I don't think talking means that you're weak. I think talking is a tactic in order to get to a goal [...] We need to be able to have these conversations with the Russians.

[...]

Again, I go back to the fact that we had it perfect in terms of peace. We were handed a war, and now we're being criticized of, "well how do you dig us out of a war, and you're not doing it fast enough and you're not doing it fair enough." So we're a little frustrated. //

We articulate very clearly under Donald Trump: We don't do regime change. We are going to deal with the countries that are in front of us. And our criteria is, not how do we make that country better, how do we make America better, stronger, more prosperous for the people here. //

Burns' final question was whether Grenell had plans to run for California Governor in 2026. The audience cheered in approval.

Honestly, it's not in my plans unless Kamala Harris runs for governor. If Kamala runs... If Kamala runs...

You're jumping in? Burns interjected.

I mean, here's the thing: we already know who she is. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to define who Kamala Harris is. If she's going to run, a Republican is going to win and I may not be able to resist trying to run against her.

What you see in the above clip is how the sausage is made for these left-wing legacy media outlets. They were all in for Harris, and what "60 Minutes" did here proves that. CBS News has a lot of explaining to do, and no one should ever trust anything they produce again.

With the Electoral College votes now cast, here is a recap of how Americans voted in 2024. //

Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020. Trump won 3,059,799 more popular votes in 2024 than he won in 2020 and 14,299,293 more than he won in 2016. He now holds the record for the most cumulative popular votes won by any presidential candidate in U.S. history, surpassing Barack Obama. Running three times for the White House obviously helps.

Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. That was 6,285,500 fewer popular votes than Biden won in 2020, but 774,847 more than Trump won in 2020.

More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact. That’s the second largest total voter turnout in U.S. history in absolute terms. It is also just the second time that more than 140 million people voted in a presidential election.

In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900. Nonetheless, turnout in 2024 was still high by modern standards. The 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (63.8 percent) is the only other election in the last 112 years to exceed 63 percent voter turnout. If you are wondering, the election of 1876 holds the record for the highest percentage voter turnout: 82.6 percent. That was one of America’s most controversial and consequential elections—and not in a good way. It was also an election in which more than half the adult-age population was ineligible to vote.

Wisconsin holds the place of pride as the state with the highest voter turnout in 2024—76.93 percent of eligible voters in the Badger State voted. Five of the six battleground states that switched from Biden to Trump saw their turnout exceed the national average; only Arizona (63.6 percent) was below, and then just barely. Hawaii holds the distinction of being the state with the lowest voter turnout. Just 50 percent of Hawaiians voted.

A Landslide Election or Not?

Early election coverage described Trump’s victory as a landslide. But whether you go by the Electoral College vote or the popular vote, it was anything but. The 312 Electoral College votes that Trump won are just six more than Joe Biden won in 2020, twenty less than Barack Obama won in 2012, and fifty-three less than Obama won in 2008. Trump’s Electoral College performance pales in comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s landslide victory in 1936 (523 electoral votes), Lyndon Johnson’s in 1964 (486), Richard Nixon’s in 1972 (520), or Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 (525). In terms of the popular vote, more people voted for someone not named Trump for president than voted for Trump in 2024, and his margin of victory over Harris was 1.5 percentage points. That is the fifth smallest margin of victory in the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900. //

The 2024 election was the tenth presidential election in a row in which the margin of victory in the popular vote was in the single digits. That is a record. The longest prior streak began in 1876, when seven consecutive elections were decided by single digits. The last person to win the presidency by a double-digit margin was Ronald Reagan in 1984. He won by eighteen percentage points. The last time someone won the presidency by more than five percentage points was Barack Obama in 2008. He won by seven percentage points. The bottom line is that whatever one makes of the mandate that Trump did or did not win last month, the United States remains deeply divided politically.

Bonchie
@bonchieredstate
·
Follow
Kamala Harris not knowing all the words to the Pledge of Allegiance is her political career in a nutshell.

