let's not be CNN here

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Bush won, didn't he? popular and electoral vote

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:41 (twenty years ago)

Looks like it, yes. They're just pushing it as far as it'll go for ratings.

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:45 (twenty years ago)

no. just because fox news called ohio for him doesn't mean the votes are all counted. they're NOT all counted.

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:46 (twenty years ago)

ok, i hear ya, but with all due respect...

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:47 (twenty years ago)

CNN has been infuriating all night. I know that they didn't want a repeat of the embarrassment of four years ago, but they overcompensated by saying jack shit for hours and going way overboard in stressing that they weren't making any assumptions about anything. Then what are you doing on the air? I can see the data online, you guys (CNN) refuse to give an opinion about anything, so what purpose are you serving?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:48 (twenty years ago)

otm

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:50 (twenty years ago)

Oh yes, in the interest of not being CNN on this thread -- I wrote to some friends three hours ago and called the election via email three hours ago. The data was clear to me at the time. The only reason the news networks aren't calling it is because of 2000.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:51 (twenty years ago)

No, it's not over, but yes it is. Fuck. At least my man Feingold is still in, and I'm hoping Wisconsin rep'ed for Kerry

― Jordan (Jordan), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:51 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps CNN just doesn't want to be seen as getting the facts wrong, until the result is reasonably certain. Fox doesn't care about trivial things like a good reputation.

― Core of Sphagnum (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:51 (twenty years ago)

MIR OTM
My roomate wil not shu toff the news and it's pissing me off.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:53 (twenty years ago)

*awakes, rubs eyes, takes piss, combs hair, drinks cofee, eats cookies*

Morning, 'mericans!

Er, you got yourselves yous (wussitcalledagain? oh yeh...) "new president", then? Or not quite yet?

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:54 (twenty years ago)

I mean, if you handed the election data that existed at 10:30 EDT to any election statistician, and you handed it to them "blind" (= didn't tell them what it was for) then they'd have called this thing instantly. The networks have been covering themselves for hours (and of course I don't blame them), but the (highly probable) facts are the facts.

(sorry about the accidental "three hours" repeat in my last post)

(xposts)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 06:54 (twenty years ago)

I think the provisional ballots and some absentee weirdness may be the reason CNN is not calling for Ohio, but it certainly don't look good.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:10 (twenty years ago)

That's defnitely the reason, but given the # of ballots still to be counted, together with the vote gap (130K) as it stands right now, the likelihood of those ballots turning the state around is very small.

I can understand the reasons for caution from the networks, but like I wrote, if this were any other election then they'd have called it.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:12 (twenty years ago)

even if kerry did win ohio, its still not quite enough is it?

― *@*.* (gareth), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:15 (twenty years ago)

really? shit

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:17 (twenty years ago)

well, arent the others till to call, like nwe mexico, nevada, iowa? thats got to be 9 right there?

― *@*.* (gareth), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:21 (twenty years ago)

Actually, he now has a better shot since he's leading in Wisconsin for the first time tonight (by 18K), and widened his lead in Michigan!

Give him Michigan, and give Bush NM, then it's 254-238. I'd say Iowa is likely for Bush, which makes it 261-238. Then if Kerry takes Ohio, Bush has to take most of the others, and he's leading (I believe) in the others.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:29 (twenty years ago)

Does anyone still think Ohio is in his reach?

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:30 (twenty years ago)

sure do.

― papa november (papa november), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:31 (twenty years ago)

I mean, 97% reported and 120k lead for Bush, even taking into account the provisional ballots, a Kerry victory is pretty unlikely.

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:32 (twenty years ago)

can we get a civil rights lawsuit?

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:33 (twenty years ago)

ohio is gone dude

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:33 (twenty years ago)

ok ohio and fla gone = bush wins, right?

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:35 (twenty years ago)

And now it's 249-242.
Kerry needs Wisconsin + Iowa. If NV and NM go the way they did in 2000, then Kerry can lose OH and still win.

But I really think OH is lost.
It is amazing that he's come back in Wisconsin because he was a few percent behind the whole night.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:35 (twenty years ago)

jon wms you're alright

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:36 (twenty years ago)

"And now it's 249-242.
Kerry needs Wisconsin + Iowa. If NV and NM go the way they did in 2000, then Kerry can lose OH and still win."

???

Even if Kerry wins everything else (unlikely, Bush is way ahead in NM) it's still a tie. It'd be a 269-269, and the House (Republican majority) would vote in Bush. It's over, man, unless something insane happens in Ohio or we get word of some other huge controversy. This is shit.

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:42 (twenty years ago)

bush is way ahead in nwe mexico though?

― *@*.* (gareth), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:44 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, he is. NM = New Mexico in my post.

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:45 (twenty years ago)

it'd be a 269-269, and the House (Republican majority) would vote in Bush. It's over, man, unless something insane happens in Ohio or we get word of some other huge controversy. This is shit.

-- stephen morris (bunchoffive...), November 3rd, 2004. (stephen morris) (later)

Dude, that IS a huge enough controversy - and kinda unprecedented, isn't it? I know some peeps have got to be ready to keep fighting if it's that close; Jon's idea is OTM, and there are so many angry Dems from the SCOTUS thing from last time that this isn't gonna die soon. It might just get "interesting," even the creepy way A Nairn uses that adjective...

