by UnHerd
Friday, 12
March 2021
Audio
11:41

Did Joe Biden instruct the media on election night?

Two reporters say that US networks delayed calling the result at his request
by UnHerd
President Joe Biden speaks to reporters. Credit: Getty

The authors of an insider account of Joe Biden’s fortuitous path to the White House, ‘Lucky‘, have let slip a rather eye-popping detail.

Appearing on the 538 podcast, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes revealed, almost nonchalantly, some details about the role the media played on the night of the election and its aftermath. When asked about how prepared, if at all, the Biden campaign was for Trump’s refusal to concede and the events that followed November 3rd, they responded (43:50):

Biden’s team was very very prepared for this — they went out to the networks before the election and said don’t call it early. It’s going to look like Trump’s ahead — the red mirage as it’s called — and then eventually more democratic votes will get counted late particularly in Pennsylvania and so they were able to hold off the networks for a while. As it turned out, they may have been a bad thing for them in the public perception because they might have been declared early if the networks weren’t primed to hold off for a while. [emphasis mine]
- Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes, 538


See 43:50 for the key exchange

Media bias in America is nothing new — however much certain networks may try to claim otherwise, nearly every broadcast organisation in the country leans either Left or Right to varying degrees. But what does appear to be new is the extent of influence that campaign teams have on the mechanics of the news coverage itself. That the Biden team was able to “prime” the networks as to when to call an election is deeply disturbing. If this kind of thing were to occur in Russia, for instance, networks like CNN and MSNBC would no doubt be in uproar (not least because they spent four years propagating the Russiagate conspiracy); or, closer to home: imagine if it was Trump, not Biden, attempting to manipulate coverage in this way.

This level of double standard feels like a new juncture in the media’s evolution from dispassionate news-gatherers to political partisans. It is hard to think of a more important moment than calling a general election result — this decision should be made by editorial teams alone in the pursuit of the truth, not pre-agreed deals with one of the contestants in the race itself.

Stories like this are only going to fuel the sense of collusion between the Democratic Party and elites circles of the media — that there was no pushback whatsoever from the interviewers on this podcast shows how far down the road they have already come.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
128 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
1 year ago

Having followed the election quite closely this does not surprise me ONE BIT and one has to have some sympathy for the Trump supporters who said all along this would happen. It’s not a stretch to say Biden and the Democrat propaganda team aka the MSM in no small way contributed to the febrile atmosphere that also added fuel to the events at the Capitol.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cheryl Jones
Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Nonsense. How can reporting the election results accurately be the thing that contributes to an insurrection?

Ver Edge
Ver Edge
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

I think Cheryl is also speaking to a wider point. The license on Left-wing violence was so broad in 2020 (and still is, of course) that the “insurrection” was about the least we could expect. And, surely, we are using the term insurrection here in its very widest sense. What sort of insurrection in the USA occurs from Conservatives who are unarmed? It’s pretty weak stuff.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Ver Edge

You mean the ones who stormed through barricades mob-handed and raged around the Capitol building looking for senators to lynch whilst they were in the process of confirming the vote?

G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

No, that was Antifa who came equipped, and who were pointed out to police by the real protesters. The Capitol police removed the barriers and invited the protesters in. There were no guns present. The person who smashed the window through which Ashli Babbett was shot dead was Antifa. You apparently support those haters.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

No. It wasn’t. Not a single person arrested was anything other than a Trump supporter. Antifa was not involved. You need to engage with facts.

G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Antifa is an FBI front, obviously; which is why it riots with impunity. About 20 Anti activists have been identified by Trump people. None by the police.
Your unpleasant political party is rushing to demonise all whites, especially men, and take away their arms. It’s the communism of the Reset they want; or Olam Ha-ba. Take your pick – either way, that’s what you are fighting for.

Last edited 1 year ago by G Worker
Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

About 20 Anti activists have been identified by Trump people

Like that guy in the meme that had a “hammer and sickle” on his hand that actually turned out to be a design from the game “Dishonoured 2”, and who turned out to be a white supremacist?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Not one? https://theintercept.com/2021/01/14/capitol-riot-john-sullivan-ashli-babbitt/
It would appear that your claim is inaccurate.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Even that’s up for debate, from the article you linked –

“At the same time, left-wing organizers have been keen to stress that
they ejected Sullivan from their ranks months ago, accusing him of being
either a right-wing infiltrator or a dangerously naive amateur.”

