Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slate Posts Top-Secret Exit Polling Numbers

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the sek4it dept.

The Media 134

cmdr_beeftaco writes "Slate is running an ongoing commentary with the raw exit-poll data from the National Election Pool consortium owned by the Associated Press and the five television networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN) to their news divisions and to the newsrooms of NEP subscribers-big city newspapers and other broadcasters. 'The paid users of exit-poll data have signed a blood oath not to divulge it to unauthorized eyes, and the networks have promised not to call any states before their polls close. Slate believes its readers should know as much about the unfolding election as the anchors and other journalists, so given the proviso that the early numbers are no more conclusive than the midpoint score of a baseball game, we're publishing the exit-poll numbers as we receive them.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slate slashdotted. Here is the first part. (-1, Redundant)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705152)

Slate was slashdotted while the story was in preview. Here is the first bit of it:

The first wave of exit-poll data reaching my desk comes from a variety of sources. In some states the sources disagree about the specific margin by which a candidate leads, but never about which candidate is out in front. Some of the confusion may stem from the mixing of morning exit-poll numbers with early afternoon numbers. With those provisos and the understanding that the early numbers are predictive of nothing without their accompanying computer model, here's what I've heard:

Florida
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Ohio
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Pennsylvania
Kerry 54
Bush 45

Wisconsin
Kerry 51
Bush 46

Michigan
Kerry 51
Bush 47

Minnesota
Kerry 58
Bush 40

Nevada
Kerry 48
Bush 50

New Mexico
Kerry 50
Bush 48

North Carolina
Kerry 49
Bush 51

Colorado
Kerry 46
Bush 53

Other exit-poll results have arrived in more vague form, with Kerry leading Bush in New Hampshire but trailing him in Arizona and Louisiana.

For an explanation of why Slate is posting exit-poll numbers, see the previous post, below. ... 12:15 p.m. PT

Re: Slate slashdotted. Here is the first part. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705186)


> For an explanation of why Slate is posting exit-poll numbers, see the previous post, below. ... 12:15 p.m. PT

Notice that that "previous post", now Slashdotted, pointed out that unlike the major media networks, Slate doesn't have the computer models that allow projections from these samples, to don't get too excited/depressed over this yet.

And if you live out west, please vote.

Re:Slate slashdotted. Here is the first part. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705262)

I got this from the Drudge Report a few hours ago. It was taken down shortly after...

AZ CO LA MI WI PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 51 52 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 48 48 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41

Re:Slate slashdotted. Here is the first part. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705552)

You really need to work on your formatting. I really can't read that.

Here is the "Afternoon Results" (2, Informative)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705420)

(I had to change the formating a bit to get it over the minimum allowed line length)

"Afternoon Exit Polls - The latest batch.
By Jack Shafer - Updated Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, at 2:29 PM PT - The 4 p.m. ET exit-poll numbers:

Florida - Kerry 52 - Bush 48

Ohio - Kerry 52 - Bush 47

Michigan - Kerry 51 - Bush 48

Pennsylvania - Kerry 58 - Bush 42

Iowa - Kerry 50 - Bush 48

Wisconsin - Kerry 53 - Bush 47

Minnesota - Kerry 57 - Bush 42

New Hampshire - Kerry 58 - Bush 41

Maine - Kerry 55 - Bush 44

New Mexico - Kerry 49 - Bush 49

Nevada - Kerry 48 - Bush 49

Colorado - Kerry 49 - Bush 50

Arkansas - Kerry 45 - Bush 54

North Carolina - Kerry 47 - Bush 53"

It's still too early to be sure about anything, but this is a lot better than i've been fearing for the past few weeks.

Rumor Mill... (3, Insightful)

D.A. Zollinger (549301) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705187)

The rumor going around at work is that traditionally when there is heavy turnout at the polls (like today's near record turnout) it is a sign of the masses rising up to throw out the party in power.

Re: Rumor Mill... (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705222)


> The rumor going around at work is that traditionally when there is heavy turnout at the polls (like today's near record turnout) it is a sign of the masses rising up to throw out the party in power.

Another tradition is that due to the way the two parties have divided the social pyramid, heavy turnouts favor the Democrats.

Presumably these traditions have a sounder basis than all the sports correlations we've been hearing about, but under the circumstances I would still interpret them cautiously. Both parties have worked extremely hard to get their voters out this year.

Re: Rumor Mill... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705510)

THere's also more registered democrats than republicns in the US. When they vote, it favors the democrats. Not surprising, since most of the world is much further left than the US. The majority of people in the country are left of center, they just don't vote.