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:47 (twenty years ago)

I understand that a tie would be a huge controversy, but it's still a huge controversy that was planned for in the constitution. We'd need something other than just a tie to push it any farther.

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:49 (twenty years ago)

also, the premise of this thread is rather RETAHDED. Actually, yes, plz, let's all BE CNN here and NOT call Ohio until every single one of those fucking provisionals and absentees -EVERY SINGLE ONE - is counted, even if it takes until February (and if Edwards' recent statement is any indication to not Gore-out, hopefully this'll happen)....and LET'S ALL NOT BE FOX and just hand it to Dubya since Murdoch ordered it DONE so that the rest of the media can "catch up."

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:51 (twenty years ago)

but it's still a huge controversy that was planned for in the constitution. We'd need something other than just a tie to push it any farther.

-- stephen morris (bunchoffive...)

True, but I'm kinda hoping that it might just be enough for something civil to go down.

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:53 (twenty years ago)

bush is ahead in 3 of the 4 ohio counties still to call

― *@*.* (gareth), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:53 (twenty years ago)

re: House vote on the electoral college. Does the old House or the new House get to vote? If it's the old house, the Democrats hold a 17-15 advantage in the Texas delegation (maybe 16-16, someone switched), if each delegation decides by majority vote that would be a major swing to Kerry (assuming the individual reps were willing to sacrifice their seats for it, no way in hell they get re-elected)

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:54 (twenty years ago)

that's not how i meant it vic but whatever, ohio doesn't sound winnable to me.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:55 (twenty years ago)

I was following CNN's math ... did I mess that up? Let's do it again.
Bush has NM. Therefore, it's 254-242. Leave OH out for a moment. If Kerry wins the other three (and he's trailing in two of them, but they're fairly close), then he's got 264. In which case if Bush takes OH, then he wins (but we already knew that ... if Bush takes OH, then he wins).

The comeback in Wisconsin is the only thing that has made this worth talking about ... because if Kerry does somehow win in OH, then it's 254-262. And Kerry is now leading in WI, so if he wins OH and WI, then he wins.

If he wins OH and NV, he loses. If he wins OH and IA, it's a tie, but in actual fact he will lose once the House votes.

So, Kerry needs OH + either WI or both of IA and NV.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 07:58 (twenty years ago)

Bush is ahead by 140,000 in Ohio now with 98% reporting. Does anyone know how many provisional ballots there actually are?

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:00 (twenty years ago)

Vic, by "not being CNN here" we're trying to look at the numbers and being as objective as possible about what they mean. Sure, there's a CHANCE that OH could still be won by Kerry, but the probability of that is low. And even if he does win it, the prob. that he wins enough votes from other states is not a sure thing. Being realistic about the probabilities != acting like the Fox news asshats.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:01 (twenty years ago)

And, had 2000 not happened, what I wrote above is exactly what the networks would be telling us right now.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:01 (twenty years ago)

The elected official (I'm not sure which position, details schmetails) who have the press conference in Ohio re: provisional ballots said he can make a "projection," of at least 175,000 provisionals. But he said that's likely HIGHER this time, regarding all the newly-registered...

Mind/Barry, I can understand the original premise of the thread (I too cgot impatient with CNN's perceived timidity-caution and switched over to CBS once Wolf!_Blitz!er! became too annoying), but you have to agree that the early "all is lost" pessimism here is a bit premature...even hough in the last 6 seconds I just heard Bush saying he IS gonna declare victory. Um..

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:11 (twenty years ago)

Or rather, I heard John King saying that's what Bush is going to say. Tommorrow morning. Bush didn't say that himself (he has to memorize the talking points first).

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:12 (twenty years ago)

Okay now they're saying he might declare it in one hour...?

And Wolf just screamed that it's more like 250,000 provisionals ...

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:13 (twenty years ago)

All is certainly not lost ... but it's extremely close to being lost. If there were 300K provisional ballots, then Kerry would have to win them 215K-85K (> 70%) in order to win the state. If those ballots are a random sampling of the state, then chances are they wouldn't be split 70-30, they'd be split 51-49. The probability of a random sampling of 300K producting a 70-30 split is, I'd estimate, no more than 0.01 - 0.1% at most.

If the ballots aren't a random sampling, and are concentrated in Democratic precincts (for instance), then there's a better chance, but 70-30 is still a huge split for ANY area of the *country*.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:19 (twenty years ago)

but they are all dem ballots

― Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:21 (twenty years ago)

CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT ABOUT PEOPLE TURNED AWAY FROM 10 HOUR POLL LINES CAUSED BY CHALLENGING VOTES DELIVER ME PLEASE

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 08:21 (twenty years ago)

TIME FOR RECOUNT VERSION: '04 -> OHIO

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 09:03 (twenty years ago)

OMG REPUBLICANS MADE EVERY BLACK VOTER JUMP THROUGH HOOPS AND EAT WATERMELON AND RECITE RAP LYRICS TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY SO PEOPLE RAN OUT OF TIME TO VOTE!

― obviously, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 09:11 (twenty years ago)

We told it like it was on this thread. Fcuk those pussyfooting news networks.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:23 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.