ABC just predicted McCain to win Virginia with 51% reporting!! WTF?!?
Posted February 13th, 2008 by Here is Your Sign
output
Unbelievable. I thought it was bad in Washington with 87%.
This is getting so blatantly ridiculous people.
When is it going to stop?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
elections are rigged, the
elections are rigged, the politicians are just playing a game, they already know who has won..."its a play" "their acting"...all liars know how to "act"
just a thought...
Look the election system is compromised! Live with it or change
it.
We pretend we are the worlds' leaders of free people.
Even third world countries can vote and be OK'd by the world powers.
Read this by Jimmy Carter.
http://www.npr.org/templa...
Doesn't look so different.
***************************************************
http://youtube.com/watch?...
Watch and feel the power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How does Virginia say anything like that AT ALL?
The ABC News prediction is just that -- a prediction of who is going to win. It's not official, and (as we learned in Florida in 2000), sometimes the predictions can be wrong.
To figure out why ABC News thought McCain was going to win (and was right), look at a map of Virginia:
http://politics.nytimes.c...
The rural areas of Virginia are to the west, the urban areas are to the right (particularly in the top-right DC suburbs and bottom-right Virginia Beach suburbs). At around 50%, McCain held a 1% lead and most of the rural areas had reported, but most of the urban areas were still sending reports in. The rural areas were more pro-Huckabee, and the urban areas that had reported were more pro-McCain. It doesn't take a degree in statistics to realize that if McCain was winning at 50%, and the only votes that hadn't been counted yet were from pro-McCain areas, then McCain was likely to win.
Sure enough, ABC got it right -- the results from the urban areas continued to come in for McCain and there weren't enough rural votes left yet uncounted to beat him.
This isn't rocket science. Just look at the maps.
Baaaaah baaaaaaah
Vote McCain. Good sheep.
MD just got called for
MD just got called for MCNASTY at 0%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you complaining about early predictions?
these are not a real problem -- they are made based on the percent reporting and the exit polls taken.
Predictions are only made after the polls have already closed, so it won't affect the voting.
Huck WAS winning, then BOOM McCain WINS! In a BLINK!
First they wouldn't call it - too tight. Then Huck pulled way ahead. Then Boom, McCain WINS Virginia!
Just like that! At least Blitzer acknowledged the sudden change. Chris Matthews called McCain as soon as he eeked past Huck.
Exit polls were neck-in-neck.
This is TOO TIGHT to call this early.
Of course, they didn't learn ANYTHING from Washington!
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!
Look at the map and you'll understand the secret
Look at the map of Virginia -- at 50% most of the western (pro-Huckabee, rural) areas of the state had already reported, but most of the eastern (pro-McCain, urban) areas had not yet reported.
http://politics.nytimes.c...
Seems pretty straightforward that more votes were coming in for McCain and Paul than for Huckabee if the only places left were urban areas.
Be happy they didn't call it when the polls closed
.
If the Sample is Random, That's More Than Enough
It's statistics. 50% is a HUGE sample and quite reliable, as long as it's random.
Anyway, you can't have it both ways: either you yell and scream for results ASAP, fast, right now! Or you have to be patient and wait for them to be counted, in some cases, by hand.
IMissLiberty
exactly
There are lots of people here new to elections and election polling. A small random sample will generally be sufficient, especially adding demographic analysis and past voting trends, to call elections with far less than 51% votes totalled. In fact, they can accurately be called before the polls close just from the exit surveys.
The media and congress came to an understanding a decade or so ago that the media would 1) not report until a state's polls actually closed..since they would often report winners just based on afternoon exit interviews and 2) in presidential elections, they agreed to refrain from calling the next presidential winner until after the West Coast states had closed their polls.
Since these agreements are informal, the media can do what it wants.
McCain just needs one vote
McCain just needs one vote more than Huckabee to win all delegates (for first round).
Those are just projections, anyway, although it would be a big "oops", if some factor wasn't considered that changed the voting patterns in the remaining precincts.
Look at the map
Look at the map of Virginia -- at 50% most of the western (pro-Huckabee, rural) areas of the state had already reported, but most of the eastern (pro-McCain, urban) areas had not yet reported.
http://politics.nytimes.c...
Seems pretty straightforward that more votes were coming in for McCain and Paul than for Huckabee if the only places left were urban.
that's key...
the demographics of the precincts or areas reporting in. Old as the hills in politics. In Illinois, for example, as a Republican you could be cleaning up all night until the Chicago results are reported and be wiped out in an instant.
You gotta know where the votes are coming from.
CNN did it at 50%
CNN did it at 50%