At least one broadcast network and one Web site said Monday that they could foresee signaling to viewers early Tuesday evening which candidate appeared to have won the presidency, despite the unreliability of some early exit polls in the last presidential election.
A senior vice president of CBS News, Paul Friedman, said the prospects for Barack Obama or John McCain meeting the minimum threshold of electoral votes could be clear as soon as 8 p.m. ”” before polls in even New York and Rhode Island close, let alone those in Texas and California. At such a moment, determined from a combination of polling data and samples of actual votes, the network could share its preliminary projection with viewers, Mr. Friedman said.
“We could know Virginia at 7,” he said. “We could know Indiana before 8. We could know Florida at 8. We could know Pennsylvania at 8. We could know the whole story of the election with those results. We can’t be in this position of hiding our heads in the sand when the story is obvious.”
I am going to be extremely disappointed if they do this. People won’t go to the polls and their votes won’t be counted. I actually think this should be illegal – it interferes with the election process.
Somehow I don’t think they will be doing this if it looks like a McCain win – I really don’t.
Personally, I think that legislation should be enacted banning any projection of race results prior to the closing of the last polling place. Enforcement of same may be problematic, but I’m sure that the FCC can come up with something.
So DeeBee, some may say, you would want the local news to delay the announcement of the projected winner of the hotly-contested local dogcatcher race, simply because the polls in Upper Frostcicle, Alaska haven’t yet closed? Not necessarily, but what if the local media were in fact forced to hold their horses? What would be the harm in making the media AND the public wait for a few extra hours, or perhaps until the next day, to learn who they elected as their leaders for the next two/four/six years?
Wouldn’t it be better to remove the possibilitiy and/or the appearance of media influence on the actual Election Day, if it meant waiting just a little bit longer for the outcome?
I think the networks should keep their mouths shut!
One of the things that the last presidential election proved is that exit polls are particularly reliable. You’d think they would have learned.
Personally, I think it’s part of an effort to discourage McCain supporters in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada from voting, in case the electoral college comes down to those three, which it might.
Oops. Make that “aren’t particularly reliable.”
After the 2004 debacle and the hard feelings that produced, I can’t imagine the networks would do this unless they were absolutely, positively sure.
#2. Amen!
The first presidential election I voted in was the famous Truman, Dewey battle. I hope this will be like that and Obama will hold up a newspaper that says, “Obama Wins” and there is egg all over press’s face when the truth is that McCain wins.
The system we have now is an appointment rather than election. Poll after sickening poll tries to determine the mind and will of the electorate. Instead, it diminishes, defeats, discourages and depresses the electorate. It is, in one plain word, AWFUL! Of all years for this system to be in place! I hope the networks and pollsters gag on the results everywhere. GAG!
I still remember in 2000 when the news began calling the election for Al Gore at 2 p.m. local time, when people here still had 5 hours to vote. Of course, they turned out to be wrong.
The MSM is so inbeded with the liberal elitest, that they will do what they please, when they please, CBS in particular. CBS is so liberal, that they will make the call in an effort to diminish the vote count in western states, just like they did when they called FL in 2000, even though half the state still had an hour to vote with long lines at the polls. CBS even call GA for Gore in 2000, when there were thousands of people in the northern suburbs of Atlanta waiting in line to vote, (in an obvious effort to surpress the vote), but GA still wound up going for Bush by close to double digits. That is how underhanded CBS is. I do not believe for one minute that CBS News will not do all in its power to elect BHO and all liberal Demos throughout the nation, by calling the election as early as it can. (Dan Rather still doesn’t think he did anything wrong, when he made up the story about Bush and the National Guard.)
A well-known national talk show host says, “pay no attention to the early prognostications, no matter what the media says. VOTE, anyway. They could very well be wrong.”
Grandmother.
They can probably get away with this because all of the *really* important races are in the Eastern time zone. Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. If even one of these goes for Obama he wins. I might be able to go to bed by 10pm central. Beter than 2 am and still not knowing, like in 2000.
#13, what I want to know is what difference does it make if we know tonight or tomorrow or next week? Why jeopardize the results of an election for simple curiousity of those on the East Coast and so some network can later claim it was the first to report the election results … as it turned out in 2000 and 2004, almost all of the networks had egg on their faces for such accelerated reporting, and lost more trust from the American people, what little was there.
#9: One result of this year’s politics is I have stopped reading the papers, and have stopped watching TV news. I don’t believe anything they say any more. I figure I have a better shot going on the internet and trying to sift out the truth among the competing propaganda viewpoints.
