40 votes

U.S. Election Results Controlled by Associated Press (AP)

It's not who counts the votes that matters anymore, it's who reports the votes. The Associated Press (AP) has a monopoly on U.S. elections. The AP is like the central bank of US media.

Google = Data from the Associated Press
Politico = Data Source: Associated Press
NBC = Relies on the Associated Press
CNN = Associated Press provides vote totals
Fox = Projected by the Associated Press
ABC = Vote data compiled by the AP
CBS = AP reports
WSJ = Source: Associated Press
NYT = Source: A.P.

Associated Press (AP) U.S. Election Monopoly Gallery

How NBC Projects Election Winners

The Associated Press delivers statewide vote counts as well as county by county results for general elections. The National Election Pool, a consortium formed by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and the AP, provides exit polls, precinct votes in selected sample precincts, and models for the analysis of the election information.


How does CNN make election projections?

The Associated Press: The Associated Press will provide vote totals for each race. The AP will be gathering numbers via stringers based in each county or other jurisdiction where votes are tabulated.

Edison Research: To assist CNN in collecting and evaluating this information, CNN, the other television networks and The Associated Press have employed Edison Research.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

From Within

Well, how are we fighting the Establishment? We're doing that from within. That's what we will need to do with journalism - find known RP/liberty-minded reporters, etc. and work the AP from within. We have to start somewhere.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead


The media cannot be ended from within

You cannot get elected to media positions. In order to end the media corruption we must first end their source of revenue and their masters, the counterfeiters and fraudulent bankers.

To do that we have to get elected.

Edison Research did not conduct exit polls

In most caucuses and primaries, there was no exit polling done at all. In some states, Edison Research did register with the SOS office but never conducted the poll.

Liars, Damn Liars, & Statisticians. AP is a dead heat... Alone.

Nevada, USA. February, 2012. 2 minute video captures AP manufacturing falsehood news for all the world to see, 7 hours before it ain't happening. ------- Here is a 2 minute home video documenting AP deception reporting AP's false hope that some loser won the Nevada caucuses. That loser did not win at all. Twas a lie. Twas a lie published 7 hours before the facts of the matter existed. AP continued updating their pretend news falsehoods with more lies, damn lies, & statistics without correction. To this day, their front-running nonsense stands as a monument to those rapscallions "practiced in the art of deception."

AP loses. AP reports what ain't happening 7 hours before it didn't. Then, AP continually reports most implausible facts.. Some of which might have actually occurred.. somewhere else... some other time... in a galaxy far, far away...

Hammer, hammer, hammer to fit. Whitewash to match. Tell all.. 7 hours before it ain't about to happen.

AP: Reporting world events as they wish them to be.

    Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.
    - Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, by Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Amazing, and what shall we do before the next Presidential

Election? Unfortunately, we're going to have to get much more hard core. You know what happens when good men and women do nothing. Get well ahead and force honest elections. There will be no Ron Paul any other way. The caucus states are over soon and we will win but up against Obama? Soros has the "bid" (what a joke) for the "election". It will not even be done in AmeriKa. It will be done in Spain. You see? We will have to force it upon our fearless congress. We have to. Time for pecking away and nibbling is OVER. We must force a peaceful and an intellectual revolution and put the plans into action immediately. Reform this tyranny! We will not tolerate black box Diebold voting. Why even vote?

And just how does the Associated Propaganda©

get their final election night results???
In over 900 jurisdictions in the USA, that would be: Clarity Elections, which interfaces with the ES&S/Diebold machines, and is operated by:
SOE Software (http://soesoftware.com) of Tampa, FL which is itself owned by:
Scytl (http://scytl.com) of Barcelona, Spain, which creates electronic and internet voting solutions for Spain, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland, the Philippines, Australia, Norway, Finland, The United Arab Emerates, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, India, and Greece, along with the District of Columbia, and the states of: New York, Florida, Alabama, West Virginia. Oh, and also the Department of Defense for all overseas-troops voting...

this is a classic about how

this is a classic about how MSM works


Truthbearer's picture


...when they announced building # 7 had fallen BEFORE it actually fell as it stood in the background of the reporter that was giving this information?

Or, why do all the TV stations come on with the same stories all at the same time in the beginning of the propaganda news mind Kontrol?

They don't call it Programing for nothing!

For our new crew, will not call sanitorium sanitorium anymore. Will call him smarter that we thought instead.

And, for help in breaking your imperial conditioning, here is a good place to get mostly real news and good helpful information.


Knowledge is powerful if you use it correctly.


The Democratic Establishment isn't your poker opponent....

The Democratic Establishment, and the whole party wants you and all of the flock of you dead!!



Santorum knows this loud and clear.
Stop treating the Democratic Party leaders like poker opponents. Start treating them like mortal enemies because they are!!