He may well be just a generic agitator, who doesn’t care one way or another for the cause he attaches to.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

so Sullivan magically became a Trump operative? Two networks – not one, two – paid him for footage from inside. That’s well beyond the margin of coincidence.
For months, leftist groups rioted, looted, and murdered, but now the same left clutches its pearls over a clown show it wants to call an insurrection? Sure.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

so Sullivan magically became a Trump operative

No, it looks to me like he’s just a generic agitator, more interested in causing chaos than any particular outcome.

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

False. John Sullivan and his female companion are absolutely on the far-Left, anarchist/Antifa end of the political spectrum. They have been charged. Sullivan was very active in the actual breaking and rioting, urging people to burn the building etc.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

Wow people on the Trump side are quick to disown their own people.
Babbit was a fervent Trump supported and into Q, she acted on what she thought Trump wanted, and certainly what was being bandied about the internet. She got shot while trying to obstruct US democracy *for Trump*, and in return y’all spit on her corpse by calling her a false-flag operative and a supporter of everything she was against.
It’s chilling the level to which some people buy into their own disinformation narrative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave H
G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Babbett was unarmed and was murdered in cold blood. Do you support that? Would you have killed the trigger like the black cop hiding behind the door (whose identity the Biden administration has still not allowed to be released).
If you can’t see that something is wrong here, then you are lost to hatred.

Last edited 1 year ago by G Worker
Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

“Babbett was unarmed and was murdered in cold blood”

Babbit was part of a right wing mob storming congress with intent to kill politicians and disrupt democracy. That’s not “cold blood”.

If you can’t see that something is wrong here, then you are lost to hatred.

What’s wrong is that a mob of angry Trump supporters, whipped up on a diet of lies, stormed congress, equipped for executions. If you can’t see why *that*s a problem, it’s you that’s lost. I don’t hate anyone. I’m disturbed by the number of people who, living in a western democracy, are spinning themselves into some sort of us vs. them, winner takes all, existential battle, based around a tissue of lies, and seem to support a military coup and the installation of their guy by force,

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave H
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

who was “equipped for executions” because story after story has said no guns were seized from suspects. Someone on the Capitol grounds carrying is hardly evidence of an existential threat to democracy.
And what military coup? On the contrary, troops have undergone a “prove your innocence” charade after the military was accused of being a hotbed of extremists. Great way to instill morale.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

who was “equipped for executions”

Those folks who erected a gallows, I’d say.

And what military coup?

There hasn’t been one, but there are a lot of people who have been praying for Trump to be reinstalled by the military.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

People praying for something is a far leap from that thing happening. As it is, DC now looks like an armed camp.
I seem to recall some leftists with a guillotine at some protest. Were they intended to use it?

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

People praying for something is a far leap from that thing happening.

I agree. I didn’t say it was going to happen, I said it’s bad that a fairly large group seem to want it.

I seem to recall some leftists with a guillotine at some protest.

Who knows? I’m not a leftist. Were they actively trying to apprehend politicians at the time too? Then they should probably face legal consequences.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave H
Bits Nibbles
Bits Nibbles
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Well you may not be a leftist, but you sure sound like a statist. Why would anyone face legal consequences for walking into a public building which is maintained by taxes they themselves pay?

Dominic Rudman
Dominic Rudman
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

To be fair to Guessed Worker, s/he said that the person who smashed the window was Antifa, not that Babbit was Antifa. The truth of that I don’t know as I haven’t been following too closely.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic Rudman

Fair enough, I don’t know who smashed the window, but the claims of “antifa” being present at the event are both far-fetched and extremely convenient for those who don’t want to face the fact that their tribe literally tried to overturn democracy.

steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Democracy was overturned when the Biden “won” due to bogus ballots counted in the dead of night after all the observers went home, and on voting machines that were programed to change Trump votes to Biden. The rest was merely a reaction to that.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  steve eaton

Well if any of that were true, I’d agree.
But seeing as such things were invented from whole cloth, I’m, afraid I can’t.

steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Well, it’s already been established by forensic examination of the voting machine software, and the data from some of the counties using it, that the software did in fact change votes, and always from Trump to Biden. The only thing not already proven is whether the code was written that way on purpose.

