Facebook Will Announce Presidential Election Result in Facebook and Instagram Notifications (theverge.com) 189
Facebook plans to put the name of the winner of the US presidential election at the top of Facebook and Instagram once it's been projected by a majority of media outlets, the company says. From a report: The company also will label presidential candidates' posts with a link to its voting information center, according to Facebook spokesperson Tom Reynolds. The company plans to "show the candidate's name in notifications at the top of Facebook and Instagram that say 'A Presidential Winner Has Been Projected -- is the projected winner of the 2020 US Presidential Election,'" Reynolds explained in an email to The Verge. Facebook will rely on "a majority opinion from Reuters as well as independent decision desks at major media outlets, including ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, NBC News, CNN, and The Associated Press to determine when a presidential winner is projected," Reynolds says.
Everyone knows who won the ballot count! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
You think there will be a president? I predict there will be people slowly walking either towards Mother Abigail's house or Randall Flagg's compound.
Re: (Score:2)
You think there will be a president? I predict there will be people slowly walking either towards Mother Abigail's house or Randall Flagg's compound.
M O O N that spells Election.
Re: (Score:2)
You think there will be a president? I predict there will be people slowly walking either towards Mother Abigail's house or Randall Flagg's compound.
Is that you Trashcan man?
Re: (Score:2)
The right seem to be scared to death of Kamala but can never say why. If they do say anything its mumblings about her radical left ideas. If you press on further they still can't come up with anything.
Media outlets? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an European, I'm struck by depending on media outlets announcements. Here we have official government committee, which gathers official results from all districts, sums the results and proclaims winner.
Does USA have official, federal bureau for election results?
Re:Media outlets? (Score:4, Informative)
No, we aren't listening to Facebook or Twitter as some authorities. They're simply trying to establish themselves as such, trying to interject into the national conversation to drive more eyeballs to their garbage service.
Do not draw broad generalizations from what private corporations do.
Re: (Score:2)
The election will be called as it always has, by a vote of the electors (except in the case of Rutherford B Hayes [wikipedia.org] ).
Re: (Score:2)
No, we aren't listening to Facebook or Twitter as some authorities.
No that's the job of the ABC right... What you do is irrelevant. The GP was pointing out that there's no official singular count of the election and thus you need to rely on news associations to collate the data.
Re: (Score:2)
They were trying to prevent fake news by posting their own messages when the result is known. Some people have been lying about it already, haven't your heard?
Re:Media outlets? (Score:5, Informative)
No, we don't. Because we started as a loose sort of semi-independent states with the idea that there would not be a strong central government. However that all changed with the civil war, however the south managed to insist that states be allowed to conduct their own elections (to ensure that only the correct shade of skin was allowed to vote). It's a seriously touchy issue, even today. So no uniform rules or central authority. There is a federal election commission, but it has little power and mostly worries about campaign finance and fraud.
Normally, you just assume apriori that the individual states are run by competent people, and the local election commissions in the states and counties have competent people with more loyalty to the country than to their parties. This had a big hiccup in 2000, when Florida officials were clearly biased and/or incompetent. Now twenty years later, the president has essentially declared that every single democratic state is cheating along with any republican state that didn't declare him as winner immediately (thus he thinks Georgia is stealing the election depite having a Republican governor, legislature, and election chief). But they all seem to be doing the right thing so far, making sure all votes are counted (and not the "illegal" ones). When it's time for recounts though then we'll see if the locals engage in shenanigans.
Anyone who thinks the fraud is happening now though is pretty much deluded. Ballots mysteriously showing up overnight! OMG, probably trucked over from where all the mailed in ballots were stored... Sharpies being used, even though those are perfectly legal... A small mixup not allowing in a couple of election "monitors" which was cleared up an hour later and people start demanding that the whole election be tossed out and Trump declared king by fiat...