That means kick the moles out, get rid of Romney, Myers, West etc & attack the Democrats head on with your full fury.

AP controlled by Rueters News Corporation.

Reuters News -> AP, owned by Reuters News.

Reuters News is controlled by one "founder share." That single share controls the Reuters New corporation. It controls all votes of the corporation. One man, one vote. "That's all folks!" - Porky Pig

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

AP (Amerika) and Reuters (European)

IS Rockefeller


A single 100% share? Are you talking about sometime before 2008? Wikipedia editors are claiming it was bought by Thomson Reuters in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

And now the Woodbridge company owns a majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodbridge_Company

Any changes in reporting since 2008?

And Wiki editors also claim that AP is a not-for-profit central reporter (sort of like a central bank of information), with revenue over $600 million and profit of $8 million. That alone is strange, a not-for-profit with $600 million in revenue and $8 million in profit?



I ain't talking. Reporting. Founder share crated by founder.

To my reading, Reuters corporation was set up with one founder's share controlling voting matters. The founder's share was, as may be inferred, set up & held by the founder. Much akin to the Fed, the Reuters New service waxes on about needing "independence." Hogwash.

Search: Reuters "Founder's Share"

Here is Reuter's own statment about this ownership matter: 1984. How the Reuters Founders "golden share" works

LONDON | Fri May 4, 2007 8:10am EDT

May 4 (Reuters) - Financial news and information provider Reuters Group Plc said on Friday it had received a preliminary takeover approach from an unidentified suitor.

The Reuters share structure includes two mechanisms designed to safeguard the company's independence. ... How the system works:

  • - No person may hold 15 percent or more of Reuters issued shares.
  • - If that did happen, Reuters directors would be required to ensure the holding is reduced to below 15 percent.
  • - In addition to the publicly traded shares, a single Founders Share carries significant voting powers. The share is owned by Reuters Founders Share Company Limited, a private company set up in 1984 when Reuters floated in London.
  • - The directors of Reuters Founders Share Company can exercise enough voting power to support or defeat any proposal by a person or their associates seeking to obtain control of Reuters.
  • - In addition, Reuters Founders Share carries significant voting powers. The share is owned by Reuters Founders Share Company Limited, a private company set up in 1984 when Reuters floated in London.
  • - The directors of Reuters Founders Share Company can exercise enough voting power to support or defeat any proposal by a person or their associates seeking to obtain control of Reuters.
  • - In addition, Reuters Founders Share Company can use the Founders Share mechanism to defeat any plan to alter any of the Articles of Association of Reuters Group PLC relating to the Reuters

Reuters Trust Principles include:

  • * Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction.
  • * The integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters will always be preserved.
  • * Reuters will supply unbiased and reliable news services

Wiki is written & rewritten by just about anybody about anything continually. Look beyond Wiki. Look for historical citations that stand behind what they publish. Mark Twain, for example.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Reuters reports what they want.

Doubtful whomever supposedly bought out Reuters would relinquish overlord control of that they just bought. Here is a current Reuters web page that describe over hill & dale, Reuters & its founder's share ride together.

[Reuters] Trust Principles

Thomson Reuters is dedicated to upholding the Trust Principles and to preserving its independence, integrity and freedom from bias in the gathering and dissemination of information and news. ...

The Trust Principles were created in 1941, in the midst of World War II, in agreement with the Newspaper Publishers Association and the Reuters shareholders at the time. The Principles imposed obligations on Reuters and its employees to act at all times with integrity, independence and freedom from bias and fortified them in carrying out the difficult and delicate tasks with which they were faced.

Reuters Directors and shareholders were determined to protect and preserve the Trust Principles established in 1941 when Reuters became a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A unique structure was put in place to achieve this. A new company was formed and given the name 'Reuters Founders Share Company Limited', its purpose being to hold a 'Founders Share' in Reuters.

The charter documents of Thomson Reuters Corporation require Thomson Reuters directors, in the performance of their duties, to have due regard to the Trust Principles, by the proper exercise of their powers and in accordance with their other duties as directors.
[Reuters] Trust Principles are:

  • That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction; That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved; ...

The more Reuters changes, the more they stay the same.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

They have to have this centralized monopoly in order to...

...keep their lies straight.

They can only have one group pulling these numbers out of their @ss at a time.

Otherwise the general public would quickly loose faith in their wild @ss hair predictions.


You are partially correct. Not sure which part.

The lowly Jackass deserves respect.


"Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass."
- Notebook, 1898

"There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. Observe the ass, for instance: his character is about perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt.
- Pudd'nhead Wilson

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

My favorite part is when they

My favorite part is when they say these are projections and the sheeple don't understand what that means. Maybe the MSM's candidate won't buy the election this year...