1:08 PM · Jan 3, 2025 //

Are you starting to see how Harris not knowing the Pledge of Allegiance is a small indicator of something bigger? She is the emptiest of empty suits, an inauthentic, lazy politician who was handed everything only to finally run into a brick wall when she had to face an entire nation of voters. Watching her stumble during her last days in office is not just poetic. It's a microcosm of her career. //

Manowar
20 minutes ago
Makes no diff how Kamala performs the pledge. She doesn't mean a word of it.

He said that when one of his vice presidents spoke with Harris, Harris arrogantly told her, "You better get on board! You better get on board! Better get on board soon." O'Brien told the story, chuckling in disbelief at that arrogance.

Then, she finally agrees to come to the roundtable after all the pressure from O'Brien. Rank and file members asked questions -- 16 questions. Trump did it. But Harris didn't want to answer them. On the fourth question, O'Brien describes how one of her handlers slips him a note saying, "This will be the last question," ending the session twenty minutes earlier than when it was supposed to. Yikes, she couldn't even make it through 16 questions? But that was typical; she didn't want to be put on the spot, even in what might be friendly environments.

O'Brien then said that her incredible declaration on the way out was, "I'm going to win with you or without you."

Stephanie Ruhle, host of "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, explained recently that Donald Trump was far more accessible as a candidate than Kamala Harris.

So approachable was he that Ruhle decided on a whim to call and ask for an interview, which he promptly declined. But still, he answered the phone. That's the point.

Even if he shot her down in typical Trump fashion.

“If I were to want to connect with VP Harris or President Biden, there’s 50 people between me, and that I could write a note that maybe could get to somebody to get somebody that (through) Pony Express and a pigeon, something might end up in a mailbox near them," Ruhle said in an interview with Lukas Thimm.

Yet, getting in touch with Trump was as easy as picking up her phone and dialing.

Ruhe said she "rolled the dice" and called Trump after the "crazy rally" at Madison Square Garden, "And he answered!”

Geiger Capital
@Geiger_Capital
·
Follow
Absolutely hilarious line from Trump’s TIME Person of the Year interview…

TIME: “Speaking of Kamala. What do you think her worst mistake was in the campaign?”

TRUMP: “Taking the assignment.”
10:53 AM · Dec 12, 2024

“Taking the assignment,” he replied. "Number one. Because you have to know what you are good at."

Tech in RL
10 minutes ago
The scary part is that the Harris campaign treated their staff like Washington bureaucrats, tons of money thrown at them with no accountability. Estimate say Harris spent over $530 million on staff expenses, half the billion dollars they squandered. Trump’s entire campaign expenditure was $385 million with $10 million spent on staff expenses. Trump may have been outspent 3:1, but most of Harris’s money was essentially set on fire for useless expenditures. It’s a wonder how Harris spent 53 times more money on staff than Trump did with far worse results. That’s what we expect of government. //

Skibum
4 minutes ago
As a taxpayer, do you have any hope that Democrats would spend your money any more intelligently than they spend their own?

Didn't think so. //

Random US Citizen
20 minutes ago
So a three month campaign cost $1 billion. Check my math but I think that works out to $300+ million a month, or $10 million per day.

There are numerous reasons for this Trump success. I would say it shows the power of authenticity. Some might not prefer Trump’s blunt, even at times crude style, but no one could honestly say that the billionaire sounds or looks fake. Or addled. Or lost.

Stacked against an opponent who read everything off teleprompters and dodged questions completely or with incomprehensible word salads punctuated by defensive giggles, the familiar executive seemed safer.

Trump also had his own record as proof of accomplishment – strong economy and job growth, enhanced defense posture, reduced taxes, and energy independence, among others.

The Harris campaign organization, which was actually the Biden campaign with a few Harris cronies grafted on, was saddled with the administration’s record of incompetence – inflation, poor job growth, the globally mortifying Afghan exit, and creating, allowing, and even facilitating the open southern border with 10 million-plus illegal-crossers.

She also placed far too much trust in the abortion issue, which she ironically called reproductive rights. Trump easily defused that by pointing out, accurately, that’s now a state issue.

The incumbent vice president attempted to frame herself as an agent of change. But then, on national TV, she was asked what she would have changed in Biden policies. Clueless, she paused, then said nothing came to mind. //

A burst of initial party enthusiasm for Harris that was actually relief over Biden’s departure faded quickly. Like Republicans after their 1964 drubbing by Lyndon Johnson, Democrats are calling now for a thorough campaign autopsy.