Chris D
Chris D
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Are you one of these Blue Anon believers?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

It’s chilling the level to which some people buy into their own disinformation narrative.
Like the claim that the Capitol cop was beaten to death? Like the various members of Congress claiming fear for their lives when they were not even in the building? Like the claim of cops targeting black people when stats show 75% of civilians killed are NOT black?
Yes, it is chilling but not necessarily in the way you’re thinking. Had Babbit been killed in an antifa or BLM riot, the left would be howling. Instead, they’re cheering that she was gunned down.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Like the claim that the Capitol cop was beaten to death?

Do tell, what really happened in your worldview?

Like the claim of cops targeting black people when stats show 75% of civilians killed are NOT black?

That’s quite big for 13.4% of the population
Methinks you’ve been huffing disinformation again.

Instead, they’re cheering that she was gunned down.

Nobody’s cheering. It’s very sad, it’s worrying for the state of US democracy, and it’s a horrible consequence of the altered reality the american right is building for itself.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Do tell, what really happened in your worldview? It’s not my view; it’s the coroner’s and it’s the families. There were no signs of physical trauma.
That’s quite big for 13.4% of the population The 13% that carries out more than 50% of the homicides, you mean, with blacks almost always being the victims, too? Either way, it fails in suggesting that this is racially motivated, especially in big cities with black officers, command staff, and often, chiefs.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

It’s not my view; it’s the coroner’s and it’s the families. There were no signs of physical trauma.

As far as I can tell, that information hasn’t been released publicly… though it does appear to be a very murky picture as to what exactly went on there.

Either way, it fails in suggesting that this is racially
motivated, especially in big cities with black officers, command staff,
and often, chiefs.

It doesn’t really exonerate anyone.
Were the 25% of people killed by the police in commission of murder at the time?

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

I haven’t seen one person claim that Babbit was a false-flag. You are very much mistaken as to the general tone and content of the discussion of the Capitol riot by those on the right.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Yes, the riot that the whole media, political, and education establishment condemned and then some. However, even as I type, riots are going on in other parts of the US that are not being picked apart by the mainstream media. I think it’s safe to say that no-one on Unherd condones violence of any sort and they are glad when the media reports it. What seems to irk most people is that when violence serves one political party’s agenda it is painted as a civil rights movement, but when people counter-protest against that they are labeled right-wing insurrectionists.
When BLM was politically permitted to beat up people, burn down businesses and yell at people in restaurants, it sent a message that violent protests are ok – they are a legitimate form of discourse.
The media outrage comes not from the Capitol riots themselves, but for the fact that their tactics were turned against them when the rioters targeted the ‘wrong people’ i.e. the political class.

Charles Knapp
Charles Knapp
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

That the media by and large did engage in a double-standard in covering violent demonstrations is a separate question from whether the Capitol was stormed by Trump supporters (which I think any fair observer understands to have been the case).

We can all agree that the coverage of BLM and other so-called social justice demonstrations was at odds with reality. First, these protesters were all suddenly given a pass on the otherwise blanket and strict Covid restriction protocols that prohibited gathering in large crowds. Far worse, in a “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” approach to journalism, we all witnessed violent “protests” that were bizarrely described as “mostly peaceful” even as buildings and cars burned behind many of the reporters.

An enlightened citizenry is one that retains the ability to think critically and applies a single standard to its judgement. We can deplore the tendentious misreporting of events on one side (BLM & Co.) without having to blind ourselves to the reality on the other (the storming of the Capitol on January 6).
,

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Really? You really believe this? It was one of the mildest parliamentary incursions ever seen.
Statues and art works left intact, no graffiti, no weapons, no arson or unfurling of banners from the galleries, walking between the rope barriers.
Compare this with what’s happening in Portland and Seattle, or what happens in Europe when politics gets heated.
The Capitol was bizarrely under-policed for the numbers due to attend the rally, allowing opportunistic protesters to get through. Why, when you know there will be a large rally at a time of political tension, would you fail to ensure a key political building is properly protected?

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Statues and art works left intact, no graffiti, no weapons,

I don’t know if it counts as graffiti, but faeces were smeared on the walls.
Plus there were what, 5 deaths?

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

But not a raging mob seeking to kill people. One police shooting of a protester, and what seem to be 4 incidental deaths. Obviously tragedies, but also obviously massively bigged-up for political grand-standing purposes by people trying to make political capital of the situation.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

But not a raging mob seeking to kill people

Erm, some of them did seem to have that in mind, they went with zip-tie handcuffs and others erected a gallows.

