After the polls close in California on Tuesday, NBC News chief data analyst Steve Kornacki will just be getting started.

Since December, the khaki-clad vote-counting guru has been going live and uninterrupted on streaming platforms to provide results and analysis of every special election and even some state Senate contests.

The stream — called the Kornacki Cam — provides unadulterated number crunching without any pundits weighing in. Rather than getting updates that last a few minutes, Kornacki provides continuous real-time results until the last available total is counted.

“This all happens in full view,” Kornacki said Monday in a phone interview. “The audience gets to see the whole thing. They get to see the buildup, the anticipation, the payoff.”

In the 10 Kornacki Cam sessions streamed by NBC News so far, 19 million viewers have sampled them across all platforms. The coverage — consisting of Kornacki, his Big Board, his producer and a Stedicam operator — is available on YouTube, NBCNews.com, the NBC News app and the division’s social media accounts on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.

The Kornacki Cam will focus on the primaries for Los Angeles mayor, California and several congressional districts, shortly after the state’s polls close at 8 p.m. Pacific. NBC News has its own decision desk, which the network said has called the results of 70% of the 2026 elections ahead of the Associated Press.

In a Monday chat with The Times, here are the trends Kornacki says he’ll be looking for on the night.

Polling in mayoral races is typically pretty unreliable. What do you make of the contest based on what you’ve seen?

You don’t always have super-competitive mayoral elections and they’re not all created equal. It’s not quite like a presidential election so you just don’t have a wealth of data to draw on for expectations either.

I’ve seen the polling you’ve seen. It suggests that of the three candidates (Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV star Spencer Pratt and City Council member Nithya Raman), Bass is in the best position to get into the runoff. It also suggests that Spencer Pratt has had the most positive movement in the last month or so of the campaign. But we go in knowing there will be volatility and I’m open to any and all possibilities.

Spencer Pratt is an unusual candidate who has been able to take up a lot of oxygen in the race. Is there a hidden vote for him that people might not be eager to admit to pollsters?

You can look at the city and know where to look for whether Pratt is having a big night. The San Fernando Valley is gonna be more than a third of the vote, probably close to 40%. If he gets in the general election, he wants to be winning there by a big margin. 
If it’s not happening there for Pratt, I don’t think it’s happening anywhere else. Karen Bass is going to rely on central and South L.A., with probably a third of the vote coming out of those two places. Those should be her bulwarks. The Westside, I think could be more of a toss-up. There’s a fair chunk of the vote there.

We don’t do a ton of mayoral races around the country. So we’re still trying to figure out exactly how detailed we’re going to be able to zoom in, at the neighborhood level and the precinct level.

Turnouts usually are low for Los Angeles mayoral races. Will this year be different?

This mayoral race has received a lot more national attention than 2022. 
So my thought is that the turnout would be higher, just based on that. But this is something that is resonating nationally because Pratt has that celebrity factor. The number was 646,000 (total votes) for 2022. So that’s something we’ll be following — are we trending over or under that?

And what will be the best indicators for the gubernatorial race?

The place that I kind of got circled here is Orange County. In the last two sort of major statewide elections, it was the first to report out (its) vote. 
At 8:06 p.m local time in California, in 2024, Orange County reported out half of its vote, right? So you’re getting, you know, you’re getting hundreds of thousands of votes, potentially, from this enormous county within, potentially within 10 minutes of polls closing. 
There were a couple others — the Central Valley, and we got a good chunk of Merced and Fresno quickly.

So how long are we going to have to wait for a result on Tuesday night?

One of the other things that just surrounds everything in California, whether it’s the mayor’s race, or governor’s race, or anything else, is nothing is definitive in the first hour or so after the polls close. We’re probably realistically looking at a days or even weeks-long process of getting all the vote counted.

I know it drives many people nuts. Without editorializing on that, it’s just a fact that they can get out of about two-thirds of their vote on election night, and if the races aren’t clear and definitive, then you’re generally in for a pretty long haul.

We do know in California that they’re not going (to count) nonstop until they get a result. They’re going to then start doing updates as they process and count the remaining vote by mail, which is usually a considerable pile in a lot of these places. The vote by mail in California can continue coming in for seven days after the election.

So do you think your coverage reflects a shift in what the consumer wants? We already know how fragmented the audience is. Are there now enough political junkies who want the pure uncut stuff?

I’ve been doing this about 20 years, and when I would tell people that I reported on politics for a living, they either moved away from me or changed the subject. And now, you know, I found the last, you know, 10 years or something, has just totally changed. People come up to me, even if they don’t know I work in politics, and they want to talk politics. Everybody seems into it whatever side they’re on.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) pressed pause on the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund on Monday, giving Senate Republicans runway to hammer through a massive immigration enforcement funding package in the process.

The DOJ announced on X that it would abide by a Virginia federal court’s order to not move forward with the fund. It comes as Republicans in the upper chamber punted their plan to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement package over deep concerns about who could access the flow of taxpayer dollars from the nearly $2 billion fund.

The DOJ said in a statement that it “disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund” by the Virginia district court, “wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people.”

SENATE GOP ERUPTS OVER TRUMP DOJ ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND, PUNTS ICE, BORDER PATROL FUNDING

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the agency said. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”

For the time being, that could ease Republicans’ concerns over whether those convicted of assaulting police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, could access the money. And it will likely allow the GOP to restart the budget reconciliation process with that political pressure point now sidelined.

It comes as Democrats are gearing up for a deluge of bills and amendments that likely could have passed had the administration not halted the fund. But still, it’s unclear if it means the fund has totally been nixed, or if it’s just a temporary pause.

GOP’S PRIMED FOR PRIMARY SEASON PAYBACK ON TRUMP’S MOST AMBITIOUS, CONTROVERSIAL POLICY

When asked if he thought Democratic amendments and bills would survive, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that the administration would have to be crystal clear about what happens next.

“If the administration effectively shuts it down, and makes that very, very clear, and that, to me, should answer the question,” Thune said.

Whether the fund has permanently come to an end is still an open question. Fox News Digital was referred to the DOJ by the White House for comment, and the DOJ did not immediately respond. 

Given that grey area, Senate Democrats plan to move full-steam ahead with their slate of legislation and amendments geared toward completely terminating the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

CONGRESS BARRELS TOWARD DEADLINE PILE-UP AS GOP DIVISIONS THREATEN TRUMP AGENDA

“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on X. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”

Schumer had already primed Democrats to take advantage of the brewing dissent within the GOP with an aggressive legislative strategy during the forthcoming “vote-a-rama,” where both sides of the aisle will get a near unlimited number of amendments to vote on for the immigration package. 

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., already plans to introduce three bills that would redirect the funding to address growing affordability concerns in the country. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“My bills will redirect the $1.8 BILLION slush fund money to SNAP, Medicaid, and law enforcement programs like those that help our local police departments hire more officers,” Rosen said on X. 

“You work hard for your money, and I’ll be damned if I let Donald Trump or anyone else use it for a slush fund for their friends. Let’s see if Washington Republicans agree,” she continued.