- Election Day is tomorrow, but it is highly unlikely that we will know the results that same day.
- Here’s what you need to know about what we can expect to see tomorrow and in the days and weeks that follow.
Don’t Bank on a Winner
Election Day is finally near and while the results are still up in the air, there are some things that we should expect going into Tuesday.
First and foremost, the election will not end tomorrow. Do not expect a clear winner on election night. More people than ever before are voting by mail this year, and those mail-in ballots take longer for election officials to count than ballots cast at polling places.
The delay from counting absentee ballots combined with the fact that each state has different rules for how votes are counted and reported means that votes will be reported unevenly. Some states may report totals very early, perhaps even on election night. Others will take days to tally up all their results, including some of the key swing states that will ultimately decide the election.
This means that even if the election looks like it’s headed in a certain direction tomorrow, there is really no way to know who has won until those swing states are fully counted.
That point is extremely important to note because it is very likely that the election may look like it is headed towards Republicans and President Donald Trump early on. This is what’s known as a red mirage. Numerous models show that Republicans are more likely to vote in person and Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. As a result, early tallies might show a GOP-heavy lead on Election day, but the final result could shift when absentee votes are counted.
For example, in Pennsylvania, which is arguably one of the most important swing states, election officials have said that ballots will likely not fully be counted until Friday. In that time, the results will almost certainly shift significantly.
In fact, according to calculations by FiveThirtyEight, we could see a situation where Trump is ahead by upwards of 16 points on election night in the state, only for him to eventually lose thes state by five points or more once all ballots are counted— a potential 21-plus point swing.
What Trump Might Do
To that point, something else we could very possibly see is President Trump capitalizing on this red mirage to sow discord, create uncertainty, and undermine the validity of millions of ballots that arrived on or even before Election Day but simply take longer to count.
Trump advisers who have spoken to the media have even allegedly outright said this is part of his strategy.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Trump advisers told the outlet “their best hope was if the president wins Ohio and Florida is too close to call early in the night, depriving Mr. Biden a swift victory and giving Mr. Trump the room to undermine the validity of uncounted mail-in ballots in the days after.”
On Sunday, Axios appeared to back that up, reporting that three sources familiar with the president’s private comments said Trump “has told confidants he’ll declare victory on Tuesday night if it looks like he’s ‘ahead’ […] even if the Electoral College outcome still hinges on large numbers of uncounted votes in key states like Pennsylvania.”
Trump denied that he would prematurely declare victory while speaking to reporters later in the day, but he also added, “We’re going to go in the night of, as soon as that election’s over, we’re going in with our lawyers.”
However, it is unclear exactly what Trump’s lawyers would do. As Slate points out, while there have been many disputes over ballots that arrive after Election Day, “there has never been any basis to claim that a ballot arriving on time cannot be counted if officials cannot finish their count on election night.”
Here’s the thing: no single state fully counts their ballots on election night. Some places will not even start counting until polls close.
That is what normally happens during the general election, even without a historic amount of ballots being sent by mail, which is why these efforts by Trump and his campaign to undermine the very counting of ballots is so unprecedented.
As Slate notes: “Counting legitimate ballots is not stealing or flipping the election, and no amount of spin can make it otherwise.”
Trump, however, will likely not be the only one trying to capitalize on and spin these delays in final results. Weeks ago, the FBI warned that foriegn actors and cybercriminals will use the delays to spread disinformation about the election.
To prepare, numerous media outlets and social media platforms have emphasized their efforts to crack down on misinformation. Last month, Reuters reported that executives of major TV networks will emphasize credibility and thorough vetting of results over speed.
On Monday morning, Twitter also laid out its new policies for sharing election results, with the platform also specifically naming seven outlets it will use as credible sources to call the election.
Those outlets being ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, and NBC News.
Any tweet posted about election results that does not cite those sources risks being labeled as misinformation, the company said.
With that in mind, remember that there are many people who would benefit in many different ways from the spread of false information. In the coming days and weeks, it is absolutely essential that you pay attention to authoritative sources, fact check any claims you see, and think carefully before sharing anything on social media.
