Why is CNN and AP calling Maine for Kerry after only 7,174 votes?

[KaraokeKarlton]

The state has 2500 or so absentee ballots and is expecting a turnout of around 15,000 people. All the reports I'm seeing (aside from one caucus in Augusta) is either a virtual tie with either Dean or Kerry winning by 1 delegate or Dean winning by several delegates. It just seems kind of fishy to me that it's being called for Kerry. The numbers seem kind of fishy, too. Here's an article about expected turnout and the one caucuse where Kerry won that I've seen. I've heard from Maine caucus goers that Dean won in Camden, Portland, Bar Harbor, Darmiscotta, Kennebunkport and a few others.



http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D80JD4P81-38.shtml



From the AP WIRE Today's stories

Sunday, February 8, 2004 7:30 pm

Kerry, Dean strong as Maine Democrats make presidential choices


By GLENN ADAMS



PORTLAND, Maine — New Englanders John Kerry and Howard Dean were the main rivals as Maine Democrats gathered for caucuses in fire stations, libraries and schools all over the state Sunday, a day after twin losses for Dean.

As many as 15,000 Democrats were expected to take part in local political gatherings, including about 2,500 who had voted by absentee ballots.

Turnout was heavy in Portland, where U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich shook hands with party members as they filed into Deering High School, and Dean addressed hundreds packed in the school´s gymnasium.

[DjTj]

1. They probably have exit polls...

...and Kerry has probably moved outside of a 99.9% confidence interval.

[KaraokeKarlton]

5. Nope, there was no entrance or exit polls

from what I'm hearing. There is something very much amiss with these results we're seeing. There is NO WAY that Kerry can be that far ahead when there are all kinds of people reporting their caucus results that show a very tight race.

[boxster]

7. "all kinds of people reporting their caucus results..."

"all kinds of people reporting their caucus results that show a very tight race"

All kinds of people on DU or elsewhere?

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. Some on DU

Others on the Dean blog, Dean forum and other Dean sites I read. Something doesn't smell right, and I'm not kidding. It's much closer than what the numbers we're seeing indicates. Something is REALLY not right with these results.

[boxster]

12. Sorry, but DU and Dean sites are certainly not indicative of overall

results in Maine.

Dean sites especially, as people have a tendency (all supporters, not just Dean's) to unintentionally overestimate support levels. Anecdotal evidence does not equate to actual performance.

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. Since when are eyewitness accounts less accurate than media projections?

Dean won Camden, Kenduskeag (100% Dean), Bar Harbor, Portland, Darmiscotta, Kennebunkport and Waterville was looking like a sure thing according to a Kucinich supporter's report. There were plenty more than that with first hand reports from Maine caucus goers. Most of those towns are where the highest population of Maine is. Again, something stinks bigtime with the numbers being reported.

[boxster]

24. Eyewitness accounts from what percentage of voters?

Come on, KK. I know that you want to extrapolate a few positive Dean reports into a win, but you're using reports from a very small, very biased group of people compared to the overall results. And again, it is certainly possible that some of those people are overstating the results, intentionally or unintentionally.

And, to answer your question, eyewitness accounts from a very small percentage of actual voters (and mostly one candidate's supporters, I might add) are certainly going to be less accurate than media projections based on much, much larger numbers.

[KaraokeKarlton]

28. These eyewitnesses knew the vote tallies and delegate numbers

They were there and they reported what the actual numbers for their towns were. From what I counted (not including Portland, Kennebunkport, Bar Harbor and other towns) Dean had 8 delegates just from the towns I saw results posted on. Florida in 2000 is proof that vote tampering and fudging the results are not only possible, but a real concern. Something really stinks with the results we're seeing. There is NO way Kerry has that high of a lead. Portland, Camden and Kennebunkport are three of the largest population bases in Maine. I know this because I was born there. Waterville was also swinging very strong for Dean according to a Kucinich supporter. Either they are only reporting the towns Kerry won so far or something is terribly, terribly wrong with the vote counting.

[boxster]

33. Three points....

First, if you have information from 20% or 50% or all of the voters, fine. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can jump to a conclusion that there is massive voter fraud based on anecdotal evidence from a very small group of people. A biased group of people, no less.

You mentioned that you believe Dean has 8 delegates just from the towns you saw. The AP says he has 9 already, with only about half of the numbers tallied, so that's certainly in line with your info and not indicative of some huge conspiracy.

Second, I think you also need to consider that people reporting on DU and pro-Dean web sites may not be providing totally accurate data. If we were to base our impressions of who won Iowa solely on what Dean supporters reported the day of the caucus, many people would have assumed that he won. Obviously, that wasn't the case. I think that optimism tends to cloud the judgment of those involved.

Lastly, this isn't Florida in 2000. Kerry is up by nearly 20%, which would be pretty hard to fake as far as I'm concerned, especially when the results mirror those of other recent states.

[MaineDem]

38. The delegate counts reported here...

Are state convention delegates NOT national delegates.

Each town/precinct is allowed at least one STATE conevntiond elegate. Those are the people chosen at the caucuses on Sunday. There are thousands of delegates chosen statewide.

The small numbers reported here at DU are miniscule in the grand scheme. My town has 3 delegates and they all went to Kerry. Three other surrounding towns went for Kerry about 2-1. Portland's results aren't in yet and I expect Dean and Kucinich to pick up votes there.

As a counter of the votes yesterday I didn't see any irregularities in the results. A record turnout did occur, though. It was wonderful to see. :)

[boxster]

40. "The small numbers reported here at DU are miniscule in the grand scheme."

That was really my point. Extrapolating data here on DU and from Dean blogs just isn't going to be terribly accurate, assuming that it's being reporting correctly in the first place!