Re: Rumor Mill... (4, Funny)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705656)

Yea--the Republicans have even been trying to get minorities to vote [theonion.com] .

Re:Rumor Mill... (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705382)

Not a rumour actually. Just a result of the silent majority speaking up. There are many voters that did not vote in 2000.

Re:Rumor Mill... (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706940)

Just a result of the silent majority speaking up. There are many voters that did not vote in 2000.

Good. It's their fault we're in this mess in the first place.

Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (5, Insightful)

wizbit (122290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705189)

These are provided by the National Election Pool, the successor to Voter News Services, disbanded after the 2000 election froo-fraw. And these numbers have been available all afternoon (well, since 2pm EST) to anyone in the media who would've been interested. Salon's readers would've learned about it any number [salon.com] of times [salon.com] reading the War Room this afternoon. And as always, these early returns are to be taken with a HUGE - repeat, HUGE - grain of salt. The networks won't report these because they are unreliable at this point and because of the great caution they are taking to avoid another 2000 debacle.

Re: Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705252)


> These are provided by the National Election Pool, the successor to Voter News Services, disbanded after the 2000 election froo-fraw.

Ah, yes. Remember how they talked up VNS before that election!

Re: Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

wizbit (122290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705296)

It just irritates me that these numbers are being celebrated in any way by either party. Like Slate said, do you call a baseball game based on the score in the 4th inning?

Please.

Re: Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (2, Funny)

NaDrew (561847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705338)

do you call a baseball game based on the score in the 4th inning?
You do if you're Dusty Baker and it's game six of the 2002 World Series.
Sorry, "still bitter", party of one...

Re: Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

cmdr_beeftaco (562067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705339)

After 5 innings you call it if it rains. Does that help?

Re:Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705452)

"The networks won't report these because they are unreliable at this point and because of the great caution they are taking to avoid another 2000 debacle."

Right, I'm sure the networks would just hate having to report on another election debacle. They would be so much happier with another suicide-bomb in the middle east or another celebrity drug overdose. Yeh, they want to avoid an election debacle at all costs ... yep.

Re:Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705575)

I think you're confusing the whole "they called it before it was in" froo-fraw with the whole "florida turned into a legal battle for electoral votes" froo-fraw. You're right, the latter would be a big circus, much for the media to love. But the former is what was being referred to, and more egg on their faces wouldn't be a good thing. Especially if they call it in favor of the liberal AGAIN and are wrong AGAIN.

Re:Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705652)

Why, does anyone actually hold the media at fault? Not really. Some people mention it in passing, but then jump straight to denouncing Bush as the presiddent-elect.

Re:Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (3, Informative)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705858)

Especially if they call it in favor of the liberal AGAIN and are wrong AGAIN.

When did that happen? I just remember 2000, when they called it for George Bush (who is a republican, but most emphatically not conservative).

In 2000, they called for Gore prematurely (2, Informative)

GQuon (643387) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706999)

In 2000, they called Florida for Gore prematurely, while the polls in Florida were still open. (They switched to Bush during the night.)
Wolf Blitzer, Larry King etc. were talking about that mess just now on CNN, and how that was an embarassing mistake.
This year, they waited untill all the polls in the state closed, before calling the state. And now they will be more careful, looking more closely at the actual vote numbers and having three possible outcomes: Bush, Kerry or Too close to call.

I see the mods have been watching F911 along with the rest of the world.

Re:Sorry, but these aren't "secret" (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10707241)

They called it for Gore and got it wrong too.

Exit polls would throw the election (3, Interesting)

mind21_98 (18647) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705191)

I'm not sure if it's a good idea for Slate to be posting exit polls. Exit polls tend to throw elections when they're very close, IMHO, and we cannot afford to have the election be in doubt this time around.

BTW: if you're reading this and you haven't voted yet, GO VOTE.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705209)

I'm glad that they posted the exit poll numbers. It looks like Kerry is firmly in the lead in Ohio which means I don't have to waste my time standing in line forever.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (1)

Macphisto (62181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705299)

Whoa.. what if fake numbers were posted to convince people to do what you propose en masse?

Re: Exit polls would throw the election (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705323)


> I'm glad that they posted the exit poll numbers. It looks like Kerry is firmly in the lead in Ohio which means I don't have to waste my time standing in line forever.

When too many people think that way, they risk treating themselves to a nasty surprise.

Re: Exit polls would throw the election (0)

wizbit (122290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705363)

I think you've been trolled.

