This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Democrats and liberal pundits are already trying to figure out how the Trump campaign not only bested Kamala Harris in the “Blue Wall” states of the Midwest and the Rust Belt, but gained on her even in areas that should have been safe for a Democrat. Almost everywhere, Donald Trump expanded his coalition, and this time, unlike in 2016, he didn’t have to thread the needle of the Electoral College to win: He can claim the legitimacy of winning the popular vote.

Trump’s opponents are now muttering about the choice of Tim Walz, the influence of the Russians, the role of the right-wing media, and whether President Joe Biden should not have stepped aside in favor of Harris. Even the old saw about “economic anxiety” is making a comeback.

These explanations all have some merit, but mostly, they miss the point. Yes, some voters still stubbornly believe that presidents magically control the price of basic goods. Others have genuine concerns about immigration and gave in to Trump’s booming call of fascism and nativism. And some of them were just never going to vote for a woman, much less a Black woman.

But in the end, a majority of American voters chose Trump because they wanted what he was selling: a nonstop reality show of rage and resentment. Some Democrats, still gripped by the lure of wonkery, continue to scratch their heads over which policy proposals might have unlocked more votes, but that was always a mug’s game. Trump voters never cared about policies, and he rarely gave them any. (Choosing to be eaten by a shark rather than electrocuted might be a personal preference, but it’s not a policy.) His rallies involved long rants about the way he’s been treated, like a giant therapy session or a huge family gathering around a bellowing, impaired grandpa.

Back in 2021, I wrote a book about the rise of “illiberal populism,” the self-destructive tendency in some nations that leads people to participate in democratic institutions such as voting while being hostile to democracy itself, casting ballots primarily to punish other people and to curtail everyone’s rights—even their own. These movements are sometimes led by fantastically wealthy faux populists who hoodwink gullible voters by promising to solve a litany of problems that always seem to involve money, immigrants, and minorities. The appeals from these charlatans resonate most not among the very poor, but among a bored, relatively well-off middle class, usually those who are deeply uncomfortable with racial and demographic changes in their own countries.

And so it came to pass: Last night, a gaggle of millionaires and billionaires grinned and applauded for Trump. They were part of an alliance with the very people another Trump term would hurt—the young, minorities, and working families among them.

Trump, as he has shown repeatedly over the years, couldn’t care less about any of these groups. He ran for office to seize control of the apparatus of government and to evade judicial accountability for his previous actions as president. Once he is safe, he will embark on the other project he seems to truly care about: the destruction of the rule of law and any other impediments to enlarging his power.

Americans who wish to stop Trump in this assault on the American constitutional order, then, should get it out of their heads that this election could have been won if only a better candidate had made a better pitch to a few thousand people in Pennsylvania. Biden, too old and tired to mount a proper campaign, likely would have lost worse than Harris; more to the point, there was nothing even a more invigorated Biden or a less, you know, female alternative could have offered. Racial grievances, dissatisfaction with life’s travails (including substance addiction and lack of education), and resentment toward the villainous elites in faraway cities cannot be placated by housing policy or interest-rate cuts.

No candidate can reason about facts and policies with voters who have no real interest in such things. They like the promises of social revenge that flow from Trump, the tough-guy rhetoric, the simplistic “I will fix it” solutions. And he’s interesting to them, because he supports and encourages their conspiracist beliefs. (I knew Harris was in trouble when I was in Pennsylvania last week for an event and a fairly well-off business owner, who was an ardent Trump supporter, told me that Michelle Obama had conspired with the Canadians to change the state’s vote tally in 2020. And that wasn’t even the weirdest part of the conversation.)

As Jonathan Last, editor of The Bulwark, put it in a social-media post last night: The election went the way it did “because America wanted Trump. That’s it. People reaching to construct [policy] alibis for the public because they don’t want to grapple with this are whistling past the graveyard.” Last worries that we might now be in a transition to authoritarianism of the kind Russia went through in the 1990s, but I visited Russia often in those days, and much of the Russian democratic implosion was driven by genuinely brutal economic conditions and the rapid collapse of basic public services. Americans have done this to themselves during a time of peace, prosperity, and astonishingly high living standards. An affluent society that thinks it is living in a hellscape is ripe for gulling by dictators who are willing to play along with such delusions.

