We interrupt this program for this important news bulletin

You said Biden and Harris had not been "certified" as president- and vice-president-elect. How are presidents- and vice-presidents-elect "certified"?

Not a "close" election in 2016?

• In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 0.3% in Michigan, and by 0.7% in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; a grand total of about 0.6% (78,000 votes) over the three states combined. Without the 40 electoral votes of those three states, Donald Trump would have lost the election. He LOST the national popular vote by 2.1% (approx. 2.9 million votes).
• In 2020, to-date, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by 2.7% in Michigan, and 0.7% in both Wisconsin and Michigan; a grand total of 1.3% (212,000 votes) over the three states combined. Without the 40 electoral votes of those three states, Joe Biden would lose the election. Biden currently LEADS in the national popular vote by 3.0% (approx. 4.5 million votes).

So Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T close, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS close, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.

False.

You may not have meant what you wrote, but what you wrote was that it was "irresponsible for the networks to declare Biden a winner while there are open challenges and no state has certified that he has won." Basic grammar says your sentence meant the networks' irresponsibility hinged on the existence of "open challenges" "AND" the fact that "no state [had] certified that [Biden] won." Those are YOUR words. The conjunction "and" connecting "open challenges" and state certification is YOUR conjunction. YOUR sentence says your complaint about the networks hinged on BOTH "open challenges" "AND" state certification.

When is an election "official"? For you, it's obviously not when media outlet decision desks call it. So when is it "official"?

Too close to call? Back to the numbers: Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T too close to call, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS too close to call, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.

Clearly hypocritical, perhaps. But not at ALL clear on the substance and ramifications of your argument.

I've lied? No. Not at all. I've quoted your posts, from which I've drawn logical and reasonable inferences and asked questions, most of which you've not answered directly.

I'm a "liberal snake"? Yeah, probably. We liberals aren't very creative when it comes to our animal kingdom heroes.

As both president-elect and then president, Donald Trump DID contest the 2016 election, claiming that he had lost the national popular vote only because illegals had voted (for example, THIS TWEET from November 2016). Once in office, Mr. Trump created an official government commission called the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to look for voter fraud and other election irregularities. The commission existed from May 2017 to January 2018, when it disbanded without so much as a report, let alone the discovery of any evidence to support the president's claim. The White House destroyed all state voter data collected by the Commission.

So was the 2016 election contested? Not by the candidate who lost, but it was by the candidate who won. THAT candidate contested the election in the form of a false claim of widespread voter fraud.

In the 2020 election, the roles have reversed: This time it is the election's loser, not its winner, who is contesting, again on claims of widespread voter fraud.

Two facts connect the 2016 and 2020 elections: In BOTH cases, Donald Trump, not Mr. Trump's election opponent, contested the result, and did so with claims of voter fraud.

Actually, there is a third fact that connects those two elections: In both cases, Mr. Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud were baseless and false.

----------------------------------------------------------

I remind you of the questions I asked you in my previous post:

1. You said Biden and Harris have not been "certified" (your word) as president- and vice-president-elect. How are presidents- and vice-presidents-elect "certified"?
2. So Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T close, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS close, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.
3. When is an election "official"? (again, your word) For you, it's obviously not when media outlet decision desks call it. So when is it "official"?

And YET AGAIN you move the proverbial goal posts:

• First, you said Biden/Harris weren't president- and vice-president-elect because they hadn't been "certified."
• Then you said the issue was the existence of "open challenges" to the election result and that "no state has certified that [Biden] won."
• Then you said the issue was that the election wasn't "official or even close to it."
• Then you said the issue was that this is a "contested," "close election," that is in litigation and does not yet have a "clear winner."
• Then you said the issue is "either" the lack of a "certification of victory" or "a clear and decisive win."
• Then you said the issue "did not hinge on state certification," but does relate to your assertion that the election is "too close to call."
• AND IN YOUR LATEST POST, to your scrapbook of defenses for your point of view you add the president's refusal to concede and the fact that "votes are still being counted."

It's like keeping track of who's on the field when all eleven players of both football teams change out after every play.

In my last post, from amidst all that variety I asked you to define two of the terms YOU used to explain your view: "certified" and "official." I asked how presidents- and vice-presidents-elect are "certified," (your word) and when a presidential election is "official" (again, your word). As is the case with basically every question I ever ask you, I ask those two questions again.

Not that I've noticed, but I may have missed it. Please provide links to the post(s) in which you reported your view of how presidents- and vice-presidents-elect are "certified" and when a presidential election outcome is "official."

TRANSLATION: I've asked you how presidents-elect and vice-presidents-elect are "certified" (your word), and you've never told me. And I've asked you when a presidential election outcome is "official" (again, your word), and you've never told me.

Then in my previous post, I asked for links to the post(s) in which you "answered" those questions. Since you say you HAVE answered them, such links should have been easy to provide. And yet you provided no such links.

You're right. You didn't answer to my satisfaction.