Re: Exit polls would throw the election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705385)

No sir, you were the one trolled.

Re: Exit polls would throw the election (1)

wizbit (122290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705400)

Well then, IHL, and I will HAND. :)

Re: Exit polls would throw the election (1)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706183)

And conversely if your candidate is doing poorly, it may be the motivation someone needs to go out and vote. The vote in Iowa last year wasn't as close as in Florida (it was 4000 some votes), but that was only 2 votes per precinct. If I got two people to go vote and someone else in each precinct did the same, the winner would have been different.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (2, Insightful)

antv (1425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705435)

Please do stay.
Your vote really matters - and don't forget, those polls are preliminary.
Don't just hope for victory - go and win it.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (3, Funny)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705584)

Tricksy anonymous Republican hobbitses!

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (1)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705235)

If I had a mod point.. anyway. Remember the polls won't close in the East for another 1h+13 at least, and these numbers are flaky like a Slashdotter's dandruff. So these could shift -- Gore *was* ahead at the beginning in 2000, so GO VOTE!!

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (2, Funny)

spacecowboy420 (450426) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705566)

He was ahead at the end as well....

having more information isn't a bad thing. (3, Insightful)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705309)

As long as the readers know it's just first data and not worth much right now, I think it's fine.

Besides, maybe it will convince voters in certain states who were going to give their vote to a protest candidate, or not vote at all, that it's closer in some states that were expected to be solidly in favor of one candidate or another, and so maybe their vote might actually matter after all.

Sure would hate for it to come down to under a thousand votes again, and be someone who threw away my chance to change the outcome.

Of course, all this is theoretical - in my state, Texas, there's really no chance of it being close.

Re:having more information isn't a bad thing. (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705486)

Thats just the thing. The basic idea of democracy is that you vote for the candidate that you think best represents your views.

Knowing who will win should not change your vote.

Yes, I didn't vote for either of the "big 2".

Re:having more information isn't a bad thing. (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705643)

Not at all. The heart of democracy is comprimise. Trying to find a solution thats acceptable to all (or as many as possible) people involved. This means in Congress sometimes you need to vote for something you dislike in order to get a vote for something you do like. Or that you need to vote for something midway between two views, because its better than nothing. In elections, this means sometimes you need to vote for a comprimise candidate (Kerry) rather than have nothing done at all (Bush).

Re:having more information isn't a bad thing. (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705669)

Thats just the thing. The basic idea of democracy is that you vote for the candidate that you think best represents your views.


If you do that this time, there's a chance that the person who represents your views LEAST might get elected. So, in my opinion, for the sake of getting at least some good things done, or fewer bad things done, pragmatism is better than strict ideology at least this once. Regardless of which way you lean.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (2, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705477)

Isn't the news media in the business of influencing elections by providing information?

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705560)

I dunno; supposedly if the numbers look like they're leading to a blow out the "losing" side gets demoralized. The numbers posted, however, are incredibly close in all the battleground states listed, except in Pennsylvania.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705655)

BTW: if you're reading this and you haven't voted yet, GO VOTE.

If you are an ignorant moron, for the sake of the Republic, DON'T VOTE.

Re:Exit polls would throw the election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706456)

BTW: if you're reading this and you haven't voted yet, GO VOTE.

You know, I hate what Bush is doing to the world, and would love to vote him out. But I'm not a USA citizen.

race2004.net (4, Informative)

timothv (730957) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705194)

There's also constant updates at race2004.net [race2004.net]

reasonable (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705207)

I think its reasonable for the more wonky places like Slate(did I just say that?) to post exit numbers. The people reading it there or here have probably either voted already or will do so regardless of the polls.

I still think it would be very ethically questionable to, say, broadcast the numbers on a popular radio show or in the 6PM news blurb.

Victory for Kerry (3, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705224)

Kerry's going to win at least 306 electoral points, since he's picking up Iowa according to the late results.

To the guy who stole my Kerry sign in the middle of the day: Congratulations, you've got yourself a nice sign.

Me: the guy I voted for is going to become the President.

Today is a really good day indeed. Hey buddy, Enjoy that fucking sign!

Re:Victory for Kerry (-1, Flamebait)

cmdr_beeftaco (562067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705314)

I will enjoy that sign, thanks, my ass was dirty.

Re:Victory for Kerry (1)

w3rzr0b0t5 (816100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705375)

Wow, John Kerry has some real stand-up guys supporting him.

Re:Victory for Kerry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705871)

Me: the guy I voted for is going to become the President.

