You bought the entire enchilada with Hillary sauce and Kamala hot n heavy ketchup. Did you actually listen to this or did you just regurgitate everything CNN pushed down your throat?
Do you even care about anything beyond your mental capacity? Are you relinquishing our freedoms to the media.
Listen to the argument, ITS NOT CNN’s or NBC’s call! It’s the process that is written in law.
For fuck sake give your head a shake, we care about due process and if Trump fails to prove his point then okay, but for God sake stop this fascist attitude that Don Lemon, Andersen Copper or MSM collectively get to make this decision. I won’t stand by their call simply because of their biased and outrageous dishonesty.
So take a hike!

@Rick-A You said: Did you actually listen to this or did you just regurgitate everything CNN pushed down your throat? Those two statements seem the same to me. The national media calls elections based on vote count not on their bias. The vote count is what it is. In their judgement, Biden's lead is too large for Trump to overcome. There won't be enough changes in votes to overcome Biden's lead.

CNN NBC etc. didn't make the call. They simply based their assessments on vote numbers as they have traditionally done. I didn't mention any specific news outlets. I don't watch Don Lemon or Andersen Cooper. They may have outrageous bias and dishonesty, but the numbers are what they are and the likelihood that Biden's lead will be overcome is so vanishingly small, any rational person would conclude that Biden is the winner. This not unusual in this country. It's the way we do it here.

@TyKC
Yes well ...
“That’s the way we do it here ...”
It MAY be that the US Citizenry has ... or, at least HAD ... Trusted the Media enough to have allowed that to become an “Accepted Practice”.
HOWEVER ... the Media was NEVER actually granted that Authority by ANY Legal or Legitimate Agency.
The Public ... large swathes of the Public ... NO LONGER TRUST the “Media”.

So ... the EXISTING and NEVER CHANGED LAWS are being dusted off and being put back into use again.

IF There is ANY Fault here, it is the Fault of the US Citizenry who permitted the practice to EXIST In the First Place.

@Bay0Wulf It's not necessary to trust the media. The media does not call the election. They simply report the voting numbers and based on many years of experience, make their prediction based on those numbers. They use the law of large numbers. The law of large numbers is a very reliable statistical technique. Any reasonable person would think that Biden won based on where the numbers are. It's not like the media is out making some bias prediction. The numbers are what they are. Normally, the opposition concedes once the media makes their prediction because it is virtually impossible for the loser to overcome the deficit. Now the media has been wrong on occasion (see Dewy vs. Truman), but the numbers were much closer then. It will take uncommon political interference or a coup for Trump to come out on top. He won't win by a recount.

Hillary turned on that many times. She totally EXPECTED to win, right? Didn't everybody?
So little fraud. She would win, and had her party with her family. Remember?
But Donald Trump had a landslide, blindsided the left.
So, they were ready this time.
No landslide even with fraud(yes, lots found). 48-50 or some such. Within 4 %.
Knowing previous left strategies, cross checking is a responsibility. Nothing legally to do with the President. Other than, it's his job.
Why does everyone SWEEP, ignore, DENY what Joe Biden explained? How his group perpetrated the largest ELECTION FRAUD in history? Isn't that an admission since he said it, we heard it, we saw him say it?
How does THAT not count?
Imagine if Trump said anything like that? Can you?
This is arbitrary, hypocritical.
Joe Biden stepped down in the race years ago because of 'character flaws', lying, plagiarizing.
He was ANGRY at ZHIMSELF, he said for letting this happen.
Nope, for getting caught.
Wait until KamaLOT rides in to relieve demented Joe!

"The media has called elections for years …"
That doesn't matter. They don't have authority to. AP is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is any other media outlet. We have a constitutional process, and it needs to be followed.

"It's become part of the way American transitions …"
In a way, yes. But, no. The processes & laws do not change just because media injects itself more and more.

"… the closeness of the vote had grave national security consequences."
Like? Name one that we didn't overcome.

"Hillary Clinton conceded the day after the election."
So what? If all your friends jumped off the bridge, would you, too?

