How much money does it take to get NBC to call an election while people are still voting?

[shcrane71]

I'm just wondering how much we have to raise next time around.

[cthulu2016]

1. Zero dollars, and that's standard policy

Media wait until the official poll closing time.

In this case, they didn't even call the race right when polls closed.

[shcrane71]

2. NYT called it prior to polls closing. Wonder how much they got?

Oh wait, I'm sure it's zero dollars. Nothing to see here folks. Move along, and DON'T QUESTION THE FREE PRESS.

It's *free* y'know.

[TheWraith]

8. No, they didn't. The polls were closed for well over an hour.

Unfortunately, some people can't understand the difference between "The polls aren't closed" and "The polls are closed but there may be a couple people still in line somewhere."

[shcrane71]

10. People were still voting in Milwaukee at 10 PM. Same time Barrett conceded.

They ran out of ballots. It doesn't sound like "a couple of people still in line somewhere."

[TheWraith]

12. So you admit then that the polls were closed?

Because unless they had 200,000 people in line in Milwaukee, it was completely irrelevant.

[shcrane71]

13. Milwaukee has over 200,000 people. Hell even Madison has over 200,000 people.

I never said the polls weren't closed. Reread the OP.

[sabrina 1]

25. The votes were not all cast. People waiting in line had not yet voted when the Media called the

election with only 26% of the votes counted. Anyone following the news on their phones, waiting in line to vote, could have decided it was a waste of time. I saw the first call on CNN, not long after they announced that exit polls were 50/50. At that point Blitzer said they 'obviously did not have enough information to call the election and it would take a while'. However, it didn't take much longer before the exit polls changed, wonder how that happened btw, and they stated that with 26% of the votes counted, they were calling it for Walker. People were still waiting on line to vote at that point.

I'm not sure why you are defending this. It has been an issue for a long time. In a close election, a few hundred people believing it was over and leaving, could make all the difference.

Here is the AP explaining why they called the election with 37% of the votes counted:



How AP Calls Elections Before All The Votes Are In

AP makes its calls based on a variety of factors, and never calls a race before poll close, says David Pace, a news editor in Washington who coordinates AP election calls.

If people were still voting when the call was made, they had to have been in line by the time polls closed, he said. No one new is allowed to get in line once polls close.

Yes, and if those people in line believed their vote for the Democrat was not worth the wait when they call was made, that is voter suppression.

[JoePhilly]

3. Yup ... they called the 2008 election for Obama as soon as Ohio flipped blue.

Lots of folks to the west were still voting.

[shcrane71]

4. Don't look to 2x the amount of sigs needed for a recall, or even ask friends/family or listen to

local and public radio to see who will win your local elections. Just watch or listen to the large media conglomerates. They'll tell you who you're going to vote for prior to you even voting.

Life sure has gotten simple in America.

[JoePhilly]

5. Don't think I suggested any of those things.

And I watch Rachel, some Martin Brashir, Ed, and Current ... just in case you care.

[leftyohiolib]

6. doesnt matter-if people dont go vote regardlessof what they heard then the fault's with them not the

broadcaster

[Dokkie]

7. this bugs the hell out of me

Can we not call elections until at least 90% or something is counted. Not saying that all elections are rigged because its done for every election but it just looks bad and akin to ending a baseball game during the 8 inning because the other team has a 12 run lead.

I say if there is still a chance of the results flipping, the DO NO FRICKEN CALL IT

[TheWraith]

9. That's the point: there wasn't a chance of the results flipping. nt

[shcrane71]

11. So how much Koch Bros. money do you think NBC got?

[Chan790]

16. It not about Koch...

it might be about how much NBC Universal cost the very-RW Comcast to obtain.

[shcrane71]

17. So you're not at all curious how much NBC affliates made off this recall election?

[Chan790]

31. You misunderstand.

I was pointing out merely that there was a far more likely "buyer" of the premature call than Koch.

I'm under no illusions that Comcast bought NBC more for profit (profitability of news divisions is usually incidental to their acquisition) than a mouthpiece since they threatened to back out of the deal when the FCC began to whisper that they were going to make Comcast spin off MSNBC and the news division or segregate it into an entity outside of their daily-control as part of the acquisition.

It was clear that a big part of their desire to buy NBC was the ability to acquire a respected media mouthpiece so they could broadcast their interest and POV as objective journalism. They've gone a great way to "sanitize" the POV and content of the news division and MSNBC since.

Certainly I'm curious to know what they made off the election...I just don't think it was their motivation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. For me, it doesn't matter if there was no chance of a flip! It's about the principle of allowing

people to VOTE! That woman slapped Barrett and deservedly so!

I'm so sick and fucking tired of cowardly Democrats! So sick of it!!!

[shcrane71]

19. People in Milwaukee were still voting AFTER Barrett conceded.

If I had asked my mayor why he conceded when people are still voting, and he bent down to get a hug... I can't say I wouldn't have slapped him as well:

A) Don't invade my personal space.
B) Get out of my fucking personal space, and answer my goddamn question.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Exactly! He couldn't wait until people finished voting? Really? Was he so afraid of the

Corporate Media and what Scott Walker--a fucking criminal--might say if he didn't concede?

Seriously, I am tired of it! Tired!

[shcrane71]

21. I'm with you. It's as if he didn't want to win.

Peculiar.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. I think he wanted to win. I just think he knew deep down that he wasn't going to win.

I think we all did deep down and didn't want to admit it. When the race appeared to tighten up in the past several days, we got excited. Anyway, I think he wanted to win. I just think he saw the numbers and was probably advised to concede given the impossibility of him coming back.