Prepare for the Possibility of a Long Wait
As noted earlier, the election will not end tomorrow, and even once a majority of ballots are tallied, it is highly possible the election will not be decided for weeks due to court challenges.
Trump himself has said he will fight voting rules and results all the way to the Supreme Court, and according to The Times, Trump’s campaign is raising money to continue these ballot fights well into mid-December, citing the belief that “multiple states” could “require recounts.”
Experts say we can indeed expect to see many court cases, which will in turn further delay key results and possibly even the declaration of a winner. While we don’t know what will come of those legal challenges, we do know that we need to buckle down and prepare for a lot of unknowns and turmoil from now until the inauguration.
As Axios writes in its guide to safely and sanely navigating the election, “Even if you get the result you want, anticipate months of wild maneuvering and protests […] The nation is headed into a firestorm. There’s no way it’s orderly or normal, or even necessarily over when it seems over. All we can do is be smart about what’s to come, and wise in our responses.”
See what others are saying: (Slate) (Axios) (The New York Times)
Supreme Court Rules High School Football Coach Can Pray on Field
All of our rights are “hanging in the balance,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion.
Court’s Conservatives Break With 60 Years of History
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job after he refused to stop praying on the field at the end of games.
Joseph Kennedy, who was hired at Bremerton High School in Washington State in 2008, kneeled at the 50-yard line after games for years and prayed. He was often joined by some of his players, as well as others from the opposing team.
In 2015, the school asked him not to pray if it interfered with his duties or involved students.
Shortly after, Kennedy was placed on paid administrative leave, and after a school official recommended that his contract not be renewed for the 2016 season he did not reapply for the position.
Kennedy sued the school, eventually appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices voted 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.
“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” he added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.
“Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection,” she said.
“In doing so, the court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance.”
The defense in the case argued that the public nature of Kennedy’s prayers put pressure on students to join him, and that he was acting in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen.
Kennedy’s lawyers contended that such an all-encompassing definition of his job duties denied him his right to self-expression on school grounds.
“This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a statement following the decision. “All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys … I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.”
Religious Liberty or Separation of Church and State?
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot organize or promote prayer in public schools, and it has since generally abided by that jurisprudence.
But the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been increasingly protective of religious expression, especially after the confirmation of three conservative Trump-appointed judges.
Reactions to the ruling were mostly split between liberals who saw the separation of church and state being dissolved and conservatives who hailed it as a victory for religious liberty.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school district, said in a statement that the ruling “gutted decades of established law that protected students’ religious freedom.”
“If Coach Kennedy were named Coach Akbar and he had brought a prayer blanket to the 50 yard line to pray after a game,” one Twitter user said, “I’ve got a 401(k) that says this illegitimate, Christofascist SCOTUS rules 6-3 against him.”
“The people defending former Coach Kennedy’s right to kneel on the field after the game to pray – are the ones condemning Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel on the field to protest police brutality against Black Americans,” another user wrote.
Others, like Republican Congressmember Ronny Jackson and former Secretary of State for the Trump administration Mike Pompeo, celebrated the ruling for protecting religious freedom and upholding what they called the right to pray.
“I am excited to build on this victory and continue securing our inalienable right to religious freedom,” Pompeo wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Rep. Schiff Urges DOJ to Investigate Trump for Election Crimes: “There’s Enough Evidence”
“When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate,” the congressman said.
Schiff Says DOJ Should Launch Inquiry
Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Ca.) told Rogue Rocket that he believes there is “certainly […] enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation” into possible election crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.
Schiff, who took the lead in questioning witnesses testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, said that it will be up to the DOJ to determine whether “they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal activity, but added that an investigation must first be launched.
“Donald Trump should be treated like any other citizen,” the congressman said, noting that a federal judge in California has already ruled that Trump and his allies “likely” engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. “When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate.”
“One of the concerns I have is it’s a year and a half since these events. And while […] there’s an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney, I don’t see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this, and I think it’s fair to ask why,” Schiff continued, referencing the ongoing inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia.