Obviously tragedies, but also obviously massively bigged-up for political grand-standing

I’m really not convinced. A mob stormed the capitol in order to overturn the democratic process. I’ll agree, they were relatively non-violent, and I too find it weird that the capitol was so unprotected.
But the actions are beyond the pale either way.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

According to prosecutors the zip-tie guy took them from police in the Capitol to prevent the police using them (and he was there with his mother – hardly the image of a vengeful killer).
If you’ve ever been on protests, gallows and guillotines are frequently used symbolically in protests – no-one takes them as more than visual theatre – never as a real threat. Unless of course you’re trying to make political capital again.
Remember a good part of the demand from the protesters was for delay and investigations – a 10 day audit. Those people on the Trump side felt, and still feel according to polls, that something doesn’t smell right about the election. The storming of the Capitol killed any chance to press for investigations and completely backfired – though it didn’t half help the Democrats neutralise Trump.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Plus there were what, 5 deaths?
One death. Ashli Babbit. The other civilians died of health issues, and it’s not yet clear how the Capitol cop died, though it wasn’t by homicide.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The other civilians died of health issues

Those are still deaths, no?

Bits Nibbles
Bits Nibbles
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Bro, you sound like a defence attorney.

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

And absolutely no damage was done inside. No busts smashed on the floor, no fires, no graffiti. A fairly orderly mob.

Bits Nibbles
Bits Nibbles
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

You should watch the videos closer. There are plenty where no ‘storming’ occurs at all. Just Capitol Police taking down the barricades and letting the protesters in.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

What insurrection? No weapons were confiscated from those arrested. The only person killed was a white woman in the crowd who was not threatening anyone. Two networks – two – paid a known Antifa guy for video footage from inside. That’s quite the coincidence. The Capitol cop was NOT beaten to death. Using scare words is a bit silly.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alex Lekas
Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

There was no insurrection. It was a fable planted and nourished by the left wing and its media allies.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

There’s so many reasons to believe that Biden did not win fair and square. That said, karma is a thing. The story has not yet finished.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago

If this kind of thing were to occur in Russia, for instance, networks like CNN and MSNBC would no doubt be in uproar.
This is called projection. The media, at least the DNC arm of the media, has been engaging in this forever. These are the people who label everyone else a fascist or racist while then doing something that precisely mirrors what they accuse the other person of doing.
The media didn’t have to be “primed” by Camp Biden. Much of it was on the tank for him from the start. Do you really think that in any other election a candidate, let alone the nominee, could have gotten away with campaigning from a basement and calling a lid – an end – to campaign activities at 9 am?

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Joe Biden won the election. If the media had called it wrongly then the ensuing fracas may have been even worse. This is just the media doing its job properly – they shouldn’t even need to be reminded how to do that should they?

G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Why do you think the Democrats won the election? Do you actually believe that Biden, hiding in his cellar and unable to attract a crown of more than a hundred people on the rare occasions he came out, somehow won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history … more, even, than Obama?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

Yes. I believe the Democrats won the election because more people voted for them – both in terms of the popular and college votes. If you can provide any real evidence (that isn’t from conspiracy sites or in the form of youtube videos) that actually more people voted for the Republicans then please do.

G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

So statistical impossibility does not interest you? You are a typically slavish lefty, I suppose, for whom principle, truth, reality, mean nothing; and “winning” everything?
Just as a matter of interest, why is it better to be a neo-Marxist, anti-white Democrat than a patriotic white American Republican? What special value do you think adheres to white-hatred?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

So statistical impossibility does not interest you? 
That part just confounds me to no end. How many anomalies must there be for someone to maybe, possibly, perhaps consider that the process was not what we were told.
It may well be that Biden won outright. In that case, you’d think Dems would welcome any inquiry, if only to rub Repubs’ faces in the result. But the left does the exact opposite.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Alex, all the anomalies you talk about have been lies. Every. Last. One.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

No, they haven’t. You’re making things up. The bellwether counties, the statistical impossibilities, and so forth. They’ve not even been explored, let alone debunked.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The statistical impossibilities were utter bunk from the word go. Try reading some unbiased investigations into them – there have been several.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

So statistical impossibility does not interest you?

