I understand all of that, so why is this being covered so extensively? Also, you say "are almost certain to fail" and "virtually no chance". They are not definitive, which means a possible scenario exists. That's the scenario I want to understand.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf To put it in another way, it will definitely fail unless Democrats in the House and all Senate Republicans also vote to overturn the election.

no chance to succeed and are undermining democracy and the "will of the people." The problem is that the Republicans and Trump's followers (seem to) truly believe that foul play has occurred. That Biden won only because of fraud. So to them, nothing short of Trump remaining in power remains. We won't be able top answer your question, in full, until after the next few days and weeks are done, at which point the answer will no longer matter. We can't answer, because even though some of what has happened and what may happen has occurred in the past, it has never occurred in a world with 24-hour

Why do reputable newspapers, which are neutral but lean against Trump, publish and cover this as if it's something big? Why not just dismiss this?

instantaneous news. Any things that happened like this in the past, occurred and most of the country only found out days/weeks/months later. In the present, we will know exactly what happens, when it happens.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf because it IS news. The election is not completely over until either Biden assumes the office, or Trump vacates it, and even then, may not be. Not completely. It can't be just "dismissed" because too many Americans have belief in Trump and his infallibility. To simply dismiss the whole thing as the delusional beliefs of crazies, doesn't take into account that some of those 'crazies' are people like my coworkers and neighbors and family members. In other words, 'normal' people' who go about their lives just like you and me.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf - News organizations have to walk the line between choosing not to report on something - in which case it can occur with no one knowing until it's too late - or to report on it - which amplifies the message. The approach they have mostly seemed to go with is to report but keep inserting disclaimers like "of which there is no evidence", "which Biden won", and so on. That'd actually be likely to make a good separate question, though, and specific policy quotes or discussion from news media can be provided in the answer.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf Just because something is not possible does not mean it is not news-worthy. If a significant portion of powerful politicians began saying that the moon was made of cheese and we have to blow it up to protect our dairy industry, that is something that is 100% false and yet has to be reported on so that the public knows to organize against those politicians. That is why free press is a pillar of democracy.

The reason this is newsworthy is not that the election might be overturned, but what it is telling us about Donald Trump's state of mind, the amount of support he is getting, the robustness of the US democratic systems and how they are standing up to a continued assault. All of which will have a big effect on politics in the future, both in the US and elsewhere.

@CGCampbell: A Trump rant is not news. But a Trump rant that may lead to something else could be news (ie. the call to the Georgia governor).

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf, this is news for the same reason that the terrorist plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer was news: the plot was foiled, but it's important to tell us about it. Free and fair elections are perhaps the most important feature of a democracy. That the president and not a small number of Republicans in congress are attempting to invalidate the results of our free and fair election based not evidence, but apparently because they don't like the results seems to me like a pretty important story.

Exactly, so my question is: how is the president and not a small number of Republicans in congress attempting to invalidate the results? If they invalidate the results, then Biden is not the president.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf: Most of the Congressional Republicans who plan to object to the EVs from PA, GA, AZ, etc., are perfectly aware that their votes are strictly performative and won't change the outcome - in fact, I'm betting the only reason so many are willing to do this is because they know it won't affect the outcome, and are only doing it to curry favor from Trump's base of voters. But it establishes a nasty precedent that will make it easier (in a normalization of deviance sense, not a legal sense) for future elections to be overturned. That's why this is newsworthy.

@JohnBode, that makes sense. Ted Cruz admitted that he knows the outcome of the elections to change. On the other hand, why can't anyone say that it's impossible?

The Washington Post wrote: "The objections are all but certain to fail in the Democratic-controlled House and the GOP-led Senate, where a growing number of Republicans have called the challenges dangerous to democracy.". They can just say "The objections WILL FAIL in the Democratic-controlled House and the GOP-led Senate..."

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf - Because a meteor could land on the House during the counting. Or there could be a coup attempt. Or Biden could have a heart attack and drop dead tonight. And so on.

I forgot that the other reason this is all newsworthy is the possibility that Trump might overstep the line and do something actually illegal in his attempt to get the election overturned, which would certainly have a big effect on the future of US politics. He came pretty darn close to it with the Georgia call.

@fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf It is big if elected Congresspeople plan to baselessly object to electoral votes. A challenge hasn't been brought by a member of both houses as required since the 19th century. And the fact that their reasons are all nonsense makes it even bigger

@AzorAhai-him- Actually, according to the CRS it's been successfully triggered twice - 1969 over a faithless elector and 2005 over Ohio's votes. In neither instance did either house vote to accept the objection.

@bob Oh not sure what I was remembering then. Still incredibly rare. Maybe the last time it was accepted was in the 19th century