We're sure we know what we're talking about!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2024

All too often, we don't: We the people are often quite sure we know what we're talking about.

All too often, we don't! Consider something which happened just yesterday on C-Span's Washington Journal.

During the 8 o'clock hour, Charlie Cook—he of the Cook Political Report—was the guest for a full segment. In his initial assessment of this year's election, he downplayed the idea that Trump had won in a landslide. He also suggested that Trump's relatively narrow victory margin might not constitute some sort of clearcut "mandate."

(Regarding the lack of an obvious "mandate," he said the same thing about Biden's 4.5-point victory margin back in 2020.)

The very first caller was able to see right through what Charlie was selling! She was thoroughly sure of herself, and she basically didn't seem to know what she was talking about:

MODERATOR (11/24/24): Let's get to your calls with questions for Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report. We'll start with Henrietta in Fort Pierce, Florida, on our line for Republicans.

HENRIETTA FROM FLORIDA: Yes. Hi, good morning. I think this gentleman is just giving us lots of drivel. This was a mandate. Three hundred and sixteen [sic] electoral votes? Puh-leeze! When's the last time someone got that? 

In addition to that, it's been twenty-plus years since a Republican won the popular vote. In addition to that, this was a statement from America as a whole that we rejected everything that the Democrats have done for the past four years.

MODERATOR: So Henrietta, before we get to your question for Charlie, I do just want to point out that Trump won 312 electoral college votes, not 316.

To the hear the phone call, click here, then jump ahead to the 13-minute mark.

Forget the minor error concerning the precise number of electoral votes. Forget the absurdity of the claim that "America as a whole" has issued the denunciation the caller described—in an election which Candidate Trump won, on a nationwide basis, by only 1.6 points, with slightly more than half the electorate voting for someone else.

This highly self-assured C-Span caller was full of vinegar this day. We were most struck by the rhetorical question in which she hoped to prove that the election had produced a mandate. Her question went like this:

Three hundred and sixteen [sic] electoral votes? Puh-leeze! When's the last time someone got that? 

When's the last time someone got that? Let's take a look at the record:

Electoral votes, winning candidate
1992:  370 (Clinton)
1996:  379 (Clinton)
2000:  271 (Bush)
2004:  286 (Bush)
2008:  365 (Obama)
2012:  332 (Obama)
2016:  304 (Trump)
2020: 306 (Biden)
2024: 312 (Trump)

When's the last time someone got that? Bill Clinton exceeded the number in each of his elections. So did Barack Obama. A bit farther back in time, Reagan got 525 electoral votes in 1984. Bush the elder got 426 four years later.

The caller was thoroughly sure of herself. She knew that Cook's assessments were ridiculous drivel.

That said, she didn't seem to know her brief—nor was she ever corrected on this particular point. Neither Cook nor the C-Span moderator noted the actual facts of this particular case. 

The caller was full of tribal certainty. Also, she was wrong. 

Especially under current arrangements, it's frequently like that in Red America—but also, alas, Over Here!