Just last night, my wife asked whether we should cancel our newpaper subscription because neither of us reads it.
I do worry that if the “fairness doctrine” comes back, the main thing that will happen is it will be used to shut down independent viewpoints that don’t buy the government line.
“Networks May Call Race Before Voting Is Complete”
The networks shouldn’t do that before the polls close on the West Coast—at least not unless the actual vote tallies (not exit polls) from states like Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio Pennsylvania, and Virginia make the outcome so obvious that denial would be a farce. Seems unlikely that the result would be so one-sided.
For those who believe exit polls are part of a sinister turnout-suppression plot . . . .
Bill McInturff, McCain’s chief pollster, explains here why exit poll results are skewed toward Democratic candidates:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/11/mccain-pollster-ignore-the-exi.html
Nothing sinister about it: Democratic voters are more willing to speak with exit pollsters.
Also remember which scumbag propagated the early exit polls in 2004. His name is DRUDGE.
I guess I need to be the contrarian here. Lets all take a deep breath and stop bashing the press (a favorite American pastime). This is not the fault of the press. They are doing their job.
If Obama wins VA NC and PA it’s over. Pretending that it’s not for several more hours won’t alter the reality of the situation. The press would be derelict in their responsibility if they did not report legitimate news in a timely manner. Whats more is they could not really prevent the news from getting out anyway. As long as the states release their election results as soon as possible after the polls close, anyone with a internet access will be able to get do the quick math and figure things out.
And then what about the foreign press? Are we going to tell them they can’t report what they know for a certain period of time? What is so sacred about California and left coast? Why not enforce a news blackout until the polls close in Hawaii?
And of course then their is that pesky little annoying thing called the First Amendment. No need to go further into that subject.
If we don’t want to know who wins the election then we need to get the states to agree to sit on the election results until the day after election day and release them all at once. As long as election officials release polling data the press will and indeed has an ethical responsibility to report it. They are just doing their job.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
One way to avoid the difficulty of the results being called before the voting had been completed would be for the electoral college to actually meet to elect the President. After all, there is plenty of time before the inauguration, isn’t there?
#19, the evidence of past abuse by MSM is just too great to dismiss complaints about them as “they are just doing their job.” Their job is to report, not influence.
Re 20,
The electoral college does vote before the inauguration. They cast their votes in their respective states and results are then sent to Washington to be confirmed there.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
re 21
Billy,
As I have read this thread and most of the comments on it the complaint is that the press is “reporting” news before it should. I agree that there has been significant bias in some aspects of the MSM. But if Obama wins the election before the polls are closed out here in California reporting that news is not “bias.” Its doing their job.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
John, #23, that’s not the same thing that I am concerned about. It is CBS announcing the election results as soon as it comes on the air or at 5 pm EST, when they have examined the analysis of the exit polling. Their exit polls have been shown to be wrong many times, and they simply cannot project on that basis. Also, I think announcing the winner before polls close in CA would be wrong, because there are a lot of races that need votes in CA besides the Presidential race – which voters on one side or the other may forego, if they know their vote doesn’t matter in the Presidential race … like Proposition 8, for instance. Breaking the news of the winner is simply not necessary, if it affects other races or affects voters going to the polls – that is influencing, not simply reporting.
Billy,
I respectfully disagree for all of the reasons I outlined in my post 19. I will refrain from restating them all but I will highlight two points. If the MSM sits on election results and refuses to broadcast them you will just get everyone to move to either the foreign press or alternative media sources like Drudge. The bottom line is that as long as the poll results are released by the government on election night it is simply impossible for that information not to wind up getting spread all over the place. If the MSM doesn’t do it someone else will.
If we are really afraid of influencing election results (a not unreasonable concern) the correct course of action is for the various state election officials to sit on the results until an agreed on time after ALL of the polls close everywhere (yes I mean Hawaii not California). Otherwise we will just have to live with the imperfect system.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Just to clarify, I don’t think the news media’s rush to declare a winner is a part of a plot to affect the outcome – I think it’s driven by what has always driven journalism, the goal to scoop everyone else and get the news out first, which is in turn driven by the fact that people turn to the sources that bring them the earliest news, provided that it’s reasonably accurate. But in elections, I think it is a disservice and could discourage people of either party from voting. And it certainly sends the message that the votes of those in the west don’t count.
