Election Results and CNN?

[ComputerTech]

At this point CNN say's Ohio is too close to call with these numbers:

Bush - 2,706,153
Kerry -2,580,462

Giving Bush a lead of 125,000 or so.. With 97% of the vote in!

Now, in Michigan

Kerry - 1,786,213
Bush - 1,668,384

Giving Kerry a lead of 118,000 or so.. with 76% in, YET THEY CALLED MICHIGAN FOR KERRY? :evil: :evil:

New mexico same thing.. When Bush has a lead in a certain state that's "important", CNN claims it's too close to call. The moment Kerry get's a lead in an important state they gave it too Kerry.

I AM CALLING NEW MEXICO AND OHIO FOR BUSH, EVEN IF CNN WONT.

[A Thousand Pardons]

that's not the way it works

necessarily :)

[ComputerTech]

that's not the way it works

necessarily :)

In Michigan Kerry leads: 50.9 TO 48.2 (87% Reporting)

In Ohio Bush Leads: 51.1 TO 48.4 (99% Reporting)

CNN called Michigan for Kerry, yet not Ohio for Bush?

[mickal555]

It's funny how you all get so excited :o about elections all the cheering! :o its like a rock concert. :o

[A Thousand Pardons]

CNN called Michigan for Kerry, yet not Ohio for Bush?
It depends upon the statistical model. I don't pretend to know the particular model, but as a for-instance, if all the precincts that were left in Michigan were heavily Kerry-favored precincts, then they might feel confident in calling it for Michigan, especially if the exit polls agreed with their model.

But of course, anything could happen, and they could be wrong. But we know that. :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

and here's their explanation (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/misc/projected.html)

[Candy]

It's funny how you all get so excited :o about elections all the cheering! :o its like a rock concert. :o
http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/wave.gif

[mid]

Which is why, over here in a democracy that I can understand (sorry guys, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the number of bizarre inconsistencies between States in election procedure), we don't announce results until we've finished counting them.

[frogesque]

and here's their explanation (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/misc/projected.html)

Seems reasonable enough.

Apart from a monitoring device for fraud (if A is projected to win with say 90% votes in and then B wins by a big margin then there would be grounds for an inquest) what use do these exit polls and predictions have besides keeping news anchors in a job? In a few hours/days/weeks the real result will be called. For me there is too much hype and fluff with elections (US or UK). Just vote, it's the only thing that counts, then get on with life.

Edit: made it easier to read - I hope

[A Thousand Pardons]

Seems reasonable enough.
if you like that sort of thing :)

Apart from a monitoring device for fraud (if A is projected to win with say 90% votes in and then B wins by a big margin then there would be grounds for an inquest) what use do these exit polls and predictions have besides keeping news anchors in a job?
That may cover it. Except for also keeping lawyers and statisticians and a few technicians busy.

In a few hours/days/weeks the real result will be called. For me there is too much hype and fluff with elections (US or UK). Just vote, it's the only thing that counts, then get on with life.
I think when it has come up, they've said it's a free speech/free press issue.

[Cylinder]

...its like a rock concert. :o

A six-month concert where around half the audience doesn't like the band. :lol:

[mickal555]

Which is why, over here in a democracy that I can understand (sorry guys, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the number of bizarre inconsistencies between States in election procedure), we don't announce results until we've finished counting them.
Ditto

[pumpkinpie]

Which is why, over here in a democracy that I can understand (sorry guys, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the number of bizarre inconsistencies between States in election procedure), we don't announce results until we've finished counting them.
Ditto

But that would give the US media nothing to do....I think it's funny we're talking about CNN "calling" a state. What gives CNN the authority?

[A Thousand Pardons]

I think it's funny we're talking about CNN "calling" a state. What gives CNN the authority?
what do you think "calling" is? I called this election a long time ago, but I was wrong. I didn't need no stinkin' authority

[Ut]

CNN's not claiming a victor, they're predicting one. They got burned by Flordia last year, which is why they won't do it with close states this year. You know, they have to maintain the illusion of being right all the time at all costs.

[A Thousand Pardons]

CNN's not claiming a victor, they're predicting one. They got burned by Flordia last year
That was the hurricane path predictions that went south, right??