Trouble is, the would-be party coroners were all complicit in causing the campaign’s terminal condition.

Republicans need to be wary, though, of over-confidence. Nothing is permanent in U.S. politics. Only four years after Democrats’ decisive 1964 landslide, they lost four of the next five White House elections.

Revealing of the Biden character, besides his chronic lying, is the quiet but obvious undermining of his replacement’s campaign by inserting himself all fall, as if his discarded persona could help.

Joe and Jill can now claim until their deaths that they would have done better on Nov. 5, should anyone care. The good news from such pettiness is we are now forever free politically of both Bidens and Harris.

Taken as a whole, the facts paint a picture of Biden as an embittered man who was elbowed out of the way rather than voluntarily stepping aside. His decision to endorse Kamala in his withdrawal speech locked the Democrats into a convention that was a coronation rather than a contest. As a result, the Democrat king-makers lost their say on who would lead the party in the upcoming campaign and created an electoral Chernobyl that will smolder for years to come.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that, while Kamala Harris was graciously conceding her electoral loss to a man she had insincerely warned was dangerous fascist, she tried to soothe her supporter’s souls by, however inadvertently, quoting one of Hitler’s favorite historians. Absolute perfection.

So yes, after dropping over $1 billion and failing so miserably there will be questions, and a slew of answers, on how this went so poorly – or rather, make that “so disastrously” instead. (“Poorly” is bad form after that lavish spending.) At the Washington Examiner, Gabe Kaminsky looked over some of the financials from the campaign and there are revelations that abound. One issue is with the expanse of payroll, where she managed to outspend Trump at a clip of over $55 million, while his total came in under $10 million; he won while using hundreds fewer employees. //

The campaign dropped $100,000 to build the rather tepid set of the show in a hotel room.

This figure pales when you see other expenses, such as the $15 million dropped on the celebrity-choked election eve rally, but it displays so much of the horrid decision-making. Why did an interview like this need a set built when a couple of cameras would suffice for a podcast format? //

msctex
20 hours ago
They didn't spend it. They laundered it.

Don’t be fooled by Democrats’ uncharacteristic acceptance of election results. It’s their only move right now. //

Earlier on Wednesday, the shrews of “The View” rehearsed the same talking points. “When the person you voted for does not win, you do not say the system must be broken or that it was rigged. You say, ‘It is what it is,'” said Sara Haines. “Unlike Donald Trump and his followers, I acknowledge that he won,” added Ana Navarro.

Of course, they “acknowledge that he won.” After their QUESTIONING ELECTION RESULTS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY rhetoric from the past four years, what the heck other choice do they have? Their “we accept the results” posture started about five minutes ago — or, more precisely, the moment Trump questioned the results of the 2020 election. Before that, Democrats had for decades questioned pretty much every other election they had lost, which were all freer and fairer than 2020, by the way.

2016 is still fresh in Americans’ minds. Here are three minutes (of many) of Democrats calling Donald Trump an “illegitimate president” after that election and saying the contest was “stolen” from Hillary Clinton:

Democrats did the same thing in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, and then again when Bush beat John Kerry four years later, to the point of stalling the Electoral College vote certification. Democrats even spun up a wild conspiracy theory that Karl Rove had colluded with voting machine manufacturers to change vote tallies. Jerry Nadler and other Judiciary Committee Democrats called on the General Accountability Office to investigate whether the machines were used to steal the election.

In 1960, after Hawaii’s governor had initially certified the results for Republican candidate Richard Nixon and a recount was underway, Democrat John F. Kennedy arranged for “alternate electors” (gasp) to be appointed. Sound familiar?

In 2018, Stacey Abrams insisted she had won the race for governor of Georgia against Brian Kemp even though she had lost. There are more examples where these came from. //

Not only did they insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that the 2020 election was the “most secure in American history,” but they also vilified anyone who disagreed as an “election denier.” They labeled Trump a Nazi, a tyrant, and an insurrectionist, and his followers the same.

So they’ve really backed themselves into a corner on election results now. What choice do they have but to concede in 2024?