The bright spot in all this is that Trump and his coterie must now govern. The last time around, Trump was surrounded by a small group of moderately competent people, and these adults basically put baby bumpers and pool noodles on all the sharp edges of government. This time, Trump will rule with greater power but fewer excuses, and he—and his voters—will have to own the messes and outrages he is already planning to create.

Those voters expect that Trump will hurt others and not them. They will likely be unpleasantly surprised, much as they were in Trump’s first term. (He was, after all, voted out of office for a reason.) For the moment, some number of them have memory-holed that experience and are pretending that his vicious attacks on other Americans are just so much hot air.

Trump, unfortunately, means most of what he says. In this election, he has triggered the unfocused ire and unfounded grievances of millions of voters. Soon we will learn whether he can still trigger their decency—if there is any to be found.

Related:

What Trump understood, and Harris did not Democracy is not over.

Here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

George T. Conway III: What we’re in for Voters wanted lower prices at any cost. Blame Biden, Tyler Austin Harper argues. Trump won. Now what?

Today’s News

The Republicans have won back control of the Senate. Votes are still being counted in multiple House races that could determine which party controls the House. Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a concession speech at Howard University, emphasizing that there will be a peaceful transfer of power. In an interview on Fox News, a Trump spokesperson said that Trump plans to launch “the largest mass-deportation operation of illegal immigrants” on his first day in office.

Dispatches

Work in Progress: “Trump’s victory is a reverberation of trends set in motion in 2020,” Derek Thompson writes. “In politics, as in nature, the largest tsunami generated by an earthquake is often not the first wave but the next one.”

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

OK McCausland for The Atlantic

The Night They Hadn’t Prepared For

By Elaine Godfrey

The vibe shifted sometime around 10:30 p.m. Eastern.

For several hours beforehand, the scene at the Howard University Yard had been jubilant: all glitter and sequins and billowing American flags. The earrings were big, and the risers were full. Men in fraternity jackets and women in pink tweed suits grooved to a bass-forward playlist of hip-hop and classic rock. The Howard gospel choir, in brilliant-blue robes, performed a gorgeous rendition of “Oh Happy Day,” and people sang along in a way that made you feel as if the university’s alumna of the hour, Kamala Harris, had already won.

But Harris had not won—a fact that, by 10:30, had become very noticeable.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Watching the Blue Wall crumble There is no constitutional mandate for fascism. The Democrats’ dashed hopes in Iowa The tyranny of the election needle

Culture Break

Collection Christophel / Alamy

Watch. These six movies and shows provide a thoughtful or hopeful break if you need a distraction this week.

Adapt. Baseball is a summer sport—and it’s facing big questions about how it will be affected by climate change, Ellen Cushing writes.

Play our daily crossword.

Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

This time, the nation was on notice. Back in 2016, those of us who supported Donald Trump at least had the excuse of not knowing how sociopathy can present itself, and we at least had the conceit of believing that the presidency was not just a man, but part of an institution greater than the man, with legal and traditional mechanisms to make sure he’d never go off the rails.

By 2020, after the chaos, the derangement, and the incompetence, we knew a lot better. And most other Americans did too, voting him out of office that fall. And when his criminal attempt to steal the election culminated in the violence of January 6, their judgment was vindicated.

So there was no excuse this year. We knew all we needed to know, even without the mendacious raging about Ohioans eating pets, the fantasizing about shooting journalists and arresting political opponents as “enemies of the people,” even apart from the evidence presented in courts and the convictions in one that demonstrated his abject criminality.

We knew, and have known, for years. Every American knew, or should have known. The man elected president last night is a depraved and brazen pathological liar, a shameless con man, a sociopathic criminal, a man who has no moral or social conscience, empathy, or remorse. He has no respect for the Constitution and laws he will swear to uphold, and on top of all that, he exhibits emotional and cognitive deficiencies that seem to be intensifying, and that will only make his turpitude worse. He represents everything we should aspire not to be, and everything we should teach our children not to emulate. The only hope is that he’s utterly incompetent, and even that is a double-edged sword, because his incompetence often can do as much as harm as his malevolence. His government will be filled with corrupt grifters, spiteful maniacs, and morally bankrupt sycophants, who will follow in his example and carry his directives out, because that’s who they are and want to be.