My guess is that the Trump fans, the hard core ones that went to all his rallies, like hippies following the Grateful Dead bus, were so completely convinced that Trump would be a runaway winner with 90% of the vote are the ones who assume it MUST be fraud if their lord and savior was not elected. (and yes, I have already seen the facebook posts hinting that Satan is at work in this election even though it was clearly God's will that Trump be elected in the first place; the hypocrisy and double standard in that evangelical crowd is amazing)
Re: (Score:2)
We've known sinceTrump won in 2016 that the 2020 election would be contested. In part, because Trump won by swinging some states by margins of error that repeating that statistical fluke was going to be an uphill battle. But the Republicans' definition of an "irregularity" seems to be "It was a vote for Biden". Privately most of them know that Trump has lost, and probably many of them probably secretly wanted him to lose. I'm sure right now most of the members of the Administration are jockeying for gigs on
Re: (Score:2)
Remember also in 2016 that Trump said he would totally accept the election results, "if I win!" And then the crowd cheered.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks the fraud is happening now though is pretty much deluded.
I got two ballots myself, and I know other people who did too.
We live in California so it won't affect this election, but if there is fraud it wouldn't be the first time.
Re:Media outlets? (Score:5, Informative)
Two mailed to you? That is not fraud. That is just a clerical error. It would be fraud if you filled in both and tried to turn them in, and you almost certainly would have been caught.
Re: (Score:2)
if you filled in both and tried to turn them in, and you almost certainly would have been caught.
Really? You believe this?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I do. They check the name on each and every ballot to make sure it is a registered voter. What, do you think they just rip off the top of the envelope and dump the insides into the tabulating machine?? Check the signature on the envelope, verify the name has not already voted in person somewhere else or has another ballot already opened and ticked off on the registration lists.
We have been voting by mail for DECADES! This is not something new, they're not screwing this up by being noobs. In a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That has already been debunked. He had a son, living in the same house with the same name.
Re: (Score:2)
Videos are just a means of obfuscation. Provide the content in text form or stop wasting people's time. Nobody's going to refute you line by line when it's a video. You can't skim a video and nobody has time for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they do not. This is one of the good things about the US system. There's no central organization to hack into or otherwise manipulate. Each state runs their own election process. Takes a lot longer to get results, but it's also much harder for foreign actors to influence it.
But no one has to depend on the news media to estimate the winner. The states each officially declare their results. But also we know for sure the result when the electoral college meets and votes. Of course the validity of the el
Re: (Score:2)
When advertising dollars are at stake, the media will gladly start shouting who they think wins before the official word comes out from the Federal Elections Committee.
Re: (Score:2)
When advertising dollars are at stake, the media will gladly start shouting who they think wins before the official word comes out from the Federal Elections Committee.
Ouch - i double checked my work - this is what i get for shooting off the hip. Should have ended the statement with "FEC and Electoral College."
Re:Media outlets? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Media outlets? Does USA have official, federal bureau for election results?
It's because Americans are stuck up by a stupid word "call".
I CALL HEADS. "calling" just means placing money on something.
THE FORECAST CALLS FOR RAIN. "calling" means you place your money, or your bet of likelihood, on the outcome you have reason to believe is most likely.
THE UMPIRE CALLS IT AN 'OUT'. "calling" means that someone in authority has made an official decision.
The problem is that the media and the American public confuse the second and third senses of the word. A media outlet will predict an out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The press are getting the results from state officials. Those results are announced by electoral officials, and the press, being the press, then puts those results up on websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Elections in the USA are operated independently by each state in accordance to their own state laws. The federal government doesn't get involved until states finally report their individual certified results (via the office of the state governor) directly to congress, which happens several weeks after the vote during even a "normal" presidential election year. The fed level has zero to do with operating or certifying a presidential election, other than to receive the results and then accept them
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the USA has an official process for determining the president. The thing you're missing is that this election happens on January the 6th, when the electoral college casts their ballot.
What is happening right now is that 50 states are asking their constituents to tell them how the electoral college should vote. This is 100% a state issue. Hell technically a state could also say "hahhahah heck no" and ignore how their people voted and cast the electoral votes however they feel, but you can outright expect
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, elections, even ones for federal office, are run by the state governments. These would be who announces official results, not the federal government, but nobody wants to wait for official results. We've got to know who won now, now, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really! We have a federal answer (obviously), but that isn't done until January. Those results are mailed in early December (time delay because horses from back in the day), but they're known when they are mailed. And what is written down in December was decided on November 3rd (but the measurement is still . being taken). In between there may be lawsuits, and there is another period for horses to go to the state capital.