That’s not the only, or even the primary reason, Kamala Harris and her supporters conceded the election on Wednesday though. They also admitted defeat because they got whooped. Unlike the 2020 election, the margins in 2024 weren’t razor-thin. Trump beat Harris in a landslide.

Robby Starbuck @robbystarbuck
If you weren’t sure Kamala Harris is a rabid ‘spend until we have no money left’ Democrat who would’ve turned our economy into something resembling Cuba or Venezuela, here’s your proof:

• Her campaign had $1 BILLION dollars.
• Her campaign ended with $20 million in debt.
  9:57 PM · Nov 6, 2024

Fake News Filter @Jdanker22
·
1h
I'd love to see how much she paid Jlo, Cardi B, and John Legend for their limp endorsement speeches.

They could have fed the homeless for a whole year or something.
Isn't that how this works?

"There is no point in saying good morning," Pelosi huffed. "Because it certainly is not one."

It's a great morning in America again.

Oh, hey, is Nancy mad that all her machinations just went up in smoke? //

Then listen to "Shark Tank"s "Mr Wonderful," Kevin O'Leary, as he says on Fox News, this is going to do in the influence of not only Pelosi but current Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“The influences of a Schumer or a Pelosi or a movie star or an Obama deciding to anoint somebody—those guys are gone. In four years, they won't have that kind of influence,” O'Leary said: //

Cowboysurfpunk
14 minutes ago
WHOA... Nan's body language is sooo freakin' transparent... she did the "cuthroat", then at the end,.. she raised her hand over Brazil's head,... total power move.. and o/c, the deflection hand moves, that's her trademark..." Don't blame ME! Aunt Donna"...

After disappearing Tuesday night and being a no-show at her planned victory party at Howard University in Washington D.C., Kamala Harris has finally phoned President-elect Donald Trump to concede the election. //

Peachy Keenan
@KeenanPeachy
·
Follow
Kamala was not actually a strong woman. She has zero toughness.

Kamala broke at the first sign of trouble, ran and hid. She cracked like an egg at the first whiff of doom.

A strong female leader would be able to face her supporters, absorb the shock, and project strength even and especially in the toughest moments. TOTAL FAIL
12:10 PM · Nov 6, 2024

The best thing for the country would not be a big or small victory for Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, and their phony “unity” schtick. It wouldn’t even be a razor-thin Trump-Vance win. The best outcome for the health of our nation — and democracy — would be a landslide victory for Donald Trump.

Just Deserts
First, and most importantly, America needs a decisive victory to communicate to Democrat leaders, media propagandists, bureaucratic tyrants, violent rioters, Big Tech censors, race hustlers, and rogue three-letter agencies that their underhanded and often illegal actions will not be rewarded with electoral victory.

No, Democrats don’t deserve to win after waging unprecedented lawfare against their political opponents, from the former president to peaceful pro-life protesters. They don’t deserve to win after turning federal agencies into a Democrat get-out-the-vote hydra. Or after lying about the integrity of the 2020 election and persecuting honest Americans who questioned the procedures and results. Or after inciting racial violence that razed pockets of flyover America and then lying that the rioting and looting was “mostly peaceful.”

Democrats don’t deserve to win after airing blatant and thoroughly debunked propaganda on network television 24/7/365. Or after colluding with Big Tech ... //

Once again, as voting comes to a close, business establishments in America’s urban centers have boarded up their windows, and we all know it isn’t in anticipation of a Harris-Walz win. It’s to minimize the tantrum damage if the Trump-deranged leftist toddlers don’t get their way.

This time around, though, the imagery isn’t just of an unruly child screaming on the floor of a grocery store after being denied a piece of candy. It’s of a kid who taunts and antagonizes his older siblings until they’ve had enough and counterstrike.

It’s that simple, really: Only a Trump blowout will communicate the degree to which Americans are done with Democrats’ dirty tricks. //

Second, for faith in our democratic process, it’s detrimental for Americans not to know the election results on election night. A decisive Trump victory, however, could give us a quick and confidence-boosting conclusion.

