Kamala Harris concedes the election.

Plus, who would I pick as my running mate if I were running for president?

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

Results update.

• Collectively, President-elect Trump leads Vice President Kamala Harris by just over 200,000 votes across the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. However, he leads the popular vote tally by nearly five million ballots. Independent candidates Jill Stein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Chase Oliver collectively received over 1.8 million votes. Roughly 10% of the estimated ballots cast are yet to be counted. 
• Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and Angus King (I-ME) won their Senate races yesterday or this morning. Ruben Gallego (D) leads Kari Lake (R) 50.1%-47.9% with 74% of the votes counted. However, Republicans have now secured 52 seats in the Senate, and Republican Dave McCormick is leading in Pennsylvania. 
• 39 House races have yet to be called. Republicans need ten more House seats to secure a majority, while Democrats need 32. Privately, Democratic insiders are conceding Republicans have a path to expanding their House majority, despite those prospects looking unlikely early on election night.
• A debate is ongoing about how much the black vote changed in 2024, with exit polls showing the 2020-2024 change as non-existent while local results show counties with more black voters moving toward Trump.

Reader mailbag tomorrow.

Part of what we do at Tangle is engage with reader feedback by answering your questions in the daily newsletter. However, over the course of the last week, we’ve had to bump our reader question to provide extended coverage of the election. So tomorrow, we’re going to make up for lost time by answering some reader questions in a members-only Friday edition. If you have anything you want to ask Isaac or the Tangle staff, just fill out this form with your question and we’ll try to get it into our reader mailbag edition tomorrow. 

Quick hits.

1. The Justice Department is beginning the process of winding down the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump in line with its long-standing policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. (The process)
2. Seven of 10 states approved ballot measures establishing a right to abortion in their state constitutions. (The votes) Separately, four states rejected measures to adopt ranked-choice voting in their future elections, while Washington, D.C., voted to adopt a ranked-choice system. (The votes)
3. The Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates by 25 basis points when Fed officials gather for their November meeting today. The Fed will announce its decision at 2 p.m. ET. (The meeting)
4. Ukrainian military officials said a Ukrainian drone strike hit a naval base in a port city on Russia’s Caspian Sea coast, the country’s first attack on a target in the Caspian region. (The strike)
5. Hurricane Rafael made landfall in Cuba as a Category 3 storm, knocking out the country’s power grid. (The storm)

Today's topic.

Kamala Harris’s concession speech. At 4:00 pm ET on Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris addressed a crowd of supporters at her alma mater of Howard University in Washington, D.C., to concede the election to President-elect Donald Trump. Harris said that she called to congratulate Trump on the victory and would help aid his administration’s transition but urged attendees to keep fighting for the issues that motivated her campaign.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign,” Harris said. “The fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.”

Harris initially planned to give remarks on election night but postponed her speech until the next day as Trump’s projected margin of victory increased. Decision Desk HQ and other national outlets have declared Trump the winner of the presidential election with an Electoral College margin of victory of 312-226 and a popular vote lead of over 4.6 million votes as of 11:30 am ET.

While the presidential candidates have accepted the results of the election, several steps remain before Trump retakes the office of president. On December 11, each state will meet to certify their results, and Vice President Harris will preside over a joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes and formally certify Trump as the winner on January 6. Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th president at 12:00 pm ET on January 20 in Washington, D.C.

Today, we’ll get into what the right and left are saying about Harris’s speech, then I’ll give my take.

What the right is saying.

• The right mostly commends Harris for the speech, suggesting she helped reinforce democratic norms.
• Some say she had no choice but to concede given Trump’s margin of victory. 
• Others say the speech was a model of how to accept an election loss. 

In National Review, Philip Klein offered “credit to Kamala Harris for conceding.”

“Harris will never win any awards for inspiring oratory, but credit where due — it’s a good thing that she accepted the results of the election, and that she called President-elect Donald Trump and assured him that she would do her part to ensure a peaceful transfer of power,” Klein said. “These used to be routine things in politics unworthy of mention, but in 2016, we had an immediate effort to try to delegitimize Trump’s victory by claiming he colluded with Russia to steal the election. And then of course we had Trump’s disgraceful refusal to admit defeat in 2020 that culminated with the Capitol riot.”