There was no “statistical impossibility” at play, all of these theories are discredited nonsense based on bad premises.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

I asked for evidence. You replied with insults.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

That’s a really lazy response – could you state the evidence for the ‘statistical impossibility’ you mention?

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

The only “statistical impossibility” I’ve heard tell of in these electons was based on a misunderstanding of Benford’s Law. It was bunk.
There have also been a number of allegations of irregularities that collapsed under scrutiny or were retracted.
But it’s perfectly plausible that a sufficient number of valid voters might turn out (or apply for mail-in votes) to unseat perhaps the most… controversial president in the history of the US. Just because his diehard fans would love him, even if he “stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and shot somebody” does not mean that the rest of the country shares that view.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

Yes. That’s the way the electoral system works. People vote. The votes are counted. The winner is declared. That’s what happened. To believe otherwise is pie-in-the-sky. And the truth of course is that a large proportion of the vote was by people who desperately just wanted to get rid of the blight on the USA and the world that was Donald Trump.

G Worker
G Worker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Liar. The evidence that fraud was committed is easy to find. Go seek it out. Don’t argue for your hate-politics. Explain why vote analysts and eye-witnesses are wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by G Worker
Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

Well the eye witnesses presented have given testimony that was largely not self-consistent, let alone consistent with each other. And the so-called “vote analysts” based their proclamations on poor data.
The evidence of fraud was all, without exception, either pure invention or hearsay.
Well, there was at least one exception, that guy in Georgia who voted twice for Trump, but we can overlook small-fry like that when we’re looking for systemic problems.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago
Reply to  G Worker

‘don’t argue for your hate-politics’ he says, hatefully.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago

I don’t think I take the same interpretation as you from that quote, it just sounds like campaign folks talking themselves up. I don’t think the reluctance by the media to call certain races was because of party briefings, the results were just too close!
Their point about the ‘red mirage’ was well understood and communicated by the media in the run up to election night – the opposite message was being pushed by the Whitehouse at the same time.

rspiercy
rspiercy
1 year ago

The red mirage was well known and discussed before the election even by the BBC. GOP voters would go to the Polls and Dem voters would do it by post. It was expected so in briefing the media they would have been able to explain this and show why they shouldn’t call it early.
On election night Trump tried to claim the election for himself from the WH so lets not get too upset about the Dems briefing the press.

Last edited 1 year ago by rspiercy
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  rspiercy

it’s not the role of the Dems, or the Repubs, to brief the press. Elections are not new. Neither are cases of premature calls; the 2000 vote demonstrated that in living color.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Actually I would say that it absolutely is the role of political parties to brief the press. The press can respond to that briefing however they want – that’s their freedom.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I would say that it’s not the role of either party to TELL the press what to publish, but it’s certainly in their remit to brief whatever they want – so much of US press reporting is based on sources within either party (on or off the record).
I’ll happily join you in criticizing the role of the media in parroting briefed talking points but I don’t think that’s what happened here – the media was ready to treat a new type of election the right way.

Last edited 1 year ago by Lloyd Marsden
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

the media was ready to treat a new type of election the right way.
Whatever you have to tell yourself. It’s why various courts have told states to NOT count votes in the same manner again. Virginia is one example.
Either way, elections themselves are not new. Mail-in was new, and that’s an incandescently stupid idea. Amazon, owned by the guy who also owns WaPo, wanted the union vote done on-site by secret ballot; union activists wanted it done by mail. Which of those is easier to control.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

On site Union ballots are much easier to manipulate than mail ins. That was the reason given by UK Thatcher Government when she made on site ballots illegal as part of her campaign to remove the power of Unions.

steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

So, then you are positing that Jeff Bezos of Amazon was only trying to make sure that the Union voters had every advantage he could give them when it came time vote whether to unionize against his notoriously predatory employment policies.
That is delusional even by Leftist standards.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  steve eaton

No, I’m positing Bezos wanted to use intimidation on site to influence the ballot outcomes as he believed he had more power over his employees that way.
The circumstances in an Amazon Warehouse in the US in 2021 are very different from the circumstances at a pit-head in the UK in 1984.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Wasn’t it a move to enforce a secret ballot – not necessarily a mail-in ballot? Many union votes were by a show of hands in the 70s, with the ability of shop-stewards and activists to ‘encourage’ voting in a certain direction.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

You know Trump himself votes by mail-in?