[Candy]

I was wrong. Finally, he admits it! 8-[

[A Thousand Pardons]

I was wrong. Finally, he admits it!
I couldn't admit it yesterday, because the results weren't in yet--Susan Estridge was sure that Kerry was going to win

[ComputerTech]

Yeah.. A reporter on CNN said the reason they had not called Ohio yet, was because of these "large numbers of provisional" ballots.

Every state that was close (150K) probably has provisional ballots out. I don't think it's anything special in Ohio.

I litterally think that certain networks did not want to give Bush what he clearly won in Ohio. Because, the moment Kerry got a lead in his states there was no concern about provisional ballots and Kerry was projected as the winner. So you had a sitution on CNN in particular where Kerry was getting projections and Bush was not. In Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. New Mexico I could understand but not the others...

Oh well, the election is over and some networks probably still have not conceeded lmao. :P

[Normandy6644]

Yeah.. A reporter on CNN said the reason they had not called Ohio yet, was because of these "large numbers of provisional" ballots.

Every state that was close (150K) probably has provisional ballots out. I don't think it's anything special in Ohio.

I litterally think that certain networks did not want to give Bush what he clearly won in Ohio. Because, the moment Kerry got a lead in his states there was no concern about provisional ballots and Kerry was projected as the winner. So you had a sitution on CNN in particular where Kerry was getting projections and Bush was not. In Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. New Mexico I could understand but not the others...

Oh well, the election is over and some networks probably still have not conceeded lmao. :P

I'm pretty sure the networks didn't want to call anything because they all remember what happened 4 years ago, and they preferred to be cautious this time. It had nothing to do with the media not wanting to give Bush the states, otherwise don't you think Fox would have called Ohio for Bush around 8PM? :P

[ComputerTech]

Yeah.. A reporter on CNN said the reason they had not called Ohio yet, was because of these "large numbers of provisional" ballots.

Every state that was close (150K) probably has provisional ballots out. I don't think it's anything special in Ohio.

I litterally think that certain networks did not want to give Bush what he clearly won in Ohio. Because, the moment Kerry got a lead in his states there was no concern about provisional ballots and Kerry was projected as the winner. So you had a sitution on CNN in particular where Kerry was getting projections and Bush was not. In Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. New Mexico I could understand but not the others...

Oh well, the election is over and some networks probably still have not conceeded lmao. :P

I'm pretty sure the networks didn't want to call anything because they all remember what happened 4 years ago, and they preferred to be cautious this time. It had nothing to do with the media not wanting to give Bush the states, otherwise don't you think Fox would have called Ohio for Bush around 8PM? :P

Fox did call Ohio for Bush first. I think it was around midnight.. .lol.. only helps make my point. The conservative channel was giving their guy electorial votes all night and the liberal channel was doing the same. That's why CNN'S electorial vote count was so low for Bush.

[Silent Knight]

Iowa's votes are now complete in all of the precincts. Bush leads by 13,250 votes out of a possible 1.5 million total votes. So when does he get the EC votes? Ohio is also complete. Now we're just waiting on New Mexico.

[Silent Knight]

I'm pretty sure the networks didn't want to call anything because they all remember what happened 4 years ago, and they preferred to be cautious this time. It had nothing to do with the media not wanting to give Bush the states, otherwise don't you think Fox would have called Ohio for Bush around 8PM? :P

In 2000 Fox originally said that Gore had won.

[Careless]

...its like a rock concert. :o

A six-month concert where around half the audience doesn't like the band. :lol:
Which is why I say it's more like a sport

[ComputerTech]

Okay, I found some new information which was exactly what I thought.

The New York Times says that after NBC and FOX called Ohio for Bush, the DNC or Kerry campaign called the remaining networks and asked them not to call Ohio!

Now, remember CNN'S Judy Woodruf looking like she was going to ball? She said, "We won't call Ohio because of all of these provisional ballots". Gee, I wonder who told her about those?

Here we have again the democratic party working closley with a major news organization... Not really suprised. :P

Oh well, It's Friday and I still don't think CNN has given Bush Ohio.

[Ut]

Such political pessimism on a non-political board. Election's over.

[Humphrey]

Exactly UT. So what if they asked them not to call. It proves nuthing other than that. Itr does not mean that there was some behind the scenes back slapping.

The elections over, some half the voters are cheering, the other half are a bit glum. Thats about it. Lets band together and move on.