However, there's n
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, we do have an official federal proclamation of the new president (it would be ridiculous to not trust the government to say who the head of government is).
It's just that there is a lot of formal bureaucracy that adds time that, in practice, won't change anything (though there is a chance)
Re: (Score:2)
Right but that does not happen until January. Most Euro countries will figure out the winner soon and the PM changes quickly. They can have snap elections followed shortly by a quick overnight packing and a change in the residence. We apparently just had a 4 year long campaign in contrast.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point everyone knows Biden has won.
By tomorrow the news outlets like AP and all the downstream ones that use them as their source will report he has won when the final counts are in.
Some time much later after the EC votes are in the federal government will report the winner.
Re:Media outlets? (Score:4, Informative)
The state governments pick the President. That's how the constitution is written. It doesn't even specify how the states should choose electors. That is written into each state's constitution.
We do have the Federal Election Commission, but that's more about enforcing campaign finance laws.
Literally, the media have no say. They simply report what the states tell them.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we have official government committee, which gathers official results from all districts, sums the results and proclaims winner.
So the existing government picks the new government? That sounds very corruptible.
And how exactly do you think it works in the United States? Here's a hint: it's the federal government.
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Not exactly (Score:2)
Otherwise, for state issues, voting power is the same.
Writing in from Montana, BTW. :)
Re: (Score:2)
...as far as voting for president goes, that's true only if the voter is a Republican. If they're a Democrat, the EC straight-up disenfranchises the voter — Democrat votes don't count. At all.
Don't make it partisan. It's only true for the party that wins in the state - whatever party that may be. Just as Montana's votes may count disproportionately to Republicans, Nevada and Rhode Island have disproportionate voting power that typically counts to the Democrats.
Basically, a certain amount of voting power is allocated towards a state as an entity. The thought is that just because population is concentrated in certain states you don't want 5 or 6 states to basically be able to determine the pre
Re: (Score:2)
Some media just wait until mathematically you can determine who will win. Ie, if A is ahead of B by 10,000 votes and there are estimated to be only 9000 ballots left then they can call the winner. Now the estimated ballots might actually be 10,099 but the odds of that changing the result are low.
Re: (Score:2)
The Electors won't even convene until next month, and it's only after that that it is certified. In part, that's because the electoral college system was created when a horse was the fastest means of transportation, and Electors in each state needed time to convene. And then it took time for the results of each state to be sent on to Washington DC where Congress could review and certify. Perhaps the US could update the system, much as Westminster Parliamentary systems do, in that the new government usually
Thank you facebook... (Score:2)
I'm sure otherwise I wouldn't have been notified the result, since no one is talking about the presidential election.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people have forgotten to refresh the browser every 30 seconds?
My local newspaper will too (Score:3)
So...
Section 230(c) Platform vs Publisher (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making that announcement of such a declaration from sources they have selected and filtered ( i.e. editorial control ) pretty much decides the question if they are merely a platform or a publisher under Section 230(c).
*sigh* this tired shit again. No. Having an opinion doesn't not make you a publisher. Publishing an opinion does not turn your platform into a publication either. And it may utterly blow you little mind that even newspapers have things like comment sections covered by Section 230(c).
Get rid of 'projections' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2016: Russia hacked our election with facebook ads and online trolling!!! Trump russia collusion
Media: Zero evidence. Election was hacked.
2020: Whislteblowers, whitnesses, statistical anomalies, denied observers, tabulation bugs, block of ballots dropped off middle of hte night with no one around 100% one candidate, dead voters, evidence of illegal votes from non-residents
Media: eLeCtIoN FrAuD iS FaKe NeWs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? The only rhetoric is coming from the fascists who are saying to stop counting votes in one state but keep counting votes in other states. The same people who are trying to storm counting locations because they don't like the way the votes are going.