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave H
steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

Trump votes, as do many Americans by a well regulated Absentee ballot process that has been in place for many years. I think even you know the difference between that and the “mail-in” voting that took place under the Covid rules.

Dave H
Dave H
1 year ago
Reply to  steve eaton

Nope. Enlighten me, what’s the difference between his mail in ballots and the others?

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

You must request an absentee ballot. There is a signature check and a verification of current voter registration before you receive your ballot. None of those occur for a “mail in” ballot.

steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave H

If you don’t know even this, why the heck are you even posting about it, as you clearly are not competent to discuss it.
Perhaps you should give up on parroting Progressive talking points and use that time to learn something about the subjects you are pretending to discuss.
It’s not my job to educate left wing trolls on US election law, but in the off chance that you might actually be simply a factually deficient person meaning well, I’ll present a brief clue or two.
The established absentee process has very strict rules regarding when the ballots must be received, that they MUST be postmarked, and that that they must be counted in a specific manner in a strict time frame…You know, all of the usual things done to keep voter fraud down.
In short, the requirements are pretty much the same as the ones that the activist judges had to shut down at the 11th hour for everyone else’s mail in votes in order to facilitate the Biden win.
Oddly enough the rules regarding Absentee ballot were untouched. Of course most Absentee ballots are filed by the US military service people who are serving away from their homes and the Dems have absolutely no desire to have any more of their votes counted than they absolutely have to.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  steve eaton

Well – hopefully the current President will ensure a well regulated ballot process for the future – the last one obviously didn’t.

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Not the Executive’s purview.Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

It’s common sense, not ‘what I have to tell myself’:

  1. ballots were being requested by registered democrats in huge numbers
  2. Most of the key (and late-called) states had election laws that meant the counting of mail in ballots be done last
  3. A majority of Republican voters had indicated that they would vote in person.

I learned this widely reported news from multiple news sources on across the political spectrum.
Of course elections aren’t new, but ones conducted during a public health crisis are.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
1 year ago

I don’t suppose Biden even knew the election was taking place, given his lack of faculties. The only words of coherence or truth he uttered throughout the entire campaign were ‘We have put in place the biggest voter fraud operation in the history of the Unites States’. Yes, he actually said this, on camera, a few days before the election. You can find it online.
That aside, we have known for some time that the majority of the US media is just the propaganda arm of the Democrats.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago

This is absolutely ridiculous. So the Democrats informing the media that they shouldn’t call the election too soon due to the fact that the Democratic votes would be counted late counts as ‘media manipulation’? Are you serious?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

are you mad about the claim or the two people cited who made the claim out loud? Dems, or Repubs for that matter, have no business telling the media when to call an election.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alex Lekas
Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The media do not have the right to call an election if there is a statistical possibility that the result will be different. If the media calling an election wrongly then provides grist to the mill of people claiming that the election result is a fraud then the media has abjectly failed to fulfil its responsibilities in a democracy. The media does not decide the vote, it reports on the vote – so reminding them of this obvious fact is obviously not manipulation. Are you advocating that the media should just decide how you voted rather than wait until the votes are counted?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon Turner
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

I am saying that it is not the role of either party to dictate when and how election results are called. The media has made and will make mistakes. It often rushes to make a call that is favorable to a preferred candidate, but that’s media malpractice. For either party to have a hand in it grossly undermines confidence in the process, which is where we are now.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

False argument. Nobody is dictating anything to the media, merely reminding them that they shouldn’t call the vote based on the early votes because the later votes would be mainly Democrat votes. How can you argue that that is anything other than fair and right? What do you think should have happened then? That the media should have called the vote incorrectly for Trump and so added fuel to the later fire that nearly overthrew the entire democratic system? It’s a ridiculous thing to argue.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

False how? This piece clearly says people inside the campaign were trying to direct the media’s reporting. That’s banana republic behavior.
Why does the media need “reminding” about how to cover an election? They’ve done it before. What most of us saw was the night ending with Trump holding small leads in certain states, and we woke up to new caches of votes miraculously appearing in the precincts that Biden needed.
I never said the media should call the vote incorrectly for anyone. What’s ridiculous is arguing against points that no one is making.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Well there you go. Votes didn’t ‘miraculously appear’. That’s the whole point. The votes were made by voters but were counted late. It is exactly this sort of false narrative that you’re peddling that was the reason for alerting the media in advance. What are you really saying here exactly?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

How many statistical anomalies before it stops being a “false narrative”? Joe underperformed Hillary in most urban centers. EXCEPT those that made the difference in a few key states, like PA and WI. He lost all but one of the so-called “bellwether counties” that every elected president has won for decades.