[Tyler Austin Harper: Blame Biden]

I say all of this not in anger, but in deep and profound sorrow. For centuries, the United States has been a beacon of democracy and reasoned self-government, in part because the Framers understood the dangers of demagogues and saw fit to construct a system with safeguards to keep such men from undermining it, and because our people and their leaders, out of respect for the common good and the people of this country, adhered to its rules and norms. The system was never perfect, but it inched toward its own betterment, albeit in fits and starts. But in the end, the system the Framers set up—and indeed, all constitutional regimes, however well designed—cannot protect a free people from themselves.

My own hope and belief about what would transpire last night was sadly and profoundly wrong—like many, I have the emotional and intellectual flaw, if that’s what it is, of assuming that people are wiser and more decent than they actually turn out to be. I feel chastened—distraught—about my apparently naive view of human nature.

I dare not predict the future again, particularly as it comes to elections and other forms of mass behavior. But I daresay I fear we shall see a profound degradation in the ability of this nation to govern itself rationally and fairly, with freedom and political equality under the rule of law. Because that is not actually a prediction. It’s a logical deduction based on the words and deeds of the president-elect, his enablers, and his supporters—and a long and often sorry record of human history. Let us brace ourselves.

The biggest risk our democracy faces this election is whether the votes cast will even matter. Any number of scenarios could play out. Ballots could be (and in fact have already been) lit on fire, or the courts could intervene to throw out votes. But the possibility we should fear the most is the one we still have a chance to prevent: the United States Congress overturning the election.

Donald Trump in 2020 and early 2021 tried to use Congress to do just this, but he also tried so much else that remembering the details is hard. The details, however, are important. Trump’s desperation after losing the election led him to push to disallow votes everywhere he could—browbeating state legislatures, local election boards, state courts, federal courts, and ultimately the U.S. Congress on January 6. It all failed spectacularly, but that was an amateur effort, and one that would have required near-perfect execution to succeed. Joe Biden had won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, meaning that Trump would have had to overturn the results in several states to become president.

This time, the election results might be closer. A tight margin would allow Trump to play in all of the same fora as last time, and now with people who have spent years developing the art of the steal. Even if Trump loses every court case, every attempt to persuade a state governor or state legislature to toss out the popular vote, and every maneuver to try to pressure state and local officials, he may yet use Congress as a backup plan.

[Tyler Austin Harper: Of course Black men are drifting toward Trump]

This is, I suspect, the “big secret” Trump mentioned this week, with a grin, to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. It’s a secret only because Trump wants to keep it in his back pocket, but it may be quite similar to what he attempted last time. Under laws passed by Congress, including the Electoral Count Act and the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act, here’s what is supposed to happen:

On January 6, 2025, the House and Senate are to assemble to watch as electoral votes from each state are opened and counted. If a member of Congress has an objection to the vote from any particular state, the objection must be signed by at least 20 percent of the members of both chambers for it to be taken up. Only two categories of objections are permissible: if a state’s electors were not “lawfully certified” (such as if a state certified a fake slate of electors), or if an elector’s vote for a candidate was not “regularly given” (such as if the electors were bribed, voted for an ineligible candidate, or voted in the wrong manner). Otherwise, Congress is to treat a governor’s certification of a slate as “conclusive.” If the 20 percent threshold is met in both chambers, the issue will be debated for up to two hours. Afterward, both the House and the Senate must vote. The objection is sustained if a simple majority supports it in both chambers. If a simple majority in both chambers agrees with an objection to the appointment of a state’s electors as not “lawfully certified,” then that state is excluded from the Electoral College, altering the denominator in the College. (If a particular elector is struck under the “regularly given” provision, by contrast, the denominator does not change.) This means that the number of votes needed to win in the Electoral College drops accordingly when a state’s electors are struck for not being “lawfully certified.” For example, if an objection to Pennsylvania’s slate were sustained, the state’s 19 electoral votes would be eliminated, and winning the presidency would take 260 electoral votes instead of 270.

Congress’s 2022 Reform Act was intended to reduce opportunities for mischief, but even so, mischief may yet emerge. For example, what does “lawfully certified” mean? If Trump claims that undocumented immigrants voted in a state, does that mean the state’s vote was not “lawfully certified”? What about claims that absentee ballots were wrongly counted? Or that ballots arrived late?

