Not only NH, but SC......weird voter tallies? Anyone here from SC heard

[KoKo]

anything. A DU SC'linian posted in mid-afternoon with results that some counties had Gephart winning with 83% of the vote in. I check the SC County results at that time and the frontrunner status was all over the map between the candidates. I lost the post and when I went into my Netscape History after the results were in ...the site had been scrubbed so that some counties were missing their totals but Edwards had been declared the "winner." Edwards wasn't winning as of about 4:00 p.m. with 83 % of the vote in.....and that was in major counties that were liberal like Charleston and Beaufort and even in Berkeley which borders on Charleston County. Upstate SC is conservative Repug/Business/Fundie....and wasn't listed in those results....but something flagged that the result would have suddenly gone for Edwards after 83% of vote was in.

Just hoping our DU SC'linians are here and can fill me in on this???

[ShaneGR]

1. Probably just hasty inputing by the web techs

The Zogby polls, the exit polls, and the final vote results all pointed to a big Edwards win.

[Dookus]

2. There was nothing weird in NH...

One person with a weblog thinks there is - but the most reasonable explanation is that different counties voted differently. That's to be expected.

[Jerseycoa]

3. I don't know anything about it

But have noticed CNN's returns stuck at 99% since last night.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/SC/index.html

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

5. I saw it too

It definitely had Gephardt winning, Dean doing very well, Edwards doing well also, Kerry in single digits.

I can only guess that it was some kind of test or something. It was zeroed out quickly. But it was definitely there.



:shrug:

[KoKo]

11. Yes.....I think you replied with me on the thread. It's weird it all

changed and the results that come up are incomplete. But to go from 83 percent all over the board with candidates to Edwards landsliding....it's a little odd. Not unexpected but why was that site so offbase and then so incomplete? I think it was a Charleston radio stations WCSC or something.....but it's the same one I checked from history and it's not the same and hard to believe results changed that fast.....

[blm]

6. We had paper ballots at my precinct.

Mr. blm didn't get anything in the newsroom, and he looks for those stories for me.

[Dookus]

7. How can you have 83% of the returns

posted in mid-afternoon?

[Kremer]

8. At one point during Wolf-bane Blitzer's broadcast the early totals from SC

he had Clark at 33% & Edwards 32% and then real quickly they were taken off the screen and Wolf-boy said they had to double-check the numbers and I never heard more about it!

[PretzelWarrior]

9. no that was way later when more had been counted.

it was screwed up graphics because as I switched around stations earlier, they all had convincing win for Edwards and convincing 2nd for Kerry in SC and then Wolf's folks mixed up graphics or something. He knew it was wrong right away and they fixed it.

[Dookus]

15. Yes...

more tellingly, the vote count for Edwards and Clark were EXACTLY the same. It was clearly either a clerical error or a database error. It even appeared on their website briefly. It was a mistake that was quickly fixed.

[seaglass]

17. They had the exact same number of votes though, that's

why he knew it was wrong right away.

[maryallen]

19. I saw that on CNN ...

He said they would "double-check it, and triple check-it."

Definitely, the Wolf was flustered.

[KoKo]

10. I know......I asked the poster that question but they were getting it from

a local news station. I've tried finding the post on DU search and can't find it. My history gave me the site at the correct time...but it's changed...I needed to take one of those "snapshots" I guess of it to freeze frame it. It was very strange because it showed the incoming votes in all the counties. Now it's changed with only certain counties on the site showing any final results at all..and the election is over.

It's odd...but maybe explainable...unless one is a reader looking for the true results of how SC precincts voted and the final tallies???:shrug:

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. That has to be a typo

Gephardt isn't even running, and there is NO reason to think he would have a heavy write in result in SC even if he wer.

You can't have 83% of the results in at 4 pm before the polls even close.

Edwards was expected to win SC. Give up this nonsense.

[Carolina]

16. Gephardt's

name was on the paper ballot as was Carol Moselely Braun's despite the fact that both were no longer in the race by Feb 3rd!

While I believe the results for Edwards are accurate especially from my own polling while campaigning for Clark, I wouldn't dismiss the above posts as nonsense.

[surfermaw]

13. Now where did you hear Edwards wasn't winning

This will be and easy one, they voted with paper ballots, only had to mark the name...let me assure Gep. wasn't winning in S.C...almost evey one in Edwards home town voted for Edwards..

I think you are little sour grape,trying to tear down a mans win.

Cnn projected Edwards the winner too quickly for the the BS story you are telling...

[surfermaw]

14. I saw the CNN mix up...Wolf explained and then changed the numbers.

[KoKo]

18. No...not sour grapes. It was very odd results....really...wondered if

anyone else noticed it. Edwards was predicted but the counties showed other results. It looked like Edwards came on strong at the last and it's odd because 83% had already come in and yet the polls weren't closed. Really.....not sour grapes.