What are you really saying here exactly?
What I’ve said from the start – it is not the role of either party to instruct the media on anything. There have never been similar stories surrounding past elections. There has been criticism and all the rest, but never what seems like one of the participating interests attempting to manage news coverage.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Joe Biden won the election. By quite a lot. Are you disputing that?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

You are missing the point. Whether that is deliberate or not is immaterial.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I don’t think I am you know. I think I am finding my way closer and closer to the point actually.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Not really. The point is that it not the role of either party to “instruct the media” on election coverage or anything else.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

That may be the case, but there were clear cases of fraud during this election. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that they weren’t investigated is telling.

Simon S
Simon S
1 year ago

Thank you for pointing this out. I hope you will not be tarred and feathered as a result by the hypocrites of the Democratic media brigade whose sole objective was to unseat Trump at any cost to their own moral and professional integrity.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon S

The same media brigade whose industry was saved by reporting solely on Trump? Surely they would have a vested interest in keeping him in place no?

Last edited 1 year ago by Lloyd Marsden
Bertie B
Bertie B
1 year ago

Both the article and the comments below seem to mis a very important point. That neither the political parties nor the media have any role in calling the result of an election! That is the responsibility of the electoral authorities, the media should just be reporting the completed counts, doing some analysis yes, and maybe suggesting it *might* go one way or another. Outside of that they have no role in calling the result.

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Bertie B

Legally, I believe, that’s exactly what happened. After all, when the media got it wrong in the past, nobody tried to argue, “too late – the media already called it!”

jonathan carter-meggs
jonathan carter-meggs
1 year ago

The Democrats in bed with the media – who knew!

Dominic Rudman
Dominic Rudman
1 year ago

Probably sniffing their hair as well. 😉

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

It was clear from the polls before the election that there were going to be massive swings during counting, as Republicans mostly voted in person, and Democrats via mail.
The lesson for me though, was that if you are to have mail-in voting, then you need to count the mail-in ballots before the in-person ballots. This would have prevented a lot of the issues at dispute, as the chain of custody for the in-person voting is much cleaner than for mail-in, and it would therefore be much more difficult to ‘find a ballot box’ to tip a vote in one direction or another.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

then you need to count the mail-in ballots before the in-person ballots.
Right. Why not do that? The ballots are already in hand. Start counting them the morning of election day if you like, but there is no logical reason for touching them last.

Su Mac
Su Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Haha! If you haven’t worked out yet that there was a very practical reason why they didn’t count the mail in ballots till afterwards, then they stopped couting them at 11pm or whatever, then they took another week to finish counting with “late deliveries” and “lost crates” tuning up willy nilly I don’t think you ever will.

Richard E
Richard E
1 year ago

The election was fixed. Trump won.

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago

Makes sense. They had to find out how many votes were needed to overcome the “Red Mirage” they all somehow knew was coming. Then they got them.

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Sharona

That isn’t what happened. Obviously.

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Why is that obvious?

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Sharona

Because it’s the truth. Votes didn’t get put in after the election had finished as has been clearly asserted in courts right across the country in every state that the Republicans questioned.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Are you sure about that, because this Virginia judge ruled that the state’s last-minute changes to election law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive late without a postmark were illegal.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-virginias-late-election-law-changes-for-mail-in-ballots-were-illegal/ar-BB1d9atb

Jon Turner
Jon Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I don’t know the details of that, but the election was clearly carried out according to the rules set at the time. Do you actually think there were enough votes involved here to have changed the result?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

A lot of things have occurred according to the rules of the time, leading to those rules being changed.
I don’t know if there were enough votes or not, and doubt anyone else does, either. But it pours some cold water on the idea that skeptics are a tinfoil hat conspiracy mob.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Thanks for the link. Do we know how many votes fell into that category or why they weren’t postmarked?
I do find it strange that a country as apparently well developed and sophisticated as the USA seems incapable of efficiently organising a postal vote.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Someone may know the number of votes and this also speaks to the broader issue of the election being a mess.
With people moving about as often as they do, the postal service is poor mechanism for handling an election. Every one of us gets mail sent to a previous resident or something that arrives weeks later than expected.
Somehow we managed elections for decades by having people show up. Then early voting came in to alleviate congestion on election day. Now people can’t be bothered with it at all? Mail-in is built for fraud, and the postal service itself is an interested party.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

