Scanning the airwaves...they may "know" something about Texas

[PCIntern]

It reminds me of The Election Day when the Republicans first took over the House in the 1980’s. The powers that be knew that day what was going to happen but weren’t stating it until the polls began to close. There’s the same kind of murmuring. Here’s hoping.

[DeminPennswoods]

1. MSNBC has been pumping Pennsylvania

as the tipping point state for weeks and weeks, but last night on Maddow's show there was subtle shift in language, I can't recall it exactly, but implying that just maybe PA wasn't going to be that.

They have exit poll data and possibly even some actual vote numbers and analytical models in which to plug these numbers.

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. So, are they hinting PA will go Trump?

[Boogiemack]

4. I think they are hinting that PA may not be the tipping point but TX may be. nt

[DeminPennswoods]

9. Heilman was on with either Maddow or O'Donnell last

night. He's been travelling to TX, OH, FL and was in Atl GA. He said Biden winning TX is a real possibility, thinks Biden will win GA, but Trump will hang on to FL.

[2naSalit]

19. He was Lawrence's show...

He did say that, made me feel a little less anxious for a little while. He also mentioned the Senate race here in Montana. It's been tight the whole time, within MOE, but Daines has a problem, he's a sycophant and he just held a rally this past weekend with two unpopulars, jr and nugent. -45 is growing more unpopular in the state. I had to drive up to the count seat yesterday and I noticed that the majority of the campaign signs for him are missong, some only retained the local candidate signs.

[DeminPennswoods]

5. No, just that it might not be the tipping point

for either candidate. It made me think they know one of the early reporting states will flip making PA less important.

[PJMcK]

10. That's not how I'm reading between the lines

I think the implication is that other states will go for Biden/Harris and PA won't be a deciding factor.

We've been living in NE PA since the pandemic began. Although it is Trump country there's a feeling the state will go for Biden. The thing is, they won't start counting absentee and mailed ballots until after the polls close tonight. That means it will take a few days to get clear vote totals.

If Biden wins Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin or (gasp!) Texas, it's over for Trump. that's why PA's count might not be as consequential.

Anyway, I think that's the perspective.

[Miguelito Loveless]

21. Thanks!

[DeminPennswoods]

25. Actually, that's how I read it, too,

but didn't want to be too optimistic.

[dsp3000]

11. If tx is called for biden then PAs long counting won't matter. It will be over

Nt

[gab13by13]

12. Really the reason was that Pa.

is not going to be finished counting its ballots on election night. Pa. counts its mail in ballots last with several counties not even counting them until tomorrow. So the reasoning was that if Trump lost a Texas or a Florida which will have results on election night it's game over for Trump.

[karynnj]

22. They are more than hinting that Trump NEEDS PA to win

The logic behind that is that NO Clinton won state is considered anything but solid for Biden. Trump must win almost all of the states he won - he can lose very few. Once Michigan and Wisconsin polled better for Biden than Pennsylvania, even though it has been consistently for Biden, it represents Trump's best chance if he loses no other state he won in 2016.

What is NOT said is that Biden could (and hopefully will) win a GOP state - such as NC, GA, FL, TX etc - making a Trump win in PA not enough.

So, the discussion is for explaining what 538 estimates as the 10% chance of Trump. The reason he is as low as 10% is that Biden IS favored to win PA (and WI and MI and all the Clinton states) AND he has the potential to win upsets in GOP states. Clearly, it is better to be the one with a 90% chance of winning, but 10% is not the same as zero chance.

You could say that the amount of time spent on a potential 10% chance is more than it should be, but in every race of my lifetime except one, I never saw the media NOT concentrate on the potentially losing side pulling off an upset. The one exception was 2016. I wonder if the media had given a Trump win more credence whether it would NOT have happened. Could that have pushed many unmotivated people who lean to our side voting? An obvious parallel question would be whether that discussion is pulling out Democrats this year out of fear of 4 more years.

[Miguelito Loveless]

24. Thanks,

I am overwhelmed trying to read the tea leaves.

[NCjack]

3. If DEMs take Texas and Congress enacts 1-person, 1-vote legislation that

stops gerrymandering combined with voting rights protections, the Repuke party is dead.

[GoneOffShore]

7. Time to drive a stake through its totally black heart.

[SheltieLover]

8. Here's hoping!

[quakerboy]

13. Dead like s zombie

Rotten, irritating, and still dangerous.

Unless biden declassifies a whole bunch of what happened and turns his justice department loose to prosecute everything, they will hang on in the shadows, and in a few years, they will find their next cult leader, and dig up enough zell millers, van drews and liebermans willing to join them or lend them the perception of respectability.

They survived putting bush in office and immediately came back even stronger. Today is the barest beginning of fixing things, not the end

[Wicked Blue]

18. DeNazification is desperately needed nt

[Iliyah]

6. Wouldn't that be something if Texas turn blue . .

galore of GOP's attorneys ensue.

PA sides with Dems . .

[Takket]

14. Well as I said here yesterday...

The GOP would not be losing its shit and appealing to every court in the land over 100k votes in a state usually as “safe” as Texas, if their numbers were telling them they had no need to worry. In 2016 100k ballots would have changed nothing any they wouldn’t have bothered suing over them.

2020 is clearly different.

[sweetloukillbot]

15. I worked in a newsroom in 2004 - one of my colleagues knew Olberman

He even got an inside scoop from him. They were sure of 2004 - and acting so, until the Florida panhandle came in.
So they may have a expectations of what will happen, and they may be acting as such, but they may change along the way, and you will be able to notice that.

Not trying to be a wet blanket here. But yes, the reporters will have a definite expectation of the evenings narrative. And if that changes you can tell.

[NorthOf270]

16. I wouldn't try to "read" anything

In 2016 at 7pm MSNBC seemed very confident the election was going to be declared over fast. The implication was that Hillary was going to win Georgia and that would signal a landslide.

Watching the panel’s faces over the next hour or so as they realized the opposite was happening was horrific.

I still have PTSD.

[doc03]

17. They have to fill 24 hours 7 days a week with bull shit. nt

[Baltimike]

23. Yup. The campaigns will know for sure around 5 or 6 o'clock.

Really.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

26. I remember exit poll data being leaked in 2012

it was obvious then it was all over. Curiously, Romney's delusion carried on into the night.