However, I still believe that it is important to allow everyone to vote. Just let people vote no matter what!

[HiPointDem]

33. +1.

[2pooped2pop]

15. nothing if it's for a republican

can't be done for a dem. for any amount.

[shcrane71]

18. Oh, I think the big guys have their price even for Dems.

Albeit it's probably 3x as much as they charge the wingnuts.

[EFerrari]

22. You win the thread. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

23. I posted a thread last night about how unseemly it

was for the networks to call the election while the polls remained open.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002772730

I was quickly set straight that, while voters remained in line to cast their ballots, the polls had officially 'closed' before NBC called it, meaning no new voters were allowed to join the lines.

All well and good and I appreciated being set straight. However, I still have a problem with the media calling an election while voters are still waiting to cast their ballots. Such a practice has the effect of undermining the principle of 'one man, one vote,' and undermining the electorate's confidence in the integrity of the system, even if the remaining ballots to be cast can in no way alter the outcome.

[Lifelong Protester]

26. 1+

I agree with this. The rest is a lot of nitpicking about 'closed' or 'not'.

"However, I still have a problem with the media calling an election while voters are still waiting to cast their ballots. Such a practice has the effect of undermining the principle of 'one man, one vote,' and undermining the electorate's confidence in the integrity of the system, even if the remaining ballots to be cast can in no way alter the outcome."

[coalition_unwilling]

28. Unfortunately, I also believe (STRONGLY) in a free press, so

I'm at a loss as to what can be done. Any protection of one-man, one-vote by restricting the press' ability to report would come at the expense of freedom of the press. Not sure how to manage those competing values.

[IDemo]

30. Make the vote count wait until the following day

Everyone votes before they're told not to bother. Problem solved.

[Lifelong Protester]

32. I believe in a free press, too, however

we have to have some proof that actually exists nowadays. Sorry, my cynical side is a little more prevalent these days.

[HiPointDem]

34. yes. they call the presidential sometimes before the west coast is finished. why do we even

bother out here?

[RZM]

27. $3.50 n/t

[IDemo]

29. I posted a similar thread earlier

It's apparently irrelevant and immaterial to folks here.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002775130

[HiPointDem]

35. There's a certain segment of the party that loves deunionization. It's gotten pretty obvious.

[progressivebydesign]

36. Considering the Democratic precincts are the ones with the longest lines...

..fewest available workers and ballots, and most irregularities and people still waiting to vote when the polls close, then I'd say they will NEVER stop calling the elections prematurely. The republican districts don't have long lines, they don't have chaos, and they sure as hell don't have thousands of people standing in lines for hours waiting to vote when the polls have closed. And corporate repukes know that.

All voting should be standardized, and each precinct should have the same equipment, staffing, funds, etc.. This running out of ballots bullshit is getting old.

[shcrane71]

37. +1000

[KurtNYC]

38. That isn't the way MSM works

YOU can't buy them at ANY price. They have the right to reject ANY ad on ANY subject and they do so all the time.

In the immortal words of Alexander Hamilton: Freedom the press is enjoyed strictly by those who own one.

[shcrane71]

39. And the moon is made out of cheest. They still need money unless they want to run up deficits.

[KurtNYC]

40. Tell it to MoveOn dot org

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-01.htm

And they can change their policy any time they want:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/27/business/la-fi-ct-cbs27-2010jan27

Raise all the money you want but know that the MSM won't run your ads if they don't want to.

Also, per wikipedia, moon not made of cheese-its:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_is_made_of_green_cheese

[shcrane71]

42. Lol... you're missing my point. Perhaps I've missed yours.

The MSM are large corporate conglomerates, and not owned nor has the same interest as main street America. However, they still want to make money. Sure, the Koch Brothers, AFP, Club for Growth people could have just gotten lucky with NBC calling the recall election while people were still voting, and the NYT posting their article that Walker won prior to even counting the votes. But... say a newspaper wants to make a lot of money. What if it would help clench a difficult recall election to have it called early for you, and you have a bottomless pit of money. If some media executive got wind that you had this money and you wanted it called early, I guess no malfeasance would happen as you say it wouldn't KurtNYC.

[KurtNYC]

43. MSM entitites like NBC are one of the weaker divisions money-wise of huge corps like GE

GE doesn't own NBC to make money in media -- they own so they can control the public debate and manufacture consent for wars and large public expenditures. They have blacklists of people that are not allowed on the network. They can refuse ads. All of the major networks changed hands after the Fairness doctrine was abandoned because there was no reason for a large military contractor to own them before that. Propaganda doesn't work if you have to 'give equal time to opposing viewpoints.' Reagan was a spokesman for GE before he was the president that vetoed the codification of the Fairness doctrine and GE owns NBC.

http://www.gorowlett.com/rowlettdemocrats/rreagan.html

If a corporation goes through the trouble of owning Reagan and destroying laws that would force democratic debate then they aren't 30 years later going to sell access to their propaganda machine at any price.

The primary business of the MSM is to sell audiences to advertisers but that business model is under pressure as the value of an ad impression continues to drop. The real reason to own a network at this point is to use it to make money in other areas of your business, eg. war. The real propaganda isn't the ads it is the programs -- Trump, Pat Buchanon, Dancing with the Stars and the TODAY Show -- worship of the faux rich and lots of happy horseshit.

[malaise]

41. Do you know who is benefitting the most from

Citizens' United - M$fuggingGredia.
That's why they no longer expose lies - they are neutral as they rake in the cash.