"Losing candidates are expected to …"
Sure, but we don't know who won/lost yet. The election isn't over. We have a very detailed process that is not actually finalized until December 14. Aaaand, the Constitution provides for contingency measures should there be a stalemate in the Electoral College.

"Trump is putting his personal ambitions ahead to the welfare of the country."
That's your opinion. From my perspective, he has elevated the welfare of the country, and he's doing everything he can to ensure that our electoral process is clean, as free as possible of irregularities, malfeasance, and/or fraud as possible.

"There is no way he's going to overcome Biden's lead …"
That may be. Unless more suppressed Trump votes come in like the 6000 reported in one county in Georgia, ~2000 and another county in Georgia. And the list goes on. Many of the votes Biden got were intended for Trump, but the voting machines switched them. I can't say definitively whether that was a machine-error or outright fraud, but — either way — it needs to be investigated and corrected. Surely, if machines were doing that in Trump's favor there would be an uproar. There should be an uproar either way. Our electoral process must be conducted with integrity. If we can't trust it, then we're worse off than a Third World banana republic.

@Wordmage The media does not call elections based on authority, but on the numbers. The numbers are what they are. Americans simply want to know who won on or about the day after election day. The media simply provides that service. It is in the best interest of the country to start the transition process immediately. If things change during the transition and Trump turns out to be the winner, then so much the better for Trump, but at least plans are set in motion in case that doesn't happen. What's the harm in that?

The media can't interject itself into law. That doesn't and shouldn't happen.

It's best to start the transition before the election is certified. The country benefits from a smooth transition. The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the need to improve the transition process further, after many top national security positions remained unfilled nearly eight months after Inauguration Day, because of the time-consuming nature of obtaining security clearances. In the face of this challenge, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which enacted many of the recommendations of the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission. The act provided for pre-inaugural security clearances for those persons who might serve in top foreign policy positions. Major party nominees could also request clearance for members of their transition teams that needed access to classified information. If something changes in the vote certification process, then the country has hedged its bet. Is that not a good thing?

There are always some irregularities in election processing, but not to the scale necessary to overturn this election. The SOS in Georgia has ordered a hand recount. If there are irregularities, they should show up there. The claim that machines changed votes is an unsubstantiated allegation. There is no evidence to support it other than hearsay. Hearsay doesn't work well in a court of law, which is why most of Trump's lawsuits have been thrown out or withdrawn because, at best, the allegations are hearsay.

Keep in mind that the courts will generally side with the voter. If a voter complied with and was led to believe by the state that they voted legally, within the rules given by the state, then they have every right to believe that their vote should count. And it should. This whole idea of disenfranchising massive numbers of voters simply because they voted by mail is just not going to happen. If it did, then we really would be a third world country. It's also a characteristic of dictatorships that their dictators sow distrust in the election process when there is no good reason to do so. Such undemocratic behavior should be shouted down.

@TyKC "The media does not call elections based on authority, but on the numbers."
Then they shouldn't be calling the election, because the numbers aren't in yet. Each state's certification date needs to be respected, and if there are legal challenges, then those need to be acknowledged and allowed to be played out in the courts rather than simply brushed off by the media. They expose their bias and dedication to a narrative when they merely brush off or mock valid legal challenges.

"The media can't interject itself into law. That doesn't and shouldn't happen."
I agree wholeheartedly that it shouldn't happen, but your other assertion is laughable. Just think of how many people have been "tried" in the media and how many lives have been ruined by them. They most definitely wield influence whenever and however they can in order to sway lawmakers, voters, judges.

Regarding the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — are you asserting that, given that the attack in New York City happened a full eight months after Present Bush took office, that a "smooth transition" that might've added a mere three weeks to his preparation time would have made a dramatic difference in either a) the attack itself, or b) his ability to respond to it, or c) the nation's ability to respond to it? If he had had eight months in office plus nine weeks of transition/preparation time rather than eight months in office plus five weeks of transition/preparation time … That would have made all the difference? You can color me "very dubious."

"There are always some irregularities in election processing, but not to the scale necessary …"
That remains to be seen.
You say that "there is no evidence that machines changed votes" because that has been the coordinated complicit media narrative. Testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence. Signed affidavits are evidence. Just because people don't like the evidence doesn't mean they can say "there is no evidence."