Too bad he's still a loser. But you must feel very proud for being on the winning team.

Repost (1, Informative)

fafalone (633739) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705320)

I had some trouble accessing Slate a little while ago, in case others have the same problem, here is a copy of text as of 5:55PM EST:
--
Early Exit
Kerry leads.
By Jack Shafer
Updated Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, at 2:46 PM PT
The first wave of exit-poll data reaching my desk comes from a variety of sources. In some states the sources disagree about the specific margin by which a candidate leads, but never about which candidate is out in front. Some of the confusion may stem from the mixing of morning exit-poll numbers with early afternoon numbers. With those provisos and the understanding that the early numbers are predictive of nothing without their accompanying computer model, here's what I've heard:

Florida
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Ohio
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Pennsylvania
Kerry 54
Bush 45

Wisconsin
Kerry 51
Bush 46

Michigan
Kerry 51
Bush 47

Minnesota
Kerry 58
Bush 40

Nevada
Kerry 48
Bush 50

New Mexico
Kerry 50
Bush 48

North Carolina
Kerry 49
Bush 51

Colorado
Kerry 46
Bush 53

Other exit-poll results have arrived in more vague form, with Kerry leading Bush in New Hampshire but trailing him in Arizona and Louisiana.

For an explanation of why Slate is posting exit-poll numbers, see the previous post, below. ... 12:15 p.m. PT

Exit Poll Charade: Why Slate is posting the exit-poll numbers: As this item posts, the first raw exit-poll data are streaming from the National Election Pool consortium owned by the Associated Press and the five television networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN) to their news divisions and to the newsrooms of NEP subscribers--big city newspapers and other broadcasters.

These early exit-poll numbers do not divine the name of the winner. Instead, regard these numbers as a sportswriter does the line scores from the fourth inning of a baseball game. The leading team might win the game, but then again it might not. But having the early data in front of him helps the sportswriter plot the story he thinks he'll need to write at game's end.

Continue Article
As you read this posting, the political reporters at the networks, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, Newsweek, and about two dozen other news outlets are cracking their knuckles over their keyboards, contemplating the story, while statisticians and political analysts at the networks prepare to run the numbers through their computer models to generate a prediction.

The paid users of exit-poll data have signed a blood oath not to divulge it to unauthorized eyes, and the networks have promised not to call any states before their polls close. But the numbers always leak out to other journalists--such as the writers at Slate--and starting at about 5 p.m. ET or so, the news anchors start giving clues about what they've learned from the exit-poll results. As John Tierney writes in today's New York Times, the result on television is sometimes like a "version of the Dance of the Seven Veils, in which anchors or correspondents will pretend not to know what's happening in a state but give enough clues for the discerning viewer. They might allude to the high spirits at one campaign headquarters, or start speculating about what effect the loss of this state would have on the other candidate."

In the 2003 gubernatorial election in California, the networks kept their solemn oath not to call the winner until polls closed at 11 p.m. ET. Just the same, CBS News' Dan Rather telegraphed his findings in this 6:30 p.m. ET broadcast.

With voting still under way in the California governor recall election, CBS News exit polls, for whatever, if anything, they may be worth, now indicate many voters made up their minds weeks ago. ... If [Gov. Gray Davis] is recalled, there are widespread expectations--again, for whatever they may be worth--that Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger would replace Davis.

On CNBC, John Seigenthaler maintained a straight face in the 7 p.m. ET time slot as he divulged these exit-poll results: "Nearly three-quarters of California voters, 73 percent, say they disapprove of [Gov. Gray Davis'] job performance." Need he have drawn a picture? Meanwhile, MSNBC and Fox indulged in similar mugging. Watch the airwaves for such giveaways this evening.

Slate believes its readers should know as much about the unfolding election as the anchors and other journalists, so given the proviso that the early numbers are no more conclusive than the midpoint score of a baseball game, we're publishing the exit-poll numbers as we receive them. Some people say it's irresponsible to publish the numbers--or broadcast early projections of winners--because it may disturb voter turnout. As Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg put it in today's Times, he doesn't want to put the Web site "in the paternalistic position of deciding that our readers aren't mature enough to react in the proper way to truthful information we possess."

Watch this space. ... 11:50 a.m. PT

------

To early to celebrate (1)

qaguru (777981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705356)

The success in Ohio and Florida depends on the high voter turnout - if people stay home, because they think the race is over, Kerry could lose. BTW Zogby is giving similar predictions, Kerry winning 311 eleven electoral votes. http://www.zogby.com/ [zogby.com]

The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705358)

Would Michael have posted this if Bush was in the lead?

