Are CNN and ABC delusional?

[Checkmite]

Look, whomever you wanted to win (I wouldn't have minded Kerry), it seems pretty clear that Bush took Ohio. CNN and ABC have both called states for one candidate or the other over a few tens-of-thousands vote leads. However, Bush is leading in Ohio by roughly a hundred and fifty thousand votes, with one hundred percent of precincts reporting, and these people are saying it's "too close to call"????? Wishful thinking? And don't talk to me about "provisional" ballots...Kerry would need to win every single one of them in order to beat the Bush, and that's just not going to happen.

 

[Cleon]

Current headline at cnn.com is "BUSH WINS."

 

[toddjh]

Current headline at cnn.com is "BUSH WINS."

It's a little hard for them to keep at it when Kerry's already conceded.

I didn't see ABC, but I felt the same way about CNN. Pennsylvania had a narrower margin out of a greater total number of voters, but they didn't hesitate to call it for Kerry. Unless the provisional ballots somehow lean towards Kerry with the same number of votes as the entire rest of the state leans toward Bush, it was over last night.

Jeremy

 

[corplinx]

I posted a similar thread in the election forum. CNN was agnostic of reality as well. I surmised the reason why was because ratings are high until the winner is declared. Ergo, the longer it draws out the better for the news orgs.

 

[Checkmite]

Current headline at cnn.com is "BUSH WINS."

That's true; ABC has the same thing. They are closer than they were last night to admitting the bloody obvious. However, click on the "up to date" election maps on either site, and you'll see they are in denial. Ohio, with 100% reporting, is labeled "Too Close To Call" on CNN's website and is still an empty white "undecided" space on ABC's website.

I remarked in Paltalk last night that as the end drew near and the results became clearer and clearer, it was becoming easy to tell just how "unbiased" the individual anchors on the various stations were. Poor Dan Rather looked like he was ready to cry. LK tried to explain that it looked like Ohio was obviously going to Bush, but he kept being (politely) shouted down by everyone else in the room the whole night ("Well wait, Larry, we can't say that for sure..."). Meanwhile, I could've sworn the folks at Fox were about to break out the booze.

Maybe it's always been this way, for every presidential election in recent times. I'm rather young and just now starting to pay close attention, so perhaps I'm noticing this stuff for only the first time.

 

[patnray]

It's because they are afraid of the mistakes, and the severe criticism they suffered for it, in 2000. They even balked when a Kerry worker stated that their analysts were calling Iowa for Kerry (well after the polls closed).

 

[Mycroft]

Look, whomever you wanted to win (I wouldn't have minded Kerry), it seems pretty clear that Bush took Ohio. CNN and ABC have both called states for one candidate or the other over a few tens-of-thousands vote leads. However, Bush is leading in Ohio by roughly a hundred and fifty thousand votes, with one hundred percent of precincts reporting, and these people are saying it's "too close to call"????? Wishful thinking? And don't talk to me about "provisional" ballots...Kerry would need to win every single one of them in order to beat the Bush, and that's just not going to happen.

Early on in the evening when just a few states were declared, I saw one of the commentators (Hume?) describe the map as a "checkerboard" which made me laugh out loud because there was only one blue state and about eight red states.

To be fair, I think the reluctance to call Ohio came from the fiasco over Florida last year. They were just being too conservative.

 

[epepke]

Look, whomever you wanted to win (I wouldn't have minded Kerry), it seems pretty clear that Bush took Ohio. CNN and ABC have both called states for one candidate or the other over a few tens-of-thousands vote leads. However, Bush is leading in Ohio by roughly a hundred and fifty thousand votes, with one hundred percent of precincts reporting, and these people are saying it's "too close to call"????? Wishful thinking? And don't talk to me about "provisional" ballots...Kerry would need to win every single one of them in order to beat the Bush, and that's just not going to happen.

I don't know if CNN and ABC have been mentioning this, because I haven't been watching those networks, but there's a special case with Ohio.

When the difference in votes falls below a certain threshold, Ohio law states that there must be a mandatory recount. Although it's unlikely that provisional ballots and absentee ballots will make a clear win for Kerry, there's a fairly small but still significant chance that they will reduce the gap enough to trigger the mandatory recount.

So there's a fair chance that the drama will continue, but we won't know for a week or so. You can pick a number out of a hat as to how likely you think this is to do a reversal in favor of Kerry. I think it's pretty unlikely. But still, I think it's quite reasonable to withhold judgement until this process finishes.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Are CNN and ABC delusional?

But still, I think it's quite reasonable to withhold judgement until this process finishes.

I don't know. These news orgs when they were wrong on a slim vote (Florida 2000) corrected themselves the very same night and were right. As bad as we think the news orgs did that night, they did reverse their decisions and called the state despite a 1000 vote difference. I think it was reasonable to expect them to call that race incorrectly since it was so slim. Now notice, they corrected it that very night. (lets not rehash the other controversies or the other recount projects for now)

Ohio is no Florida. These news orgs spend a lot of money research every country, growth of voter demographics, and trends in past elections. I am pretty sure their evidence based decision on Ohio is much more reasonable than holding out hope that history and trends are wrong and the other ballots will put Kerry over the top or within the .25 percent difference range for a recount.

I wouldn't call it reasonable to hold judgement in this case. My guess is these "reasonable" people who are hanging on also voted for Kerry. Call it a hunch.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Are CNN and ABC delusional?

I wouldn't call it reasonable to hold judgement in this case.

We're talking about news organizations here. They've been criticized in the past for calling states too early, especially in 2000. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take the conservative approach. As an individual, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be a turnaround, and I have no problem with calling Ohio for Bush, but I don't own a television network, so it's not my decision. I just think that given where they're coming from and what they are subjected to, it's not unreasonable for them to be cautious.

My guess is these "reasonable" people who are hanging on also voted for Kerry. Call it a hunch.

We're talking about news organizations here, not individuals. I don't think that all the employees of ABC and CNN vote en bloc. Maybe some Republicans may think that only corporations should be allowed to vote, but that hasn't happened yet. So far, it's walking-around-type natural people that vote.