Logic Times

Bias Beyond the Pale

Posted by Aslan, 11/03/04, 08:59am.   Comments (47)

 

(Printer Friendly Format)

 

{Aslan:  The commentary that follows was posted the morning after Election Day.}

 

 

Are you aware that the Pennsylvania race was closer (Kerry gets 51.08%) than the Ohio race (Bush gets 51.2%) or Nevada race (Bush gets 51.4%)?   Think about this fact.  Did the networks have any problem calling Pennsylvania for Kerry?  None whatsoever.  I believe one network had Pennsylvania in the Kerry column within an hour of the polls closing.  And when one considers that absentee ballots always break in the direction of conservatives, the Pennsylvania race will further tighten while the Ohio race widens.

  • Are you aware that New Hampshire has 99% of the vote in with 50.7245% for Kerry to 49.2755% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?

  • Are you aware that Wisconsin has 99% of the vote in with 50.2255% for Kerry to 49.7745% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?

Absentee ballots would only make these races tighter.

  • Are you aware that Iowa has 99% of the vote in with 50.5325% for Bush to 49.4675% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?

  • Are you aware that New Mexico has 99% of the vote in with 50.8816% for Bush to 49.1184% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?

  • Are you aware that Nevada has 99% of the vote in with 51.3536% for Bush to 48.6464% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush (except for one network)?

Absentee ballots would only make these races wider.

 

I could write a commentary here, but why bother?

Comments

 

1: Ryan Fletcher

November 3, 2004 10:28am EST

I noticed the same thing. The gap in Ohio is wider in favor of Bush than the gap in Pennsylvania is in favor of Kerry. But they had no problem calling Pennsylvania for Kerry while every ballot only makes that one closer. They are holding off on Ohio, but that gap will only get wider. The direct link to the post is here.

 

Maybe the just don’t want to call a winner. That way more people watch for longer. Or they are just holding out hope for Kerry; or both.

 

Ryan Fletcher

tracker@politicaltracker.com

http://www.politicaltracker.com

 

2: James Sweeney

November 3, 2004 10:36am EST

This is an incredible, damning set of stats.  It clearly, succinctly and finally drives the stake of truth through the media's cold, manipulative heart.

 

{Aslan: Amen.}

 

3: Jane McIntyre

November 3, 2004 10:54am EST

But what can we do about it?.....I live and vote in PA and the radio stations this morning were all over this story………….nothing will happen!!!

 

{Aslan: But I think something is happening.  The takedown of CBS by the blogosphere was a telling sign that the mainstream media is vulnerable and this debacle will make them more vulnerable, and people like you, who used to be bystanders, are now watchdogs.   I bet Pennsylvania finishes at 50-50 with a very slight edge for Kerry by the time absentees are counted.

 

Consider the media dividend that we now realize (read Fear of Extinction) and be hopeful!}

 

 4: Jim Baker

November 3, 2004 10:55am EST

I stayed up until 2 AM Mountain Time thinking that at least one of the gutless networks would call the election for Bush.  Instead, they all got in a holding pattern and refused to call any state that would put up 270 or more fore Bush.  It was the worst at FOX and NBC.  Both had rightly called Ohio and then wouldn't call any of New Mexico, Iowa, or Nevada because the other networks had refused to call Ohio.  I have come to expect this from the left of center media.  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Michigan go in the Kerry column and Ohio is too close to call.  Now we have the 'unifier' refusing to allow the 'polarizing' President an opportunity to pull the country  together a little bit.

 

{Aslan: I, too, was very disappointed in Fox.  Fox News had a unique opportunity to break away from the mainstream media complex and prove they were “fair and balanced,” and they quailed.  The came to the edge of the precipice and, afraid of the consequences, they applied a different standard to Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada to avoid the responsibility of common sense.  Sad.}

 

 5: Mark T. Petro

November 3, 2004 11:11am EST

Perhaps it is because NM & IA would be states that switched to Bush from Gore in 2000. This would show Bush doing better electorial-wise than he did in 2000, a media no-no.

 

{Aslan:  Perhaps, but that did not stop them from calling New Hampshire – a Bush state – for Kerry.  Oh, that is your point.  Sorry!}

 

 6: Margaret

November 3, 2004 11:43am EST

Time for conservatives to band together to buy newspaper chains or form new ones -- ditto TV networks.  Maybe the blogosphere can call for donations to a fund to do so.  Maybe the Swifties can organize this.

 

{Aslan: Don’t you think that a proudly conservative network (not a closet one like Fox) would thrive?  I agree with you there.}

 

 7: René Lajous

November 3, 2004 12:24pm EST

It’s worse than bias in the calls, there’s bias in the exit polls.  ALL the exit polls were biased, and anyone with half a brain, and access to the exit poll detail info, could see it.  I don’t have the specifics, only anecdote.  The specifics we do have are that the networks were unable to call big Bush states (such as VA and SC, even MS) early because of exit poll data.  The problem is that the exit poll data surely affects voters willingness to vote.  The bias was so strong that at the Iowa Electronics Markets, Bush was given ~15% probability of winning in the early evening (~5pm PST).

 

{Aslan:  I am in the dark here.  I knew the exit polling was going bad and blocked it all out early, confident in looking at the county-by-county returns in Florida and Pennsylvania (where Philadelphia and Allegheny accounted for 90% of the early returns) that these polls were wrong.}

 

 

(more comments here)