Re:The real question is (1)

cmdr_beeftaco (562067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705427)

The real question is what would Jesus do?

Re:The real question is (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705485)

The real question is what would Jesus do?

He'd shut the fuck up.

Re:The real question is (1)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705713)

Well, regardless of your statement, it seems true to your nickname.

Re:The real question is (1)

TheClarkey (546286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706503)

It's actualy What Would Johnny Damon Do?

Re:The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706739)

I saw someone else post this yesterday, If Jesus were running vs Bush for president, Jesus Ad [wiseass.org]

Re:The real question is (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705593)

* Would Michael have posted this if Bush was in the lead?*

why would he post it when he isn't? now bush supporters know that they *must* go to the polls or else they might lose.

(it goes just the other way)

I hardly think that's an issue... (2, Insightful)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705790)

Would Michael have posted this if Bush was in the lead?

Who cares? It's news. Michael is just some guy who posts stories on Slashdot. I really don't think that determining what his political views are is nearly as important as determing who is going to be the next President of the United States.

Re:I hardly think that's an issue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10707531)

You are an e-terrorist and a gun confiscator. You might want to submit that as a story about yourself on slashdot.

Ethics? (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705364)

I'm not so sure this is ethically the right thing to do, as it may have a bearing on the election if many people see it. Recall the problems in Florida in 2000 when Fox called the state for Gore. I believe the McLauglin Group said that quite a few western Floridians (a strongly Republican area) did not vote because of the news.

If the news is supposed to be unbiased, and allowing polling information is to bias the electorate, then perhaps they should just sit on the information until that state is closed.

Can't we impatient Americans wait until tomorrow to find out who won?

Re:Ethics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10705506)

I believe the McLauglin Group said that quite a few western Floridians (a strongly Republican area) did not vote because of the news.

I suggest the following response to counter the apathetic voter:

Gee, I guess I won't be sending any prayers to $DEITY because, you know, it just doesn't matter.

Re:Ethics? (2, Insightful)

Unordained (262962) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705630)

Or we could just expect people not to be stupid: no matter how they're calling it, vote anyway. It's not the media's fault that people are lazy enough to stay home if they think they can't win or have alread won (if we can really call it winning) ... publish the data. People only get the government they deserve anyway.

Re:Ethics? (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706335)

If you care about the election, see that your guy is down based on an exit poll, and don't vote, I am glad, no matter what party you are. I don't want monkies or your pet to vote as their input is worthless. I don't want stupid people to vote either. If you don't vote because of an exit poll, I consider that a victory for democracy, regardless of who wins.

Any word on HULK, the Green Party Candidate? (3, Funny)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705381)

When the halloween webcam voting [komar.org] closed last night, the numbers were:
HULK: 15,020 BUSH: 14,531 KERRY: 14,192
but it is open for voting (for the last night) in 2 hours.

But I don't see the Big Green Guy listed in Slate's numbers, so it doesn't bode well for Hulk for President [komar.org]

Re:Any word on HULK, the Green Party Candidate? (1)

Undefined Parameter (726857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705886)

That's a truly funny website, if only for the javascript warning. Thanks for a laugh!

~UP

Heavy turnout (2, Interesting)

craw (6958) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705437)

and cell-phones tell the story. A heavy turnout means that younger people are voting, and they favor Kerry. It was means that there are also many first-time voters; this also favors Kerry.

A lot of young people never get contacted in the National polls as the pollsters usually do not call cell phone numbers.

Re:Heavy turnout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706616)

Yup, I'm one of those... Lick Bush in 04 :^P

Zobgy calls it for Kerry (2, Informative)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705468)

Why bother counting, or even finishing the voting? Zogby's already settled it. [end sarcasm]

Zogby [zogby.com] has already called it for Kerry 311 to 213.

Early results/predictions are interesting, but that's all.

Election results: early or accurate, pick one.

Bush is Sunk (1)

chemstar (457943) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705513)



Zogby is calling it for Kerry. In a landslide [zogby.com] .

Internal Democrat exit poll numbers (2, Informative)

Castaa (458419) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705565)

Take these with a grain of salt but here you go:

5PM EST exit polls... From an email sent by a Demo staffer on the Hill.