The truth is, a projection is nothing more than an opinion.

And they use "projection" footnotes or fine print to get away with it.

So the American people are basing their election decisions largely upon the opinion of one company, the Associated Press, that tells them who is winning and who has no chance.

Are you talking about

Are you talking about projections before the election or on election night? On election night, they project based on exit polls, results coming in, and the statistical likelihood that the current leader could lose. When they're pretty confident one guy has an insurmountable lead, they'll call the state. This doesn't have any effect on the election.

Projections before the election are based on 1) Polls and 2) Bias of whoever is reporting. Polling can fairly accurately indicate who is expected to do well in an upcoming race, but the media pick and chooses which polls to emphasize. For example, when Ron Paul was leading the polls in Iowa, the media narrative was that he still was probably going to lose, and even if he won Iowa, he couldn't win the nomination. Or how they've consistently presented Paul as unelectable, despite the fact that he consistently has done better against Obama than anyone besides Romney, and hasn't polled much worse than Romney. These biases can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent, as people who may prefer Ron Paul don't vote for him cause the media says he can't win.

I'm talking about the AP delegate projections

See the NYT link below, for example. All media corporations show and use the AP delegate projections to say Ron Paul is far behind in last place with no chance and only 52 delegates. This discourages people from supporting him.

Exit polls do have an effect on elections, because those voting are inclined to vote for those they think have a chance.

But other polls are manipulated too. The outcome can be influenced by what questions are asked, how the the questions are asked, and where the questions are asked.

Ok, I gotcha. I agree their

Ok, I gotcha. I agree their delegate counts are off, but it's clear that Romney is in the lead and Paul is significantly behind, as Jesse Benton has basically admitted that there's no way we can get to 1144.

Exit polls are released the night of the election. I don't think the number of people who wait until the exit polls are released and then choose who to vote for is a very significant portion of the electorate.

Polls definitely can be manipulated, though I don't really think how they ask the question in presidential polls is part of that, as it's pretty straightforward. They're never going to be 100% accurate, and things constantly change, but they do provide a good general picture of the race, most of the time. My problem is more with how the media picks and chooses to emphasize polls that fit their narrative. Ron Paul was doing well in the polls before Iowa and has consistently done well vs. Obama, but the media has consistently pushed the narrative that he can't win either the primary or the general election

You don't realize how influential polls and the media are

And how deceptive they can be too. How about presidential polls that exclude one of the candidates? You cannot get more deceptive and misleading than that. And it has a tremendous influence on people. If people don't even hear about a candidate or see him in the polls then they don't know about him and don't vote for him.

But have you ever polled people before? Even the tone of voice you use and the order of the candidates can influence ignorant people's choice. The time you call, the list you use, the method of polling, the wording of the questions all come into play.

Also, when polls come out on the news as people are driving to polls after work it certainly has an influence on their voting. If they hear a candidate is far behind, they can decide not to vote for them because of it. The first exit polling the media "chooses" to report can be completely different from the overall state. I've worked in both elections and polling and have seen the influence polling and the media has had on people in my own neighborhoods, with people I know. The main problem is the media does not do a good job of informing them in the first place, which allows them to be easily manipulated in the end. Many actually don't make up their minds until right there at the voting booth, as crazy as it sounds.

As for delegates, Romney actually is not really that far ahead. Which proves that the media is even fooling you too. The media projections are in the 600s but he's actually much lower, in the 500s. And they are saying Ron Paul is only 50, but he is actually closer to 200. So when you compare 500 to 200, it's not that big of a lead, especially when we are only half way done! Yet the media has deceptively written Ron Paul off using the exact same deceptive projection opinion from AP - a single corrupt source.

Don't be a fool of the media propaganda, it's more malicious, deceptive, and influential than you realize, and is the key tool which the establishment is using to keep the people in the dark and throw elections, including right now against Dr. Paul.

Can we please have an honest

Can we please have an honest debate where you don't accuse me of being a media tool? I know the media has an agenda. That doesn't mean Ron Paul is really getting 80% of the vote and has all the delegates. As I stated, even Jesse Benton has said there is virtually no chance we can get a majority of delegates in a conventional fashion. You know, Ron Paul's campaign manager? Is he a media stooge? As I said, the media picks and chooses which polls to emphasize. That doesn't mean all the polls are rigged and Ron Paul is really winning. Five years ago, the entire Republican Party found Ron Paul's ideology foreign and strange. No more war? Individual freedom? These aren't things the majority of Republicans supported. And we have made progress. But there are literally millions of minds that have to be converted. And yes, I acknowledge that the media has done their best to stop that. However, blindly accusing the polls as being rigged and the sole reason we're losing ignores other problems. Ron Paul is the kind of candidate people who are well educated about what's going on support. People who make up their minds at the last minute are less likely to support someone like Ron Paul. There more likely to go with Romney, cause he's "Good looking" and has "business experience." Or Santorum, cause he's a "family man." As I've said, I think the fact that the media underreports polls that show Ron Paul can win is a much bigger factor in the election than rigged exit polls that sway a few people who make up their minds at the last minute. Do you disagree?