The only thing the "left" is saying is be patient. They're the ones acting like adults. Meanwhile, we have the con artist and his minions lying about vote counting and filing lawsuits left and right while whining about a "stolen" election.
Re: (Score:2)
And the New York Times even refuses to call Arizona for Biden, even as Fox News has persistently done so for a couple of days now.
Re: (Score:2)
i suspect this pushed Trump over the edge, as he considers Fox to be the same as all his other loyal cronies.
For a fraud, if this were true it'd be the worst fraud ever. I mean we know the Democrats aren't well organized (thank you Will Rogers) but they'd have to be absolutely morons to rig an election so that it's a tight squeaker instead of being the blue wave that they expected. And how does Biden manage to get all the Republican officials in Georgia to be in on the rigging (oh wait, maybe they're all
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's just Trump's psychology. He cannot countenance being a loser. He knows he's lost, but he'll go on for the rest of his days talking about how the election was stolen from him. His loyal followers will trumpet on about it for years, but I suspect their number will slowly dwindle, though maybe not fast enough for the Republican Party's purposes. But you can already see people like McConnell planning for the change in Administration, and now, as Trump's political capital in Washington evaporates, Republican lawmakers will no longer feel any debt to him at all. They'll pay lip service as they start thinking about how their going to keep their Senate majority in the much more difficult 2022 field. The donors aren't interested in Trump, the leadership knows he's toast, and in their minds, they're already thinking about how to go after Harris in her inevitable 2024 bid.
Trump is already yesterday's man to the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is already yesterday's man to the GOP.
Trump will be gone soon. But Trumpism will live on. He has shown the power of right-wing populism. Others will pick up the torch.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just Trump's psychology. He cannot countenance being a loser.
He's been one all his life, why stop now?
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going beyond calling for lawsuits. He's been calling for people to harass poll workers for weeks, he's currently calling for states to stop counting ballots... and what do you know, yesterday a maggat mob swarmed the entrance [youtu.be] of a building where votes are being tallied in Pennyslvania, pounding on the doors and windows. Some of them are armed [inquirer.com], some of them are making bomb threats [whyy.org], and the resulting evacuations are having a real disruptive effect on counting the votes. The more days go by without a winn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the radicalised left didn't throw around baseless accusations of Russian collusion for the past four years...
They weren't baseless. There was a lot of unusual contact between the Trump campaign and Russians, and there was a lot of well-documented work by Russians to push the election in Trump's favor. Mueller didn't find evidence of coordination, per the unusually-high standard he decided to use, and it's possible that there wasn't any. But for there being no fire, there was a lot of smoke.
Also, keep in mind that Mueller did find lots of evidence of obstruction of justice. He couldn't say so in so many words wit
Re: (Score:2)
Whataboutism at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump told his followers not to trust mail in ballots. Now he's throwing a tantrum because so many are for Biden.
Re: (Score:2)
I should add timestamp 13:00 for what the lawsuit in MI is asking.
Note, it was thrown out by the judge because basically the count was finished so requiring an observer to monitor the count that has already finished is moot.
From a legal perspective it makes sense it was thrown out since there is nothing to observe. But from a laymen perspective the fact that observers were denied and then "sorry bud we finished already" stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe that elections should be transparent
Not exactly. The secrecy of the ballot must be maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I should have clarified that part. Thank you for the correction.
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:5, Insightful)
The rhetoric from Trump and his sons are inflaming things. Trump is spewing outright lies left and right claiming there is fraud where not exists.. Don Junior is demanding that all Republicans back Trump up in this craziness. It is not near over but Trump insists that it is indeed over and that he won, as if he seems to think that counting must stop at midnight on Tuesday and that no mail in ballots (including his) should never be counted.
I mostly see everyone being calm, only a few poeple are pounding on the windows of the buildings where counting is taking place, we're all being patient. Except for Trump and his crew. And I strongly suspect Trump is either having a breakdown, the steroids from his covid treatment are acting up, or there's some amount of dementia. Giuliani we already know has some sort of mental condition going on there. The right needs to calm down, we don't need self-proclaimed armed observers showing up, and that has already happened, and the guns won't speed up the counts.