PRESIDENTIAL
FLorida: Kerry up by four
Ohio: Kerry up by five
Michigan: Kerry up by four
Pennsyvlania: Kerry up by 16
Iowa: Kerry up by 2
Wisconsin: Kerry up by 5
Minnesota: Kerry up by 15
Nevada: Bush up by one
New Mexico: tied at 49
Virginia: Bush up by one
North Carolina: Bush up by 5
Maine: 55-44 Kerry, with Kerry winning both congressional districts avoiding an electoral college split.
Colorado: Kerry inched up to 51-49 lead as of 3 pm

Re:Internal Democrat exit poll numbers (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706543)

Florida: Kerry up by four

Strange, as Bush is currently up by about 11% in Florida, with 29% of the precincts reporting in.

dailykos.com (1)

brokencomputer (695672) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705621)

DailyKOS.com [dailykos.com] has a lot more info than slate has and had it a lot earlier. Also, I was talking to a DNC member and the internal top secret DNC polls supposedly had Kerry only losing in Virginia by 1%. I guess I'm not supposed to tell anyone, but oh well.

----
WrongPlanet.net [wrongplanet.net]

Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution (0, Offtopic)

asciiwhite (679872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705641)

Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution
by James F. Harrington 2:00pm Tue Nov 2 '04 (Modified on 7:40pm Tue Nov 2 '04)

When I was very young, I remember my family taking my uncle to Logan International Airport in Boston. One side of the Sumner Tunnel had been blocked to traffic due to security situations, because Fidel Castro was due to be passing through at any moment. This was the very day that he made his famous speech at Harvard University.

I was born in Boston, the Cradle of Liberty, shortly after the second world war was over. I grew up believing that my country, the United States of America was the bastion of liberty and freedom for all its peoples and as such, was an shining example for all the developing countries of the world.

It is no wonder then, at the age of seventeen I sincerely believed that I had all of the answers to the world's problems all fiqured out. Anyone who said anything against this great country of ours, was either an communist; fellow traveler or a dupe!

In all of my most wildest dreams, I never would have believed that America has been ruled by some of the most sinister group of men that God ever created. Men whose thirst for money and power were so great that the very lives of America's youth and the lives of people's in foreign countries didn't matter one iota to them, as long as they could make money exploiting the natural resources from these countries.

My generation grew up being taught a lot of blatant lies and half-truths regarding the Cuban Revolution in which Castro played a big role. We were never told anything about the situation that the Cuban people faced in a daily basis under General Batista, the Cuban General who came to power via an coup dâetat against the democratically elected government of Cuba.

Nor were we told how the American Mafia with their leader Lucky Luciano, had Batista in their back pocket! Any vice that you desired was available in Cuba under the Batista junta. Everything from prostitution, drugs, gambling, you name it, was available for the Yankee Dollar!

One famous hotel in Havana had a long winding staircase in the lobby area. On this stairway, from the bottom, all the way to the top would be the most beautiful Cuban girls, each evenly spaced from one-another. They were of every hue, from very light skinned to very dark, and all shades in between.

Of course the tourists from America who partook of their beauty never stopped to think for one moment that these girls were once some young mothers pride and joy. Or that they might have brothers who if they only knew how their sisters made their money to survive, might have gone balistic some evening.

The knowledge of how the Mafia ran everything in Cuba, was one of the driving forces that led Fidel Castro and his fellow revolutionaries in their quest to free their homeland.

Life for a prostitute during the Batista years wasnât a bowl of cherries either. Many of these young women were kept in basement cellers with small barred windows in which if they were lucky, they might be able to watch the world go by, but unable to join in the parade.

After the success of the Cuban Revolution, the American Mafia soon found themselves unwelcome in Cuba.

Today, the sons of these same American Mafia maggots are posed in Miami, just waiting for the green light from the Bush administartion, which will enable them to re-establish an beachhead in Cuba once again, just as their fathers once had during the Batista years.
See also:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANSWER-NEW_HAMPSHIRE [yahoo.com]

we cannot believe our own government (1)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705760)

The Iraq war really confirmed that for me. That set of events caused me do research on the politics of the Right versus the Left. Because of my research, I will never cast another vote for a Republican again, and I will in the future take every opportunity to vote 3rd party.

Thanks for posting this.

Unreliable. (1)

overunderunderdone (521462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705848)

It's not yet time for Republicans to despair or Democrats to celebrate. These early numbers are notoriously unreliable. There has already been a significant shift from the mid-day numbers released at 2:00 to the afternoon numbers we are looking at now. For instance PA went from Kerry by 20 at 2:00 to Kerry by 9 in these late afternoon numbers from Slate - right now it's down to a 4 point lead. In 2002 there were double digit shifts from mid-day early numbers to the final results.