The answer to all of these is an unequivocal no. Lawfully certified has long had a much more precise and technical meaning about procedure—simply whether the state’s governor has certified the vote. That narrowness has led some to say that there is nothing to fear, especially because Congress has tightened the rules in the 2022 act and made it harder for Congress to second-guess election results. I very much hope that’s right. It should be right. It is right. But we are living in a world where the whole enterprise and meaning of law is contested, and where politicians stretch laws past their breaking point. James Madison warned us about this in The Federalist Papers, calling law a mere “parchment barrier.” This time, the parchment may not hold.

Here’s how the nightmare scenario could play out. Imagine the election puts Kamala Harris in the lead, with 277 to Trump’s 261 votes. Further imagine that part of that lead comes from Pennsylvania. And then imagine that Pennsylvania decides to count mail-in ballots that are missing the required handwritten date on the envelope. Trump then challenges that practice, claiming that the Pennsylvania legislature has set rules that forbid counting those ballots. He goes through the Pennsylvania courts, all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which rejects his challenge and allows the ballots to be counted. Trump then goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also rejects his challenge.

Although that should be the end of the madness, it may not be. On January 6, one-fifth of the House and one-fifth of the Senate can claim that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted improperly by counting these ballots, in defiance of state law. They can assert that they have the right to interpret the law independently, and that Pennsylvania has acted lawlessly. The good news here is that Congress in 2022 foreclosed that independent congressional-determination route, and said that court decisions are binding on Congress when it acts on January 6. But there is room for tendentious arguments about what Congress actually legislated, and some (including Senator Ted Cruz) have already said they believe that the 2022 act is unconstitutional. So despite Congress’s very strong 2022 efforts in this regard, an unprincipled House and Senate could try to assert these powers. The assertion of such powers would be bogus, but a debate on the floor would then ensue, and if a raw majority of the House and Senate sustain the objection—no matter how specious it is—Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes would be struck, leaving 258 electoral votes for Harris and 260 for Trump. Trump would then be declared the president.

Such a decision could and should be contested in court, and challenged all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where the challenge should win. Congress would be defying the parts of the 2022 law that tightly restricted the types of objections, as well as provisions in the law that make court determinations conclusive on Congress. The question is, if Congress acts lawlessly, what will the Supreme Court do about it? Some are pointing to the Court’s recent decision to permit Virginia to strike 1,600 individuals from the voting rolls as evidence of its politicization, but defenders of the Court can point to the fact that it stayed out of the mischief in 2020, with hopes that it will act responsibly again in this go-round. The situations are, however, different. The 2020 request was on the part of the mischief makers, asking for the Court to affirmatively intervene in Trump’s favor—something the Court was apparently loath to do. This time, nonintervention favors Trump. The Court can say it is acting neutrally by not hearing the case and, by doing so, effectively hand the presidency to Trump in defiance of the will of the people.

[Read: The Democratic theory of winning with less]

The Supreme Court, of course, is fully capable of realizing the difference between affirmatively intervening in 2020 (where it was being asked to facilitate Trump’s theft of the election) and 2024 (where it would be asked to prevent such a thing). A decision to stay out in the face of congressional lawlessness should be unthinkable. And let us hope that it is (recall the Court just last year in Moore v. Harper rejected, by a 6–3 vote, a Republican Party theory that would have given it an immense advantage in federal elections). But just in case, one important thing must be done to prevent this nightmare from unfolding: vote.

If as a result of the vote on November 5, Harris claims a decisive victory in the Electoral College, then there is little to fear, much as Trump might try to fight it. And even if the Electoral College is close, remember that Americans also vote for the House and the Senate on November 5. And the new House and Senate, not the existing ones, will make all of the decisions outlined above on January 6, 2025. If the Democrats control the House, or hold the Senate, this divided government will prevent the nightmare scenario from coming to fruition. And even if the Republicans control both houses in 2025, electing people who will honor the language and purpose of the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act—which, again, was written to prevent this scenario—will put an end to the madness.

So when you vote, vote for candidates who will ensure that the will of the people will govern. James Madison in “Federalist No. 55” reminds us that the “degree of depravity in mankind … requires a certain degree of … distrust,” but “there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” Republican government, Madison went on, depends on the latter. Let us pray that those qualities lead Americans to the polls on Tuesday and, once there, that they vote to protect our democracy.