I think we can all agree that the "BBQ / Beer / Freedom" tee shirt guy really needs to get back on his meds.
Re: (Score:2)
What Don Jr is finding out is that once a President loses an election and becomes a lame duck, he no longer commands much loyalty at all. Political parties survive because they're quick to change direction and drop the loser. There simply is nothing now to be gained from backing Trump. He cannot do anything for them, unless he wants to veto whatever stimulus bill McConnell and Pelosi cook up over the next month or so. I wouldn't put it past Trump, he'll go from his denial and grief stages quickly into an ar
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, despite not behind beholden, so many republican politicians are STILL backing him! I mean Lindsey Graham just won a new 6 year term, he should feel free to say whatever it is he wants to say and yet he has backed up Trump in those ridiculous fraud allegations. McConnel on the other hand took the middle road between the high and the low and said "no comment". What line would Trump have to cross before the republican leadership pulls out the rolled up newspaper?
Now some republicans to be sure have
Re: Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tr (Score:2)
Graham is still backing him because the people backing Graham are the same people personally invested in trump. He can only alienate them now by doing otherwise, and it still matters because public opinion always matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? Trump should say "The election is rigged becuase my gut tells me so!" that the media must not add a "said the president today with no evidence to back him his assertions"?
Trump said:
"I've been talking about mail-in voting for a long time. It's really destroyed our system. It's a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt."
"They mailed out tens of millions of unsolicited ballots without any verification measures."
Both false, all the states have verification measures, we've done vote-by-mai
Re: (Score:2)
"I've been talking about mail-in voting for a long time. It's really destroyed our system. It's a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt."
True; Trump voted from Florida despite not actually living there. Surely that's corrupt and illegal, even in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, no fraud, just a 'glitch' in the software that shifted 6000 votes from Trump to Biden in MI. In Trump-heavy county of 16000+. Software which 47 other counties use. Well looks like Michigan is going for a hand recount.
Re: (Score:2)
There was indeed a glitch in one county, for 138,000 votes, shown on a map by a third party company which the state of Michigan noticed immediately had had corrected. In the meantime this glitch made the viral rounds until Trump retweeted it as "proof" of fraud.
(Seriously, I think Trump's TV is broken since he keeps having to rely on fake news and conspiracy sites. You'd think the leader of the free world would have some people in one of his agencies who know how to look this stuff up.)
Re: Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tr (Score:3)
What doesnt seem legit? You're just spreading FUD now.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to be registered as an observer, they cannot let in everyone. Second, there was a case where a couple were not allowed in despite having a card, that was a mistake and it was corrected within an hour. This was not a problem.
WE, you and I, do not need to know which ballots were proper or not, the election workers are the ones who determine that and they are currently counting the votes. It is slow because they have to take time to do everything right. For mail in ballots the signatures have to be
Re: (Score:2)
>You need to be registered as an observer
Eric Ostergren is a registered voter of Roscommon County, Michigan and credentialed and trained as an election "challenger". Eric Ostergren was excluded from the counting board during the absent voter ballot review process.
Re: (Score:2)
"Further, in its filing, Trump's campaign failed to name a single absentee counting board preventing access to poll challengers, Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said. " -- The Detroit News
Re: (Score:3)
There is a lot of smoke.
What smoke?
I don't understand how democrats are not mad that observers were denied at the very least. Ballots counted that were not observed by both sides to me stinks and frankly contaminates the whole election since chain of custody now cannot be maintained for all the ballots.
Untrue. Observers weren't denied. They were asked to maintain their distance (15 feet, IIRC) to prevent the spread of COVID. However, a judge decided -- rightly, IMO -- that it's more important to have close observation even if it spreads a little disease, and close observation is now allowed. No evidence of fraud has been reported.
Even when state law says that video surveillance of ballots storage locations be provided has been denied.
Cite?
Re: (Score:3)
>What smoke?
I know you and I have had many discussions and arguments together. I know we disagree about most things. I am not going to argue. I am making an appeal. I am truly set aside myself these last few days.