What, in principle, is inherently better about turning up to vote in person rather than by post? (Apart from the fact it discriminates against those who find it harder to vote in person due to disability, caring commitments, work commitments, lack of transport to the polling site etc.)

steve eaton
steve eaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

It’s not a matter of having the capability to organize the mail in votes. It’s a matter of the Democrats in some pivotal cities creating chaos in order to mask their election rigging. The chaos was designed in advance and implimented in the last hours before the election, too late to fight in court, by activist judges in these areas who ruled against the procedures established by the state’s legislatures who by the Constitution are responsible for establishing the election rules. The chaos resulted from a willful contravention of the US Constitution.
In other words, it was a coup.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
1 year ago
Reply to  steve eaton

Well, there’s two lessons for the USA: Sort out your postal system and find an effective way of running a postal voting system.

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Sort out the postal system, and don’t sabotage it in the run up to an election!

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Don’t be so ready to claim the truth. Therein lies the danger of a righteous mind. You may be right, but you are no closer to knowing the truth about last year’s election process than anyone else posting here. There’s nothing wrong with questioning events rather than taking them at face-value.

Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Turner

Sure they did.”In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would “be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day” unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.”

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

the sense of collusion between the Democratic Party and elites circles of the media 
Don’t you mean the undeniable reality

Charles Knapp
Charles Knapp
1 year ago

It’s a bit too general a charge. Who specifically on the Biden team spoke with whom at any particular network who, it should go without saying, had the power to delay announcements? And really, what malevolent purpose could such outreach have caused by waiting until the proof was there?

Going into the election, pretty much everyone reported that Democrats tended to vote early and Republicans tended to show up on Election Day. In fact, that was why President Trump tried to argue ahead of the election that the winner should be called on election night. He reasonably anticipated he would be ahead. The real question is that in the tense atmosphere surrounding this election, what media outlet would have been so brazen as to project a winner in any state in which the actual number of uncounted ballots exceeded the vote differentials on the night of the election?

Recall that the media ‘s reticence can also be explained by its credibility crushing experience in the 2016 election where their confident prediction of a Hillary Clinton victory proved spectacularly wrong. The simplest explanation is the “once burned, twice shy” view of media reticence. Whether they needed a reminder of this from anyone on the Biden team is unlikely.

If you want to be more of a conspiracist, I suppose the frame would be that these late ballots were mostly fake because (as in cricket) the Democrats were batting second and knew the numbers they had to beat. But for that claim to have any traction, you also need to believe in a level of competence in execution that the Dems have rarely if ever exhibited. Will Rogers famous quip, “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat” remains sadly the case – but maybe that’s a good thing. And this conspiracy’s success would also require a complicit judiciary which, counter-intuitively, was more Republican-leaning than otherwise.

That it was still possible to call things correctly even if early was shown by Fox of all networks, when they controversially but correctly called Arizona – but even that call was not on election night as I recall. So, as Freud allegedly said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

Sean MacSweeney
Sean MacSweeney
1 year ago

Everyone with any sense knows that the election was stolen by voter fraud on a massive scale, this will be rectified in 2022/2024 when the fight will be brutal, but the “democrats” deserve everything they are going to receive

Pierre Pendre
Pierre Pendre
1 year ago

Everyone knew that the postal votes of which there were more than in-person votes would be decisive and favour the Democrats when counted. The networks didn’t need the Biden campaign to tell them. The networks broadcast Trump’s claim on the night that he’d won despite the incomplete count and knowing he’d lost Arizona (Fox told him) which belies the implication that they were obeying Biden. They reported the news and, as it turned out, provided the hook on which Trump hanged himself.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Will Ms Babbitt’s relative received a $27 million settlement like the late Mr Floyd?

Stephen Follows
Stephen Follows
1 year ago

Why didn’t they just call it before the polls opened, and save everyone the bother?

Andrew McGee
Andrew McGee
1 year ago

This is a piece of nonsense about nothing. Biden did not ‘instruct’ the media to do anything. He may have presented them with a rational argument as to why it might be a good idea to hold off calling the election. They may have accepted the sense of that argument. If so, he and they were right. He should be congratulated, not criticised.