It's a poll. The early numbers aren't not even a scientific poll... just some of the raw data that will eventually end up in a scientific poll. To coin a phrase: "If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane."

But the turnout for Demo precincts is WAY up (1)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706000)

That is the real reason why the futures markets are heading Kerry's way BIG, and why all the cable tv news talking heads look like they are at a funeral: the turnout at certain, key Democratic precincts is HUGE, and significantly higher than corresponding GOP precincts.

KERRY WINS!!

But still, if you are a liberal/Democrat--go VOTE.

However, you may want to vote strategically: if you are a liberal in a solid red state, vote rightwing 3rd party--build up the Constitution Party (or if the Constitution party candidate Peroutka is not on the ballot in your state, vote for the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik). THat way, your vote strengthens the future competition for conservative votes. That is the only way the Leftwing party, the Green Party, can grow--by growing the Rightwing parties using liberal votes in red states.

This country desperately needs some creative destruction applied to our govt and our electoral system. But the only way to get that is through 3rd parties. So, go build up the 3rd parties.

Re:But the turnout for Demo precincts is WAY up (1)

overunderunderdone (521462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706068)

It is also way up in Rep precincts... both sides have unprecedented GOTV efforts.

The future markets are responding to these exact same exit polls - they aren't an independent source of data that can confirm them.

May as well act on it. (3, Insightful)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10705852)

It you're in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, or North Carolina, are registered to vote, and haven't voted, and the polls are still open, get your ass to the polls. They are very close.

Re:May as well act on it. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706149)

I am in Florida, I will make sure I vote Bush.

CBC Flash Results (1)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706186)

The CBC has a great little flash animation of the election results. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/02/ uselec041102.html Hope y'all find it helpful.

Acording to CNN... (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706263)

Bush has 4 states, Kerry has 1.

Re:Acording to CNN... (1)

burns210 (572621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706564)

Nader carried 45 states? Wow, talk about unexpected!

Re:Acording to CNN... (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706640)

Err, other states have no projections yet.

Update:
270 electoral votes needed to win
Bush - 155
Kerry - 112

Hmmmm... (1)

aelbric (145391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706296)

Seeing as CNN has already given West Virgina to Bush and Slate gives it to Kerry with a comfortable margin, I wouldn't hold this as gospel yet.

Re:Hmmmm... (1)

Mindjiver (71) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706351)

West Virginia
Kerry 45
Bush 54
Nader 1

Yeah.. he leads with -9 percent. :D

Re:Hmmmm... (1)

aelbric (145391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706394)

Oops, my bad. That's what I get for trying to watch 3 webpages, 2 TV channels and read /. at the same time.

Belay that last.

As Lee Corso says, Not So Fast, my friend... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706350)

As the evening goes on, this race is tightening to a virtual tie nationwide. Kerry's people aren't talking much, but National Review says they're talking to people in Washington that says Ohio and Florida should trend back to Bush by the end of the evening. Kerry's own people are worried about Oregon now, a state that wasn't supposed to be in play. This is going to be razor close until late tonight.

Re:As Lee Corso says, Not So Fast, my friend... (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10707002)

From slat's electoral map if Ohio and Florida both go Bush, he'll pretty much win this sucker. I'm watching for the first of NM, IA, FL, OH, MN, PA, and NH to close (the time it is taking for NH to be declared makes me lean toward a W for Bush. All I really want is for the decision to be leaning enough one way or the other by tomorrow morning that we can put this election behind us for 4 years, no matter who wins.

What is this? (3, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706476)

Every exit poll i've seen says Florida is leaning towards Kerry by about 1 or 2 percent, however NBC says that with 22% of the precincts reporting that Florida is 55% for Bush, which seems well outside what i'd expect for the margin error.

So are we just getting an odd set of precincts reporting first, or is the official vote vastly different (statistically speaking) from the exit polls?

[tinfoil-hat]
At what point do we demand some kind of investigation, especially given the number of Diebold machines in Florida? This is the first time i've been glad for the exit polls, which will hopefully provide some check on votes getting changed after they're cast.
[/tinfoil-hat]

Re:What is this? (2, Funny)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706682)

So are we just getting an odd set of precincts reporting first, or is the official vote vastly different (statistically speaking) from the exit polls?