Are you incapable of understanding the opposition? I ask this question because when these political discussions occur it doesn't matter what is posted, sourced, or said (as noted by the mods of my comments). These discussions tend to follow, "I am right you are wrong I saw somewhere online I tru
The left (Score:2)
Is saying please make sure all the ballots are counted. Trump is telling some states to stop counting while in the same breath count some more for other states.
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:4, Informative)
No, the Electoral College decides, and Congress certifies it. But it's been practice since the invention of the telegraph and election results could be collated by the press that the press "call it". It isn't authoritative, but it's the way elections have been analyzed for well over a century. Why is it suddenly such an awful thing now?
Oh that's right, because it looks like Biden has swung Pennsylvania.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it suddenly such an awful thing now?
1) Centrality - this power to communicate the results is being vested in a single company
2) Automation - this power is further concentrated as basically a big red button a single person can push
3) Compulsion - with normal news you opt-in by choosing what you watch and listen to; people are being subscribed to an alert system they had no intention of joining
No, the Electoral College decides, and Congress certifies it.
No, what happens is the American people are told who the new president is and choose to accept it based on the trust of the information and the system w
Re: (Score:2)
You're an utter moron.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt you can go to each state's website to verify what's being reported if you want. No one is forcing to read it from Fox or CNN.
Re:Thank you Facebook for being the arbiter of tru (Score:4, Interesting)
Jesus you're a fucking moron. The underlying "glitch" was not corrected, the code wasn't changed, and they haven't checked the other 47 counties. The caught the glitch because it swung 6000 votes in a county of 16000+ that was extremely heavily Trump. They then hand checked the ballots. Michigan is officially uncallable until the same thing has been done in every other county that used this software you spastic buffoon.
"A glitch in software used to tabulate ballots in Antrim County, Michigan caused at least 6,000 Republican votes to be counted as Democrat, according to Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox.
The miscalculation, Cox said in a press conference, was first reported by a county clerk. A short investigation revealed that 47 counties in Michigan may have also suffered from a similar glitch with the same software, which could have caused some red counties to rake in a higher number of Democrat votes than usual.
“Antrim County had to hand count all of the ballots, and these counties that use the software need to closely examine their results for similar discrepancies,” Cox said. “The people of Michigan deserve a transparent and open process.”"
Re: once it's been projected by a majority of medi (Score:5, Informative)
The formal process would leave things unknown until January.
The media announcing it does not make it true, it is simply 99% certain when they announce, but there's still room in the formal process for things to change (e.g. faithless electors, some other things).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, each state will make it formal sooner than January. But never on the day after the election. I suspect most will be formalized in the next three weeks, and none formalized this week. Legal ballots are still showing up, and there are far more items on the ballots than the presidential race. Things take time, and they have always taken time.
Re: (Score:2)
I just went for the strictest definition, that the president is not formally announced by government until the VP does it in January.
The media is using ballot counts announced by the government, but they could wait for the final certified counts or they could wait for the electors to formally vote... Ultimately, the media is always using official government data, just processing it to the conclusion before the government process would, and short of sitting in the chambers with the Senate when VP announced r
Re: (Score:2)
The formal process would leave things unknown until January.
More like mid-December, when the Electoral College votes are counted by Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, how are you going to hear about anything they do.
They have no power, platform or voice any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
The right held the Senate and picked up seats in the HoR. Overall, they did better than expected.
The pre-election consensus was that the Democrats would win the Senate and pick up plenty of seats in the HoR in a "blue wave".
That didn't happen.
Against someone like Trump, the Democrats should have won in a landslide. Instead, Biden barely won in a squeaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Just 1 more election, this should settle things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those runoffs are in Georgia, and I don't think anyone is under illusions that the Dems will pull off wins there. The Senate will almost certainly stay in Republican hands thru 2022, where the field has a lot more Republicans defending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this surprised me too. I didn't expect a wave, but I expected a wave. I did sort of steel myself for a Trump win because when Trump is involved you just aren't allowed to use logic (or math or science). But I expected congress or senate to do better than they did. I mean, were the voters not just paying attention the last 4 years? Maybe like in 2016 a lot of potential voters just stayed home thinking "it's a sure thing, no way can Trump win a second time".
Re: (Score:2)