“Normally, the Justice Department doesn’t wait for Congress to go first. They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They’re often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it’s important that it not just be the lower-level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope,” he continued. “I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election where there’s evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts should be investigated.”
Schiff Takes Aim at DOJ’s Handling of Committee Subpoenas
Schiff also expressed frustration with how the DOJ has handled referrals the committee has made for former Trump officials who have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the panel.
“We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them,” he stated. “That’s not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them, and by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.”
As far as why the congressman thought the DOJ has chosen to operate in this manner in regards to the Jan. 6 panel’s investigation, he said he believes “the leadership of the department is being very cautious.”
“I think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible, doesn’t do anything that could even be perceived as being political,” Schiff continued. “And while I appreciate that sentiment […] at the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. If you’re so averse, […] it means that you’re giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law. That, too, is a political decision, and I think it’s the wrong decision.”
On the Note of Democracy
Schiff emphasized the importance of the American people working together to protect democracy in the fallout of the insurrection.
“I really think it’s going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We’re going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail,” he asserted. “It’s difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things.”
“We don’t have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we’re seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy,” the congressman continued. “We had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we’re not called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices. We see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we’re not asked to do that.”
“So what we have to do is, by comparison, so much easier. But it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections.”
“We are not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can, you know, grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (CNN)
Senate Passes Bill to Help Veterans Suffering From Burn Pit Exposure
For Biden, who believes his son Beau may have died from brain cancer caused by burn pits, the issue is personal.
Veterans to Get Better Healthcare
The Senate voted 84-14 Thursday to pass a bill that would widely expand healthcare resources and benefits to veterans who were exposed to burn pits while deployed overseas.
Until about 2010, the Defense Department used burn pits to dispose of trash from military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, dumping things like plastics, rubber, chemical mixtures, and medical waste into pits and burning them with jet fuel.
Numerous studies and reports have demonstrated a link between exposure to the toxic fumes emitted by the pits and health problems such as respiratory ailments and rare cancers. The DoD has estimated that nearly 3.5 million veterans may have inhaled enough smoke to suffer from related health problems.
For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs resisted calls to recognize the link between exposure and illness, arguing it had not been scientifically proven and depriving many veterans of disability benefits and medical reimbursements.
Over the past year, however, the VA relented, awarding presumptive benefit status to veterans exposed to burn pits, but it only applied to those who were diagnosed with asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis within 10 years of their service.
The latest bill would add 23 conditions to the list of what the VA covers, including hypertension. It also calls for investments in VA health care facilities, claims processing, and the VA workforce, while strengthening federal research on toxic exposure.
The bill will travel to the House of Representatives next, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to push it through quickly. Then it will arrive at the White House for final approval.
An Emotional Cause for Many
Ahead of a House vote on an earlier version of the bill in March, comedian John Stewart publically slammed Congress for taking so long to act.
“They’re all going to say the same thing. ‘We want to do it. We want to support the veterans. But we want to do it the right way. We want to be responsible,’” he said. “You know what would have been nice? If they had been responsible 20 years ago and hadn’t spent trillions of dollars on overseas adventures.”
“They could have been responsible in the seventies when they banned this kind of thing in the United States,” he continued. “You want to do it here? Let’s dig a giant fucking pit, 10 acres long, and burn everything in Washington with jet fuel. And then let me know how long they want to wait before they think it’s going to cause some health problems.”
For President Biden, the issue is personal. He has said he believes burn pits may have caused the brain cancer that killed his son Beau in 2015.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded the fact the long-awaited benefits could soon arrive for those impacted.
“The callousness of forcing veterans who got sick as they were fighting for us because of exposure to these toxins to have to fight for years in the VA to get the benefits they deserved — Well, that will soon be over. Praise God,” he said during a speech on Thursday.
A 2020 member survey by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America found that 86% of respondents were exposed to burn pits or other toxins.
Although burn pits have largely been scaled down, the DoD has not officially banned them, and at least nine were still in operation in April 2019.