As we head into an election night that has more uncertainty than anyone would like, I think it is a good time to take stock of what we know and what we don't know, and how to be good consumers and conveyors of information at a time where America is on edge and simmering.
Here's what we know: There will be massive numbers of early voters, but some states have not yet begun to count those votes. As such, we will have large vote totals for some states early, and other states will take much longer to count the votes.
WE KNOW: that the demographic for absentee ballots, early voting and day of voting are different, politically.
WE DON'T KNOW: Exactly what those numbers are and how they will be reported state-by-state.
For example, I expect early in the night Biden will have a lead in Texas as a result of early voting? How significant? We don't know. Texas is one of the big unknowns in this race because of the sheer volume of unlikely voters who have already voted.
We should not only be prepared, but indeed expect not to know who the next President will be before the end of the evening. While there is an off-chance that we could know if it is a monsoon-level voting for a single candidate, the chances of that kind of upset is slim--we think.
Because, again: we don't know. We're using voting models that use a lot of different weights based on the errors we had last time around, but this election feels different, and unlike the past it's harder to get a 'feel' for what the results will bring.
People have spent the last four years self-segregating, and largely dividing themselves from the people with whom they disagree with politically. The one place where they still interact regularly, the workplace, has been shutdown so people aren't talking about these issues.
And so you have a bunch of people who are only hearing one version of reality, and not encountering people who disagree with them unless they seek them out. Which, I fear, has only added to the polarization that was already at high levels, at least during times of peace.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if CNN, MSNBC, the networks, etc. choose not to go live with Trump's victory speech if he doesn't win, because FoxNews and OAN will, and that will get to his audience. So, how do you handle something like this?
For the record: The path to victory for Trump is extremely narrow and he is far less likely to be in a credible position to claim victory tomorrow night, but credibility isn't really a concern for Trump when making claims. See: inauguration crowds.
The best things we can do is this: 1. Don't make projections until you are sure. Not mostly sure, not with a small margin of error sure. 100% sure. Do not be in a rush to be the first state to make a call. Remember 2000.
2. Explain in detail why you are not making calls. For the record, I think this is something that networks have been doing much better in the last few national races.
3. LIMIT THE TIME YOU HAVE POLITICAL TALKING HEADS ON. In a normal election I think this is fine, but this is anything but a normal election and there's going to be all kinds of spin. This year more than ever we need to focus on what we know, what we don't know, etc.
4. Do not give live vote totals from a specific precinct out live on the air. It's meaningless information for anyone not in that precinct and often for people in them.
5. Advise viewers of what you don't know, report on what you do know. We'll know several Senate race results early. Don't extrapolate.
5a. Don't try and project a national mood based on the earliest results, unless something is beyond bizarre. If Tom Cotton is losing, you have my permission to make a big fucking deal out of it.
6. If you are going to have political analysts on, make sure it is clearly defined separate segments. Do not have them at the main desk.
7. For the love of God, let things breathe. Take moments to recap, slowly, confidently. People are already going to be on edge. Also limit the loud noises and use of "BREAKING". If something UNEXPECTED happens let us know quickly, but don't make every state result breaking news.
That's all I got. Now let's get ready for Dixville Notch, one of my favorite traditions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, tonight I'd like to talk about James A. Garfield. I realize that isn't a statement that is said very often, but I think there might something we can learn from his life, or, more accurately, his death.
And I'm not talking about his assassination by an entitled charlatan who demanded a position he was not qualified for, and became convinced that the only way to stop infighting from his political party. Instead, I'm going to talk about what happened AFTER he was shot.
After Garfield was shot he was taken to an office where he was laid on a mattress, before being moved back to the White House at Garfield's request. The doctor who took charge was not using sterilized equipment or hands when he began exploring the wound.
So, tonight I'm going to talk about abortion, because it is clear that abortion is going to be a major topic through election day and perhaps beyond, even more-so than usual.
This thread is going to look beyond the moral debate into policy and facts surrounding abortion.
We often talk about abortion as a moral absolute, either it's an inherent right or it is literally child murder, with very little gray area. But when you dig into the statistics American opinions on abortion are varied and often counter-intuitive.
You may have noticed I've turned off @ replies for this thread. This will not be a normal thing, but because of the nature of this topic and the ease at which it can go off the rails, I thought this was best. Once I finish I will have a post for people to share their thoughts.
You have to have beliefs in order to have disagreements based on beliefs, and the Republican Party no longer has any beliefs aside from “fuck liberals”, so I honestly don’t know what the hell you’re going on about David.
Like, I can disagree with people about issues, but the current Republican Party doesn’t have any issues they actually believe in. All they care about is getting power, keeping power, and keeping liberals out of power, that’s literally it.
I know because I used to be a Republican. But they don’t believe in anything except fuck liberals, which is why McConnell has that statement announcing they were going to have a vote already written and just waiting to hit send.
Facebook is just one example of the reinforcement loops that dominate the news intake of the modern conservative. It started with talk radio and then FoxNews, who both claimed that they alone were providing their audience the truth, which led to the tuning out of other media.
What makes Facebook so dangerous is that the selection to only get views that agree with you is done entirely in the background. It’s not longer a choice that the consumer is aware of, but rather one that is made for the user—so they assume the dissenting voices are the others.
This is complicated with younger, more liberal users either abandoning the platform or removing, blocking or muting their more conservative family members to avoid arguments, family drama and/or embarrassment. Which means those voices are heard even less.
So you may be wondering how Donald Trump was so swiftly able to take control of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, considering it is an 11 member board serving seven year terms. I was too. All the current members of the board were appointed by Trump.
The board is supposed to work this way: Nine members are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Those nine members then elect a Postmaster General, who will also sit on the board. The ten then elect a Deputy. No more than 5 members can be of the same party.
Alright, it's been a while since we've had a thread, so tonight I'm going to tell you the story of John P. O'Neill, the man who (sort of) predicted 9/11. Some of you may know this story, others may have never head of O'Neill before.
What follows will be a thread.
If you asked a child in the 1960s what their favorite TV program was, they might say Bonanza or Gunsmoke, but for John P. O'Neill, his appointment television program was The FBI, a show that followed a trio of FBI Agents and included J. Edgar Hoover as a consultant.
The's show is a pretty good example of the 'copaganda' shows that have been a fixture of television since basically the beginning, which you can read more about here: