In 1984, wasn’t Reagan’s opponent Bob Dole, not Carter? Although the 1980 electoral college maplooks almost as red as 1984.
Err… it was Mondale. Dole ran for the Republican nomination against Reagan in 1980, but Reagan was functionally unopposed as a sitting President.
MonDALE/DOLE…close enough. :smack:
Depends on what station you watch.
After the election was point of no return, i kept watching this lady saying Hillary can still pull this off, regardless that it was mathmaticaly no longer possible
The Karl Rove of 2016?
The Associated Press called the election at 2:29 a.m. (Eastern Time), when they projected Wisconsin would go for Trump. Fox was the first TV network to call the election, at 2:40 a.m.
Here’s a pretty good timeline of reporters’ and editors’ reactions throughout the evening and night. They realized the night was not going to go as expected when the Florida vote totals started coming in after 7:00 p.m. Between about 11:00 and midnight, both the reporters and the campaigns knew Clinton would need a miracle to win.
:dubious:
Explain please.
In 2008, Rove was convinced right to the end that the polls were skewed and that McCain was really going to win, despite the mountains of evidence piling up around him that Obama was winning in a landslide. Someone who felt similarly convinced about a Clinton win despite the evidence would then be his equivalent in 2016.
Actually it was Obama-McCain in 2012. Here’s the confrontation between Rove and the rest of Fox News. It’s still fun to watch.
Obama-Romney.
The electoral college system, and the tendency for certain states to vote definitely one way or the other, means that a few big states made the difference. The “big 4” in play were - Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia; Michigan and Wisconsin were also relevant. The common wisdom was that Trump had to win at least 3 of these, to offset the heavy edge of California, New York, etc.
the problem is that results trickle in at different speeds. Smaller, rural (white), and hence more likely Republican districts counted faster than some larger city districts. So the vote will see-saw as different areas come in. Right to the end, the vote was extremely tight in those swing states, the lead bounced back and forth, and the networks were waiting for the final urban results to see if they could swing the states to Hillary. As it became harder - “she’s got to take 55% of these remaining districts to win” then “60%…” it became obvious the voter turnout and vote ratio wasn’t there.
Considering how tight the result was in some states, it’s no surprise the networks were reluctant to call. I saw some report that mentioned how few votes it would have taken, strategically placed, to flip enough electoral votes to Hillary to change the outcome. It was a fairly small number.
I would like to see some media law that prohibits networks from calling states until they are mathematically certain to have been won by Candidate X.
So, for instance, a network could not call Pennsylvania for Trump until it is was mathematically certain that Trump’s lead could not be lost. Either that, or bar projections until 90% or 95% of precincts are in.
How about fixing the voting and counting procedures, instead?
Who cares if a state is called? People give up voting? If this last election and 2000 don’t prove that every vote counts, what will? If someone loses by 3 million votes and still wins, is there better proof the system needs fixing?
Concentrating on the media is fixing the wrong problem.
About 110,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Penna., out of 125 million votes cast nationwide. Aiyeeeee!
This would require “repealing the First Amendment”, not just “some media law.” The Constitution protects outright lies, so it definitely protects statements that just aren’t “mathematically certain” to be true.
If this is really a big problem (and I kind of doubt it is), it can only be fixed at the source. The “calling” only happens because states choose to allow results to trickle out.
False Statements of Fact are not generally protected under United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
As it is, calls are unlikely to fall afoul of that as those are opinions not fact.
But even false statements in and of themselves are not a crime; they’re only a factor in cases like fraud or libel. And they are specifically NOT a factor in media cases where “public figures” are involved. For that there needs to be both intent and malice.
And what does “mathematically certain” mean anyway? Is it when they’re absolutely certain there aren’t enough uncounted votes left to matter – because that’s pretty much the way it went with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016? Is it when all the votes are officially counted? What happens when as in Florida in 2000, there are legal appeals even before the counting was finished?
Right now the media use the “pretty damn sure” standard which works a great majority of the time.
Yes, voters have stopped voting before, or voter turnout been depressed, by a state being called early for a candidate.
Yes.
If Trump is leading by 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania, and there are fewer than 100,000 votes remaining, then the state should be called for Trump. If there are still, say, 300,000 votes yet uncounted, then the state should not be called.
What happened in Florida in 2000 was ridiculous. The state was decided by 537 votes yet was called HOURS beforehand.
Then Florida should have been called “Too close to call” and remained in that category for several weeks.
Why? What difference would it have made? Everyone knew the election results in Florida were being challenged. The fact that the networks had called it for Bush was completely irrelevant.