“One of the risks of Trump’s behavior in the post-2020 election was that it would help set a new standard in which disputing election results and refusing to concede just became standard operating procedure,” Klein wrote. “We don’t know what the next few months will hold, but at least today, Harris deserves credit for setting the tone for a more orderly transition. Hopefully we will revert to this standard in future elections.”

In The Federalist, Kylee Griswold argued “don’t give Democrats credit for conceding. They had no other options.”

“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,” Griswold said. “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.’”

“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. Democrats got their keisters handed to them,” Griswold wrote. “Don’t be fooled by Democrats’ uncharacteristic acceptance of election results. It’s their only move right now.”

In The Washington Examiner, Quin Hillyer said Harris’s speech “struck a near-perfect tone.”

“Making a political concession speech is a difficult, emotionally fraught task. In Vice President Kamala Harris‘s concession remarks Wednesday afternoon, she ably upheld the civic imperatives of the moment,” Hillyer wrote. “Let’s not parse every word to identify phrases from Harris that critics believe are disingenuous. Sometimes the cause of statesmanship requires a sort of civically lofty language that hides policy disagreements and personal grievances. Harris strove for, and almost entirely achieved, a constructive tone, an uplifting message, and an appeal to the best parts of American tradition.

“Harris’s record and ideology make her, for some of us, political anathema. In the immediate aftermath of an extremely divisive election, that status shouldn’t matter. What matters is whether Harris used the occasion to reinforce the ideals of freedom, civil rights, and the constitutional system writ large. And, of course, to revalidate, after four years of discreditable violations from her Republican opponent, the necessity of respecting the results of an election and encouraging the peaceful transfer of power.”

What the left is saying.

• The left praises Harris for a graceful concession speech.
• Some call out a double standard in how Republicans and Democrats react to election losses. 
• Others say the speech was a stabilizing force after Trump’s actions in 2020.

The Washington Post editorial board wrote “Kamala Harris concedes with dignity and grace.”

Harris “acknowledged, with grace, dignity and a dash of hope, that she had lost the presidency to former president Donald Trump. She didn’t make excuses. Instead, she set the tone for how Democrats can responsibly approach Mr. Trump in the coming four years — defending their core values while cooperating for the best interests of the country,” the board said. “She offered a counterpoint to the worst-case scenarios circulating on the political left, to the effect that this was the last election of a doomed democracy. Most important, she promised to assist in a peaceful transition of power.

“This last promise is the hallmark of a democrat. That Ms. Harris offered it so convincingly was a refreshing contrast to 2020, when Mr. Trump prematurely declared victory, twisted arms of federal and state legislators to reverse his loss, and then incited a mob to riot at the Capitol as Congress counted the electoral votes,” the board wrote. “In her constitutionally prescribed role as president of the Senate, Ms. Harris will be called upon to oversee the ratification of Mr. Trump’s victory on Jan. 6, 2025. And her words reinforce confidence that there can be no repeat of the struggle four years ago.”

In The New York Times, Jesse Wegman said “Harris shows Trump how to concede.”

Harris “performed this task with clarity and grace, a fairly low bar that used to be expected of all losing politicians in this country, and for a simple reason: When you live in a democracy, accepting your losses is what you have to do. Not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard,” Wegman wrote. “And yet somehow Trump gets a pass from this most basic requirement — not simply for refusing to acknowledge his own defeat in 2020, but also for lying about a ‘stolen’ election, violating the laws and the Constitution, and then inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol in an effort to overturn it.”

“So forgive me if I scoff at the ‘Where is Kamala?’ memes that circulated on Wednesday before she went on camera. No one in America is worse at accepting defeat than Trump and his followers. And that’s because under his tutelage, most of the Republican Party has come to believe that the only legitimate elections are the ones that it wins,” Wegman said. “This is the world we now live in: One party follows basic rules and norms of democratic politics and loses, and the other lies, cheats and tries to steal — and wins. It’s reverse accountability. And it can’t be sustained.”

In MSNBC, Anthony L. Fisher argued Harris “revived the 220-year-old tradition of peaceful transfer of power that Donald Trump broke.”

