Thread by @Elaijuh

One think that’s so striking to me about the way this has played out in PA (dayslong count, strong blue shift) is it was so predictable.

I mean, we predicted it. Repeatedly. It shouldn’t catch us off guard.

It’s the direct outcome of the electoral system and clear set of facts.

In January, we warned it could take days to call the election.

Why? It’s the first year all PA voters could vote by mail. That meant there would be a lot of ballots.

At the time, counties couldn’t open ballots before 8 p.m. Election Day.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

The secretary of state disagreed. She said it wouldn’t be a problem bc counties would count mail ballots after polls close and before the first in-person results come in.

This was before the pandemic surged demand for mail ballots. In March, it was changed from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Also in January, we explained the blue shift and warned that a Republican could lead on election night but still lose Pennsylvania.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

In May, before the primary, we said the pandemic had driven an increase in demand for mail ballots that made it clear results would take days.

Counties simply couldn’t process all of them in one night, or even a few days.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

And the thing we noted then was the public might not really notice the long counting of votes, given the primary.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

Since then, we wrote about the counting of votes over and over and over. We also wrote about the blue shift repeatedly.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

The week before Election Day, we laid out how results could look:

• First results strongly pro-Biden
• Then Trump looks like he’s winning big
• Blue shift for days
• Might not know who won PA on Nov. 3

It’s exactly what happened.

inquirer.com/politics/elect…

To be clear, this isn’t some sort of victory lap. It’s not like anyone at The Inquirer had some magical predictive powers.

We’re not special. And others have written similar things. (Especially the experts who inform our work.)

The real point is this: This is all so predictable.

We saw it coming.

Policymakers could have avoided it, if they really wanted to. (They don’t have to, obviously. Not my place to say.)

But it’s NOT a fluke, or a surprise, or a mistake of the system.