The “new normal” of days-long ballot counting isn’t normal at all. //

Delays in vote tallies sow massive distrust in our democratic process. Just four years ago, in the dead of night while most voters and journalists were asleep, something shady happened in Michigan and Wisconsin. As my colleague John Daniel Davidson wrote at the time, in both swing states, Trump led on election night. And in both states, overnight dumps of mail-in ballots went 100 percent for Biden and precisely zero percent for Trump. Those who pointed out this seemingly statistical impossibility on Twitter were censored.

Of course, a landslide Harris victory could produce a quick result too, but there’s one more factor she absolutely can’t deliver best for the American people. //

Finally, Trump’s policies will obviously be better for Americans than Harris’, and we all know it. Despite Democrats attempting to brand Harris as the “change” candidate, we’re living under her “leadership” right now, and it’s a nightmare. //

A Trump victory this week would spare suffering Americans from living in Biden-Harris hell. But the best thing for the country — for justice, democracy, and everyday living — would be not just a win but an absolute blowout.

In an attempt to claw back some of her lost support, Harris recently appeared with Kareem Rahma, a Muslim influencer. During the interview, which was so bad it went unpublished, the vice president made two major mistakes.

The first was a refusal to discuss the war between Israel and Hamas. Surprising no one, Rahma is extremely anti-Israel and was looking for Harris to throw him a bone on the issue. For her to show up and think she could get away with not talking about it is unfathomable for a presidential campaign. It does show the sense of entitlement Harris continually operates with, though.

That wasn't the worst of it, though. Instead of talking about the conflict in the Middle East, Kamala Harris decided to pivot to trying to convince Rahma that "bacon is a spice," noting that it's "pure flavor" when she received pushback.

Yes, she tried to discuss the finer points of how great bacon is with a Muslim. You can't make this stuff up. //

She's a cyborg. I'm convinced of it at this point. Harris was pieced together by scientists using bolts and duct tape. If she wasn't, she'd have been able to have a normal discussion like a human being about something not deeply offensive to the person interviewing her. Recall that this is the same person whose office had to hold a mock cocktail dinner to prep her on how to drink wine and talk to world leaders.

This is what happens when you have an empty suit running for president. Because Harris has never had an original thought in her life, everything is scripted and force-fed to her. That means when the teleprompter goes out, either literally or figurately, she has nowhere to go. That's how you end up with her riffing on bacon while talking to a Muslim. It's laughable. //

HadEnoughYet? 22 minutes ago
The female version of Ron Burgundy.

NBC, backed into a corner over the blatant FCC violation, was forced to throw the GOP nominee a bone. That bone came in the form of two ad spots during Sunday's NASCAR coverage, together with another aired during Sunday Night Football. //

Rain or Shine Colorado 2022
2 hours ago
Hooray for the FCC rule.........amazed it is being followed

As of this writing, it's just two days before the final votes of the 2024 election are cast, and things could not be closer. That is unless you saw the new poll conducted by Ann Selzer in Iowa, which was released on Saturday evening. According to the "gold standard" pollster, Kamala Harris is leading Donald Trump by three points in the Hawkeye State.

For context, Trump won the state by eight points in 2020 against Joe Biden, and it has become solidly red over the last decade. For Harris to be up there at all, much less by three points, is legitimately shocking. Expectedly, the news has Democrats jazzed, with some extrapolating the result nationally and suggesting a landslide is on the way for the vice president. //

To be frank, I don't think Selzer's final offering in Iowa is anywhere close to reality, and there's empirical data to support that viewpoint. For example, the poll has Harris leading with seniors by 19 points. Trump won seniors there by nine points in 2020. The idea that Trump has lost 28 points among seniors in a relatively red state just doesn't compute. //

Further, according to the poll, the top issue for people in Iowa isn't inflation or the economy. It's "democracy." Iowans supposedly also care more about abortion than the economy. //

Lastly, it's worth noting that Selzer had Trump up 14 points just a few months ago. Are we really to believe Iowa, a red state, has shifted 17 points toward the Democrat nominee? I mean, come on.