“Harris brought back from the dead one of America’s most storied traditions: presidential candidates accepting the results of an electoral defeat, urging their supporters to do the same and promising to cooperate with the incoming administration,” Fisher wrote. “The mention of ‘President-elect Trump’ generated a brief smattering of boos, which the vice president ignored. But the words ‘peaceful transfer of power’ triggered cheers from her crestfallen supporters. That matters a lot.”

“After running a campaign that correctly made an issue out of the uniquely destructive force Trump has been to the American body politic — including testimonials from his own former Cabinet members that he’s an unhinged fascist — the vice president accepted the will of the people. Much as a defeated Sen. John McCain did in 2008 when he told his supporters that the failing was his and not theirs and called Obama ‘my president,’ Harris made it clear that Trump will be her president — just as he will be for over 300 million Americans.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I thought Harris gave a great speech that both gracefully conceded the election while encouraging her supporters to continue to fight for their causes.
• The clarity of acceptance in her speech also highlights the opportunity we have now to enact real election reform.
• She may not have been a perfect candidate, but the way Harris exited the race is certainly worthy of bipartisan applause.

I thought it was a great speech. And I think several elements of it are worth a second look.

First, so much of each side's campaign was centered on the negative places this country has been or could be going; however, in defeat, Harris expressed love for her country, resolve for her party and loyalty to the Constitution, all without sacrificing her values or her positions. She promised not to concede the fight that fueled her campaign, which is what political leaders should do.

Second, she made it clear that "fighting" and politics do not just come down to elections. She called for waging the battle in "quieter ways" like how Americans live their lives — treating others with kindness and respect, seeing strangers as neighbors, and fighting for the dignity of other people. It's a message our country desperately needs to hear — ideally not just from the loser of this election but from the winner, too. More than anything, though, her speech is a reminder that government isn't the solution to our problems: Individuals can be a part of large-scale movements aimed at cultural change, but they can also make smaller and equally valuable impacts in their day-to-day lives in their communities.

Third, I appreciated it because it left no doubt. A decade ago, I took concession speeches for granted — but after the last few election cycles, particularly 2020, I will never take them for granted again. Harris was clear, direct, and genuine. It sucks to lose, but she lost, and she unequivocally stated she would oversee and assist in a peaceful and organized transfer of power. This was an important message, as I saw some wisps of election denialism (or at least election skepticism) bubbling up online from the left.

For instance, several people have been asking "what happened" to millions of voters who cast their ballots in 2020 but appear to have sat 2024 out. My answer is very clear: First, votes are still being counted and they will be for weeks, so these numbers will grow — likely by more than 10 million. And second, don't you remember 2020? Don't you remember how politics was all anyone talked about, and how it totally saturated our lives during the pandemic? Voting was also incredibly easy due to widespread (and in many cases, temporary) mail-in adoption, so — yes — a lot more people voted in 2020.

While we’re here: I also think this is the best environment we’ve had in a long time for enacting election reform that ensures ballots are processed and counted earlier, with results released sooner. Widespread enthusiasm exists across party lines for this, and state leaders in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New York, California, and elsewhere would do us a great disservice by continuing to operate so sluggishly. In states with divided legislatures where Republicans are demanding voter ID laws be paired with such reforms, Democrats might be wise to consider some concessions and compromise. 

Harris's message was a stabilizing one for the country at a time when stabilization will be needed. I've criticized her and Trump a lot in this newsletter, but she does deserve the bipartisan credit she’s getting for this — in an election where her opponent has questioned her racial identity, where his supporters have slurred her as an airheaded bimbo, and where she's faced an extraordinary amount of pressure in a very difficult situation (standing up and running a campaign in just over 100 days), she exited with grace.

It's more than a lot of us could have done, and it's a testament to the campaign she tried to win with.

Take the survey: What do you think of Harris’s concession speech? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: If you were running for president of the United States, who would you choose as your running mate and why?

— Mike from Altadena, California

Tangle: This is a fun hypothetical to consider. I've thought about this question since it came in a few weeks ago, and I honestly can't come up with a great answer. I think, perhaps, because my brain is so trained to be skeptical of all the politicians I follow — when I look at them I just see positions to scrutinize and flaws to highlight. That makes it hard to pick one I'd really feel confident in or think could help me win an election. But if I had to, my process would start with thinking critically about myself.