No one is suggesting that "massive numbers of voters" should be disenfranchised "simply because they voted by mail." No one. Your framing of the argument is inaccurate and biased. Rather, they are saying things like, mail-in ballots that were submitted by someone other than the intended recipient, especially when the intended recipient moved out of state, should be rejected. Mail-in ballots that were filled out improperly should be rejected — just as in person ballots would be rejected if they were filled out improperly. Mail-in ballots that were filled out and submitted in the name of people have been dead ten, twenty, and fifty-six years should be rejected. And if you've only been listening to CNN, MSNBC, and Vox, then that explains why you're in the dark as to just how many occurrences of these sorts of things have been cropping up.

@Wordmage Again the Press make their predictions based on the statistics they get from the precincts and the states. The Press has no authority to call elections and never has. If that were the case, Al Gore would have been president. Based on the numbers, any reasonable person would conclude that the likelihood that Trump prevails is vanishingly small. There is no compelling reason to delay the transition process. The transition rules say that the apparent winner is entitled to certain transition rights, which the Trump Administration is denying. The certification procedures and legal challenges can proceed as the transition process takes place. It is simply in the best interest of the country. If Biden prevails, wouldn't you want him to hit the ground running and to be aware of the situation on the ground?

It's true many people are tired unfairly in the Press, but that is irrelevant in this case. There is no way to try a vote in the Press since in the majority of the cases the identity of the voter is unknown. A vote is a vote. And there is no way of denying that one way or another. There are no good votes or bad votes, just votes. Some might be legal votes and some not. But that has to be determined on an individual basis.

I can't say that if the transition had been smoother in the Bush years, then 9/11 would have been prevented or discouraged. Although that is possible. What I can say is that Congress was sufficiently troubled by the prospect to pass a law that would make the transition quicker and smoother, which is simply the common sense thing to do.

Testimony of eyewitnesses and signed affidavits are evidence, but they generally regarded as hearsay unless supported by additional evidence. The courts will almost always protect the rights of the voters to have their votes counted unless there is supporting evidence of extreme irregularities. Traditionally minor irregularities are regarded by the courts as insufficient to throw out ballots.

You wrote: "No one is suggesting that "massive numbers of voters" should be disenfranchised simply because they voted by mail." No one. Actually, that's not true. The Trump campaign has filed lawsuits in both Nevada and PA which say exactly that. That vote by mail is illegal. They of course lost in both cases. The president's lawyer Rudy G. is claiming massive voter fraud on a National scale. Yet, he is only willing to pay to investigate voter fraud in counties where most voters vote Democratic. Clearly, he is uninterested in clearing up the massive voter fraud he claims exists everywhere. He is only interested in disenfranchising massive numbers of voters in Democratic districts and upon dubious merit at best. That just won't and shouldn't happen.

@TyKC
The unprecedented use of unsolicited & unverifiable mail in ballots, a tactic that was initiated just months before this election, so that no preparations nor trials could be run, was utterly foolish at best, criminal at worst.
Since you keep asserting that there is "no evidence" and you are projecting what you believe Rudy Giuliani & other conservatives who are attempting to have irregularities & inequities in this election investigated "is uninterested in" and "is interested in," I'll just leave the following new story here:
[foxla.com]

At the very least, now you're aware there is evidence that isn't "hearsay," as you call it. And I daresay 8000 fraudulent voter registrations is hardly a "minor irregularity." Nor is 6000 "found" ballots in one county in Georgia. Nor is the tacking up of Bristol board to cover windows in a voting precinct in Detroit. Each of these is an egregious blemish on the integrity of the entire voting process in each of those places, if not an indicator of possible malfeasance. That possibility is what warrants investigation. In every instance. Therefore, no precinct where there is any irregularity of these sorts should be rushing to certify the results until every wrinkle is ironed out.