Speaking for myself, if someone I know (in real life, not the from the internet) asks me who I am for, I tell them it's not their business. If a pollster asks me, I am as likely to lie as I am to tell them I am not comfortable divulging my choice. I think if you are for Bush, you are probably a little more inclined to decline or lie. <flamebait> Probably something to do with the rabid hatred demonstrated repeatedly by some liberals.</flamebait>

Re:What is this? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 9 years ago | (#10707370)

Yes, the precincts report in unusual ways. Also, yes, polls skew strongly for the challenger, even in races where the incumbent wins.

Wow, did anyone else hear Aaron Brown? (2, Interesting)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706499)

He just "blasted the system" on CNN talking about how we all keep voting for the same crap year after year and how the lobbyists control everything and how the major parties rig things to keep others out.

I think that's about the most insightful thing I've heard from any major media outlet this whole election cycle, and it totally blew me away. I never expected anyone from the major media to wise up that much, and even if they did I wouldn't have expected them to air anything like that. CNN gets my support for political coverage if they keep this up.

Hitler, Stalin, Bush bios on History Channels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706570)

'Portraits of Fascists' Thought I'd let you know.

Has anyone noticed (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706769)

that all the red states have a high incidence of inbreeding and voters with Down's Syndrome?

I was just checking this here [fucktards4bush.com] and found some other interesting facts:

Bush voters show overwhelmingly low IQs.
Bush voters are 74% more likely to keep sheep for sexual purposes.
Voters that preferred Bush show a preference for young armless boys.
Republican voters have eaten 59% more aborted gay babies than Nazi Party voters, and 89% more than Democratic Party voters.

Just some points of interest. You might want to check these sites too.

Here [pigrapers4bush.com] here, [www.knifer...fnuns4bush] and here. [pumpkinhumpers4bush.net]

Re:Has anyone noticed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10706863)

Perfect example of the Republican bias of Slashdot. These are facts! Check the sources!

Don't blame me! (1)

oprahjesserafael (792066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706807)

I voted George Walker! /obscure.. /stupid

Slate believes (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 9 years ago | (#10706808)

Slate believes...

That it has a right to screw up the election. Thumbs up guys!

From where I'm sitting ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10707010)

... in London, UK watching BBC report results as they're called in, it seems almost surreal to have witnessed the biggest amount of nationalistic fervour I've ever seen for US democracy, free speech, US military prowess and all the usual 'patriotic' rubbish that flows unendingly from ignorant US citizens and then to see queues of voters queueing for upto 5 hours or more to cast their vote.

And you still want to try to convince me that that is the 'best democracy' in the world ? LOL

I've never ever had to wait longer than about 3 minutes to collect a ballot paper to vote in the UK. And there is always a paper trail. Always. It's viewed as highly undemocratic not to have a paper trail for voting in the UK. And electronic voting has all but been ruled out here as it's so easy to tamper with.

Democrat voter intimidation, dodgy unauditable electronic voting machines, voice mail calls from "Bill Clinton" telling democrats to vote on wednesday, tricking students on campus to register as Republican by signing a pretend petition, ... the list goes on and on.

Your written constitution is in danger of being sidelined by Christian fundamentalists who wish to allow judges to be allowed to use a 'higher power' in it's place whenever they like, the Supreme Court may end up being totally Republican, the White is 'sponsored' by Halliburton et el, the deficit is reputed to be a trillion dollars or more, US healthcare has ever growing discrepancies between rich and poor, more US corporations are moving their head offices to tax exempt territories, the IT jobs market is shrinking as it's being outsourced to the rest of the world, more and more people are being disenfranshised at every turn, a state of continuous war is now some kind of standard way of life, a war against another sovereign nation with no connections to Al Queda, fear mongering at it's highest since WWII when even Japanese attacks on US mainland didn't even bring the US into the war (Pearl habour did it though) ..... shall I go on ?

If you rely on CNN, Fox news, ABC, NBC etc then you are being misinformed. And you can guess the reason why.

If Bush gets back in and the draft comes in and more and more of you start being killed in action, you can't plead ignorance and that you didn't know. All of this information is on the Internet freely available to read ..... but you'll have my sympathy and if anyone wants to claim asylum here in the EU, just say so and we'll see what we can work out :-)

Wage peace not war.

FYI, BBC1 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10707064)

... UK terrestrial reports

Bush 197
Kerry 112

as of 3:39 GMT.

HA HA HA HA HA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10707334)

Oh, Man /. is not biased, /. can be a objective source for political news. Slate...really good source. Eat Crow a-holes.

Screw /. I boycotted it, you should too!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?