say in a survey out Sunday that they will not accept the results of the coming election if their candidate is defeated. And decent numbers in both camps say they're prepared to protest a result they don't like.

The numbers from the new Reuters/Ipsos poll provide fresh evidence of the fragility of American electoral democracy, which has relied for more than two centuries on the losers deciding the election was fair enough to peacefully accept the outcome.


The survey pegged at 43 percent the share of Biden supporters who would not accept a Trump victory, with 22 percent of the Democratic nominee's backers saying they would engage in street demonstrations or even violence if he loses.

The president's camp was almost as impassioned: 41 percent said they would not accept a Biden win and 16 percent said they would protest if they're told the Republican has lost re-election.

The degree of distrust in the outcome raises the stakes anew for those cautioning patience in eight days. Definitive results from many of the Electoral College battlegrounds may not be known on election night if the contest remains as close in those states as polling suggests. That is not because the sort of cheating that Trump baselessly allegess is surely coming, but because of legally required delays in processing and tabulating the record numbers of ballots being returned by mail in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Confusion and skepticism about delayed results is just one of the many challenges that have amplified concerns about the public's confidence in the result.

Russian attempts to hack into election systems during the 2016 campaign heightened concerns about the legitimacy of the 2020 vote long before the first ballots were cast. The pandemic then prompted most states to relax at least some rules for mail voting — which has prompted a steady diet of unsubstantiated claims by Trump that absentee ballot fraud will rob him of a second term.

During his campaign rally Sunday in New Hampshire, for example, Trump went on another long diatribe in which he claimed that mail-in ballots that had been requested by voters are OK — while those being proactively sent to voters are highly problematic. (Of the 10 states where that's happening, only Nevada is competitive in the presidential race.)

"The ballots get handled by many, many people by the time they even get there and it shouldn't be allowed," Trump said. "And the Democrats know it's a hoax and they know and it's going to cause problems."

Last week top national security officials warned that Russia and Iran had been attempting to hack into U.S. voting systems and looking for other ways to undermine confidence in the election.

Trump also has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if the vote count shows him to be losing.

A poll released three weeks ago, by Politico and Morning Consult, found most voters do not expect to know who won the presidential contest on election night. Only a small majority in that survey thought the election would be fair, and three-fourths expressed concern about violent post-election protests.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was of 2,649 adults the week ending Oct. 20 — including 1,039 who said they had voted for Trump or were planning to vote for him and 1,153 similarly behind Biden. The margin of error was 4 percentage points.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less