P. S. to my #25
Billy,
I do agree with your concerns about excessive reliance on exit polls. An election should not be called on that basis.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Re # 26,
Your points are all valid. However the responsibility for fixing that problem does not (IMO) rest with the press but rather with the government which releases poll results often within minutes of the polls closing. Either the results should be kept under government seal until Hawaii has voted, or we should adopt a universal polling schedule where the polls open in all 50 states at the same time and close at the same time.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
A nationwide embargo on election officials releasing vote counts would engender huge suspicion. And perhaps rightly so. Releasing vote counts precinct by precinct is messy but, in its untidy way, may impede post-election fraud. After the polls close, election officials count the votes and announce precinct totals as soon as they’re complete.
For what it’s worth, the pollsters are saying the early voters in California (i.e. vote by mail) leaned in favor of Proposition 8. The prediction is that it will be “lazy liberals” who may or may not vote who may hold the key. If they think that Obama has already sewn it up by 6 pm, they may not bother to go vote. I don’t know if this is correct, but it could be.
Irenaeus, you’re right. I think, however, there is a similar risk as in the recent case with Florida, where the state was called as going for one candidate and the final results didn’t bear that out. Still, a government embargo on results would merit suspicion and open the door to greater abuse, perhaps. Cancel my #1. 😉 It would be nice, however, if the media showed some self-restraint.
#14: #19’s post makes very good points. According to all the polls and history, CA, WA, and OR are probably all going to go for Obama. All of the really important races are in the Eastern timezone. Hawaii, AK and all the states in the Mountain time zone states aren’t really big enough to matter if Obama wins Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
And with the press it really is a factor of the first amendment press freedoms and their competition with each other to get the best audience. Their going to report whatever they have as early as possible to get viewers.
Let the media do what they want. If they’re wrong or affect elections, fine. Let the public learn from these things. It’s a free country, and that necessitates having people learn how to deal with and respond to bad behavior.
Irenaeus, Drudge simply reports what other reporters and news sources are saying.
And calling him a scumbag is highly unChristian, don’t you think. Wasn’t it you that complained about the tone in comments a while back? Seems you have a big log in your eye.
“There is a similar risk as in the recent case with Florida” —Sherri [#31]
Agreed. But that was a special case because of the various fiascos in Palm Beach County, particularly the butterfly ballot that led some 10,000 Gore supporters to cast votes for Buchanan. The result: result was a large disconnect between the official result and how voters BELIEVED they had voted—enough to skew any exit poll.
#34: Drudge reports all sorts of garbage and innuendo that others would not.
Remember, moreover, just what Drudge did with the early exit poll results in 2004. This information belonged to the networks; he had no right to it. The networks acted responsibly by not releasing any exit poll results from a state until the polls had closed there. Drudge trumpeted the information at 2 pm. Hard to see how (to use your words) Drudge “simply reports what other reporters and news sources are saying.”
#32, the point there is that those battleground states are close enough that calling any of them too early could affect voting in the smaller mountain west states. And even if what you say is true in this election, it may not be in the next. Some rules just need to be put into place to avoid having advance announcements influence voter participation in other parts of the country, whether it is simulataneous voting, restrictions of government release of info, or whatever. Freedom of the press is an issue that is extremely important, but it cannot interfere with elections.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/beware_of_exit_polls
from two articles above here
In the last election, when the results were announced so early and it became evident that George Bush would serve another term, I felt that our votes here in California had been a waste of our time and effort. That’s why I think a news blackout is necessary here on the west coast….otherwise, why should we even bother to vote?
I don’t defend everything Drudge does, Irenaeus. But given that you not so long ago complained about the tone of comments your calling him a scumbag makes you look hypocritical.
This is infuriating! The networks should be banned from announcing ‘results’ or exit polls until EVERY polling place in the country has closed! For many years, this has affected Congressional and local races around the country, and it needs to end!
My fear would be that they would call the race early, with only a portion of the votes in, and then have it turn around, as in Florida in 2000. That would adversely affect the rest of the country still voting.
PS, I just saw where McCain challenged Fox for calling Pennsylvania for Obama, when less than 2% of the precincts had reported in. He is saying it’s way too early to call it, or any other state, with so few votes counted state wide.
And he has a valid point, even though Brit Hume defended their decision.
Then I turned back to “Law and Order”.
Me again:
Just saw this on CNN’s website:
[i]CNN does not project a winner in any state until all polls have closed in that state. [/i]
I wish they’d wait until the votes were actually COUNTED!
— “CNN does not project a winner in any state until all polls have closed in that state”
— “I wish they’d wait until the votes were actually COUNTED!”
But that wouldn’t be a projection.