How did we end up here? Did Ann Selzer release this poll to juice Harris given her long history of being allied with figures like Hillary Clinton, Claire McCaskill, and J.B. Pritzker? I don't know, and I'm not going to go that far. It's possible she genuinely ended up with an outlier and had the guts to go ahead and release it anyway instead of massaging it like some other pollsters would have done. //

Bruce427
8 hours ago edited
When your poll makeup is +3 Democrat in a State that is +8 Republican, you get a Garbage result such as Selzer's. Selzer's "result" is like saying Harris is leading Trump in Texas (which is R+10).

It's meant to be a "suppression poll" designed/calculated to depress Republican turnout (e.g., it's meant to produce the mindset of: What's the use in voting if Harris is up by 5 points?).

Iowa Republicans, don't let this happen!!! Get out and Vote!!!

The Atlas poll (the most accurate in 2020) has Trump up in all 7 swing States (albeit only by .2% in a couple of the Leftist dominated States).

While Harris is up in ... None. //

anon-be74
10 hours ago
Or the fix is in and they are only predicting what will happen as a result of that fix. Maybe not in Iowa but in Pennsylvania, NC etc…. There was an article yesterday about the seismic shift to Harris after the MSG rally. They are planting stories out in the media and they all point in the same direction. That way, after Harris wins (god help us all) they can point to those “outlier” polls as evidence of a massive shift to Harris. No such thing as coincidence. All is planned ahead of time. They will cheat by all means available. //

Scholar
9 hours ago edited
The golden rule in statistics/polling is that when your results don't make sense go back and check the survey instrument and turn it totally upsides down. Selzer is a reputable pollster yet she has either broken the golden rule or she has lost her mind or both. Interestingly, Emerson College poll released on the same day has Trump up by 10%, at 53%-43%. //

anon-x8p1
9 hours ago
Iowa has no use for Kamala Harris. Gaining zero traction in 2010 in Iowa is when she make the choice to drop out before a single pimratry vote was cast or caucus was won.

She knew she would lose her home state California than so she scrambled t take her name off the California ballot to avoid that lasting humiliation.

Harris is selling cow dung if she claims Iowa is wildly in her camp.

Lex Naturae anon-x8p1
9 hours ago
Agreed. Look at what the campaigns actually do, which reveals their relatively-accurate internal polls. And neither candidate is scheduled to be in IA! //

cyberjockey
5 hours ago
Here's my .02 worth. Just consider EVERY SINGLE poll BS. And look at the fact that Trump has been packing venues to overflowing for his rallies, while Harris has to bus in people and is lucky to have a few thousand.

From a Red State article by Ward that had an excerpt of Brit Hume talking about how they used to predict before polls became the "end-all be-all" regarding the state of the race: "You relied on their events, how the events seemed to go, how well-organized they seemed to be. You looked at the response of the audience at these events."

And if you go by those metrics, Trump is killing it at his rallies. And I honestly think that is 100% more accurate than the polls.

If you see Trump filling venues for his rallies, while Harris is struggling to get a few thousand, yet you still believe the polls saying the race is close, maybe it's time to stop watching and listening to all the propaganda media. //

Phantom1973 cyberjockey
5 hours ago
But remember in the last 'fair and free' election there were captured instances where the total vote remained constant and the percentages changed dramatically. Such things happen when you move a 'mouse' prematurely.

But never made the light of day due to 'lack of standing' which the the judicial equivalent of 'hear no evil, see no evil.'

These polls are 'pre-framing' the public for another 'fair and free' repeat.

But forget that ever did or could happen our electronic voting machines are infallible and impenetrable.

How about some oceanfront property in Arizona if you believe that. //

Lex Naturae
10 hours ago edited
Selzer has a checkered history of accuracy. A better guide IMO is the most accurate pollster in 2020, Atlas Intel:

🔴 Arizona - Trump +6
🔴 North Carolina - Trump +3
🔴 Georgia - Trump +2
🔴 Nevada - Trump +5
🔴 Pennsylvania - Trump +2
🔴 Michigan - Trump +2
🔴 Wisconsin - Trump +1

Atlasintel #A - LV - 11/2

Or just start with the RCP polling average: Trump is up by 1.0 percent in the battleground states. RCP was off by 2.7 percent in 2020, in favor of Biden-Harris, so add 2.7 percent. And Trump is up by (roughly) 3.7 percent in the battleground states!