If I were running for president, my bio would be that I’m a former journalist in his 30s, politically moderate, white, Jewish, inexperienced, and from Pennsylvania. I think it's smart politics to diversify a ticket demographically (not coincidentally, Trump tapped a younger American from rural America while Harris picked a white man from middle America), so I'd probably start there. That means: No politically inexperienced former journalist Jewish politicians in their 30s from Pennsylvania. That crosses off... pretty much not a single politician that I can think of.

So I’ll have to consider other facets, like track record and personality. Unsurprisingly, I'd shoot for a few political moderates with experience and policy chops. The House of Representatives is a mess these days, and I'd need someone with big-game governing experience, so I'd probably seek out a governor or member of the Senate. I'd want someone whose policy perspectives I respect, who has a track record of winning elections, and whom I suspect I'd get along with (I think this is underrated; you definitely want a running mate you like). Given all that, my short list of some people from both parties would look something like this:

Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO), Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE). Some potential wildcard picks: Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), who has a great working-class brand but would need some moderation. Or some members from the House Problems Solvers Caucus like Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), or Rep. Donald Davis (D-NC). Also, I’d be remiss not to shout out Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), whom I just interviewed for Tangle and who is a Tangle reader (which makes me like him) and is preaching a sermon I enjoy right now. 

Basically, I’d seek out someone with moderate politics, high popularity, serving in a swing-ish state, and with serious policy chops and experience (because those would be my biggest weaknesses). Despite the election we just experienced, I happen to believe the total electorate is slightly left of center, on average, so I’d probably look for a centrist or center-left running mate. I'd handle the messaging, speeches, bringing people together and cleaning up our press messes. And then: President Saul.

Finally, I'll close with this: Call me a coward, but I would absolutely never want to run for president (it genuinely seems like a terrible job) and I much prefer writing, thinking, and criticizing politicians than being one. I love my job!

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

Tech executives who largely dismissed President-elect Donald Trump during his first presidential campaign eight years ago sought to curry favor with him ahead of the 2024 election, albeit in private. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and others reportedly reached out to Trump in the weeks and months before November 5 to offer praise and words of support to the now-president-elect. While none of these executives (with the exception of X’s and Tesla’s Elon Musk) publicly endorsed Trump before the election, virtually all of them have posted congratulatory messages on social media since his victory. After navigating four years of heightened antitrust action and scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions under the Biden administration, these leaders expect Trump to pivot to a more business-friendly approach and are aiming to establish favorable footing with him and his staff. The New York Times has the story.

Numbers.

• 3. The number of times Kamala Harris mentioned “democracy” in her speech. 
• 1. The number of times Harris mentioned Donald Trump in her speech.
• 19. The number of times Harris mentioned “fighting” in her speech.
• 5. The number of times Harris mentioned “freedom” in her speech.
• 3. The number of times Harris referenced the future in her speech. 
• 1896. The year that William Jennings Bryan sent his opponent, William McKinley, a telegram congratulating him on his election, considered the first public concession in U.S. presidential politics. 
• 34. The number of concession speeches given by U.S. presidential candidates in the past 128 years. 
• 35. The number of days between the 2000 election and Al Gore’s concession to George W. Bush, the longest gap between a presidential election and a concession in U.S. history (not including Donald Trump, who did not formally concede to Joe Biden in 2020). 

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered Trump polling ahead of Biden in swing states.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the link to our ad in the free version for Brad’s Deals.
• Nothing to do with politics: The most mysterious song on the internet has been identified.
• Yesterday’s survey: 1,164 readers responded to our survey asking which swing state’s result in the presidential election was the most surprising with 41% saying Pennsylvania. “This question should have an ‘all of them’ given the sheer size of the margin deltas between the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections. But Anson County, NC, a historically blue county that has voted red only ONCE since all the way back to Reconstruction, voted red again last night,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

One Hollywood actress has made an admirable decision to share her recent success. Anna Kendrick, who is known for her roles in comedies like Pitch Perfect, recently pivoted to direct and star in Woman of the Hour, a Netflix true-crime thriller. The movie follows the story of Rodney Alcela, a serial murderer who participated in a televised game show amidst a spree of attacks against and murders of women in the 1970s. And it’s a hit — but Kendrick reported feeling “gross” about profiting off of it. She said in an interview, “I’m not making money off the movie. The money is going to RAINN and the National Center for Victims of Crime.” Relevant has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 225,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!