@Wordmage As far as unsolicited & unverifiable mail in ballots, no ballots are unverifiable. Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Hawaii have voted entirely by mail for years. There has never been wide spread voter fraud in those states. The only other states or districts that automatically sent out ballots this year were California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Out of those, the only possible state that might have gone to Trump would have been Nevada. And that's where the lawsuits have been filed. There is no interest in filing lawsuits in the other states by the Trump Campaign where the so called fraud occurred. The total number of possible votes in those states is about 44M, not the 80M that Trump claims. The rest of the states simply expanded their absentee ballots. Voters must request those. Absentee balloting has been done for years without significant issues. In fact, Trump voted absentee. You can read the full details here: [reuters.com]

The person mentioned in the foxa story was caught and convicted, so the attempted fraud was foiled by authorities. The "found" 6000 votes in Georgia were overlooked during the recount, not the original count. The error was corrected and the recount confirmed that Biden was the winner. Your examples only go to show that the systems in place work well and do what they are suppose to do in a fair election and that we should have more confidence in them, not less. Pursuing every possible irregularity is both impractical and unnecessary, particularly when such pursuits would not affect the outcome of the election. Moreover, the Trump Campaign has virtually given up on overturning the election through recounts and lawsuits and, instead, is attempting to overturn the election by uncommon political interference. He is soliciting the legislatures in Michigan and PA. to intervene on his behalf asking them to elect electors that would vote for him and ignore the results of the election. In addition, it is likely the governor of Georgia will refuse to certify the election results even if the SOS does.

@TyKC
If the voting systems are so secure & accurate, why weren't they considered so in 2016? Why were there for years of shouting about "Russian collusion," but for some reason the Russians decided to sit this election out?

You are incorrect — several states sent out absentee ballots that were not requested at all. Additionally, at least one state sent them out twice, possibly three times. People reported receiving 2-3 ballots each, or ballots in the names of people who had not lived at those addresses for years. This throws the door wide open for fraudulent activity.

Some Democrats appear to be claiming that "irregularities & fraud happens in every election, to some degree," but we should ignore it, and at the same time, out of the other side of their mouse, they're claiming that this election had no fraud or irregularities. And you, my friend, appear to be one of them. You can't have it both ways. And, no, there is no level of fraud that should be ignored. There are no irregularities that should be allowed to just slide by without being addressed. We're talking about the integrity of the election here.

As far as "attempting to overcome the election by uncommon political interference," I've seen no such thing. What I see are the actions of administration in response to numerous reports, eyewitness accounts, signed affidavits, and video evidence from multiple levels of government in multiple states, initiating justified lawsuits & demands for recounts that are both legal and constitutional.

There is no "President-Elect." Not until December 14. Period. I'll leave it there.

@Wordmage There was no claim that voting systems were not secure & accurate in 2016. There was some concern that the systems could be hacked by foreign actors, but that turned out to be not to be the case. Hillary Clinton would not have conceded if there were documented problems in the voting systems.

Some states did send out more than one ballot to voters, but that was because there were errors on the original ballots and those had to be correct. There was no attempt to defraud anyone.

You say: "As far as "attempting to overcome the election by uncommon political interference," I've seen no such thing." Then explain this: Sidney Powell has openly suggested Republican-controlled state legislatures should usurp the will of their voters and appoint pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. Most experts believe this plan — which some see as an irreversible threat to democracy — is neither legally nor politically feasible, and GOP leaders in several states have categorically ruled out the idea. Still, Trump has privately toyed with the idea, even inviting Michigan’s Republican legislative leaders to the White House Friday, the New York Times reported.

[forbes.com]

@TyKC
There absolutely were claims that voting systems were not secure & accurate. I'm not certain of the year, whether it was 2012 or 2016, but teenagers at a tech conference demonstrated they could flip votes on voting machines. I'm sorry if you missed all the noise that was made about it back then, because I just don't have the mental energy tonight to dig up links for you.

Trump is pursuing legal measures to see that has many irregularities and potential instances of malfeasance as possible get investigated. Democrats spent more than three years crying, "not my president!" and millions of dollars investigating a fake allegation of "Russian collusion." If election integrity was so important then, why isn't it now? Surely we can allow for three more weeks to be certain of the results of this election and that a legal, constitutional process has been followed.

We have no "President-Elect."
Good night.