Well, you sound like a "media tool"

So why shouldn't I point that out. You're pretty much parroting the mainstream media programming, and focusing on the negative spin of sound bites rather than what is actually going on. You keep essentially saying 'Jesse Benton said we can't win, so we can't.' You're taking what he said out of context of everything else he said. That's what the media does.

And yes, I do disagree, the media has been controlling elections by who they choose to cover and how for decades now. They can take a candidate that is at the very bottom and promote him to the top simply by giving them tons of positive coverage. We've seen it happen several times now in this election alone. If Ron Paul was given fair coverage, instead of a constant stream of attacks and slander, he really might be getting 80% of the vote. Freedom truly is popular.

And finally, the thought that a vote will be wasted is powerful, even on what might be Ron Paul voters (vs supporters). This is the game the media and duopoly party has been playing for years. When people think their vote won't count it's irresistible for most to not place it elsewhere, where they think it might count.

WethePeople ... no he does not sound like a "media tool"

Name calling is out of bounds here. Recall, we are in the middle of a R3VOLution so make sure your keyboard shows the love to our fellow patriots. Lord knows we need all the love we can get.... I do agree with you that the media has been controlling elections for decades, but I also agree that we are well behind, meaning, their propaganda has been very successful.

Spread the love guys... freedom can't survive without it.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

He certainly does

But I think it's mostly because he doesn't realize the influence and corruption of the media on elections. He probably has not looked into it as deeply as I have.

If Ron Paul had fair media coverage, people would know who he really is and what he really stands for and this election would be much different. Instead he doesn't even get fair coverage, but mostly negative and deceptive coverage.

Our biggest hurdle is just getting the message out, the truth. Once people learn what Ron Paul is really saying and fighting for they are behind him 100%, because everyone wants liberty. The media is our greatest enemy in this regard, and, of course, this is because they are owned by our actual enemies, the counterfeiters.

I feel like we disagree on

I feel like we disagree on this issue by maybe 10%, and you're blowing that way out of proportion. I have stated multiple times that the media is very influential in the election, and by picking and choosing what to cover, they can certainly help or harm a particular campaign. That's not the entire story. Take for example, all the flavors-of-the month in this campaign. Certainly, the media helped give them momentum to fuel the surge, but I don't think the media entirely created the surge. Think about it - this election, you have 3 main groups: 1) Romney supporters 2) Paul supporters and 3) Anti-Romney conservatives. The reason there was a series of surges by various candidates is because the voters in category 3 couldn't settle on a candidate and bounced around. Perry destroyed Bachmann's momentum and a lot of those people liked him getting in the race and preferred him over Bachmann. Now, the media certainly helped him, but to say that is the only reason he overtook Bachmann is absurd. When people found out what an idiot Perry is, they moved on to Cain, who seemed to be the most appealing of the remaining candidates. When Cain dropped out, those voters moved onto Gingrich. When Gingrich faltered they moved onto Santorum. And then back to Gingrich. And then back to Santorum. And yes, the media helped them, and negative media coverage contributed to Paul never becoming the true flavor of the month, but you also ignore the fact that these conservative voters natural reluctance to vote for Paul due to his foreign policy and social views. A good example of my point on media bias is when Ron Paul had his Iowa surge, and then the media hit him with the newsletters. Did the media create the surge? No, but they sure helped stop it, whereas they didn't do this to the other candidates.

I think you're a bit optimistic if you honestly think Ron Paul would be getting 80% of the vote with fair media coverage. Would he be doing significantly better than he is? Yeah, for sure. People support freedom as a concept, but most people are not consistent in their support for it in practice. Conservatives support economic freedom most of the time, but don't do the same for social freedom, and support the MIC. Liberals don't support economic freedom, and also some social freedoms, (and aren't consistently anti-war). I feel like the reason Ron Paul is electable in a general election is because everyone can find something about his platform that they like. But in a primary, there are major ideological hurdles to leap. Denying that fact won't make it go away. And yes, I realize that social conditioning through the media and public education system are in large part responsible for those hurdles.

I'm not saying Ron Paul has no chance at all, but it will be extremely difficult, and if he does find a way to win, it will not be in a conventional fashion. Denying that fact is simply delusional. It's funny - most people in the country would consider me an extremist when it comes to opposing the MSM, and yet I'm being accused of being a media tool because I don't agree that the media is 100% to blame for Ron Paul not winning.