Thanks for posting! Glad to hear that things are going as expected in the voting processes.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Probably because Kerry has won by such an overwhelming margin.

[SoCalDem]

3. Because they are deciding for us..

:(..

I hate the way it's done.. Calif & NY always get "left-overs".. Dammit.. we deserve the whole buffet..

They should be required to hold all the results until the last primary is over, and then release all the results at once.. Then we would at least know that the bandwagon and the media did not choose our candidate..yet again :(

[Kathleen04]

13. That's a really interesting idea!

To hold the results..I like the sound of that idea.

[For PaisAn]

16. Yes!

That's the way to do it.

[GreenArrow]

22. I like that!

:bounce:

[eileen_d]

4. I don't know, but I sure as hell don't like it

and I hope it bites them in the ass one of these days (today would work for me).

Calling elections based on exit polls and "1% precincts reporting" is one of the worst media offenses in regards to manipulative election coverage, as far as I'm concerned.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. How can they manipulate an election if people are done voting?

[boxster]

8. I agree.

If the election is over and the polls are closed, what the networks report has no impact on the election.

[eileen_d]

15. When I say "manipulative election coverage"

I do not mean literal election manipulation on the level of voter fraud. (Although I know many on DU do believe just that)

I believe in the immortal words of Lenny Kravitz: "It ain't over til it's over." And I just think it does not serve the interests of democracy to declare a winner before all the votes are tallied. The media could at least maintain the illusion that every vote counts.

Don't mistake me for someone who believes that Kerry is being annointed by the media... I don't, but I stand firm in my dislike of the media calling elections before all of the votes are counted. I think it's symptomatic of an "instant gratification" society.

Edited for missing word.

[boxster]

20. And, in the case of Florida in 2000, the media turned out to be wrong.

Several times, in fact. Heck, they're still wrong.

I doubt that they would be calling this one so early if the margin wasn't so large. One would think that after Florida in 2000, they would be somewhat cautious calling a race unless they're positive that the call is correct. Then again, this is the media.

[eileen_d]

23. Exactly - this is the media that f***ed up Florida in 2000

And I haven't seen any stunning advancements in media integrity and ethics since then, if you know what I mean. ;)

[HazMat]

26. that's exactly why

the entire system was revised after 2000. Now they only make projections after the polls are closed, and only if they feel certain. For example, with Oklahoma, it was too close and they never released their projections.

[boxster]

35. Yep, CNN *still* hasn't called Oklahoma.

[HazMat]

10. Scientific analysis ? As opposed to your anecdotal evidence ?

How does CNN make election projections?

(CNN) -- To project an election, CNN and its election experts use scientific statistical procedures to make estimates of the final vote count in each race. Only after an extensive review of data from a number of sources ensures that those estimates are valid does CNN broadcast a projected winner.

CNN editorial policy strictly prohibits reporting winners or characterizing the outcome of a contest in any state before all the polls are scheduled to close in every precinct in that state.

{snip}

CNN will decide when and how to make a projection for a race depending on how close the race is.

In races that do not appear to be very close, projections may be made at poll closing time based entirely on exit poll results, which are the only information available about how people voted when the polls close. The races projected from exit polls alone are races with comfortable margins between the top two candidates. Projections from exit polls will only be made if they are consistent with pre-election polls. The victory margins for an exit poll projection are typically eight percentage points or more. If the race is closer than that, CNN will wait for actual votes to be tabulated and reported. Edison/Mitofsky will make these projections and CNN will monitor them. If they don't meet the more rigorous criteria set up by CNN after the 2000 presidential election, CNN will withhold those projections.

The margin would typically be eights points or more for an exit poll projection, but projections depend on the margin of error and the size of the lead between the candidates. The margin of error calculation is part of the model. Edison/Mitofsky will make a projection when there is a smaller lead than CNN requires. That is one reason why Edison/Mitofsky may sometimes make a projection that CNN will not broadcast immediately.

Shortly after poll closing time, Edison/Mitofsky will try to make projections using models that combine exit polls and actual votes. This can sometimes be useful for closer races, perhaps as close as four percentage points. But after poll closings, CNN analysts will rely only on actual votes. CNN has its own samples for key races and will use them along with the Edison/Mitofsky estimates that are based only on actual votes. The projections again will be made when the margin of error is small enough for the projection to be safe. The odds of making a wrong projection will be less than one chance in 100.

For extremely close races, CNN will rely on actual votes collected at the county level. These are the races that cannot be projected when the polls close from exit polls or even from actual votes collected at the sample precincts mentioned earlier. The projection will be based on a statistical model that uses the county votes. If it is too close for this model to give us a reliable projection, CNN will wait for election officials to tally all or almost all the entire vote.

{snip}

more

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/project.html

[KoKo]

11. Because the "Polls" rule and the "Media Whores" Rule....and we've seen

this before.....but it's worse than we ever imagined....but then it's all been worse than we imagined since the Chimp usurped the American Throne of Power.

Sorry....but this whole Candidate Selection is really getting me down and I become very cynical....:-(

[ModerateMiddle]

31. !

:tinfoilhat:

[MaineDem]

14. Not all DUers reported Dean wins

Every caucus result that I have...and I have many...have Kerry winning by at least 2-1. Granted these are small towns but you can't say that everything at DU points to a Dean victory.

One really can't use DU as the measure and then say things are screwed up if the actual results don't match.

Also, the results are slow being tallied. Turnout was tremendous.

[KaraokeKarlton]

21. Dean: Camden, Kenduskeag, Bar Harbor, Portland, Kennebunkport, Darmiscotta

to name a few of the towns I have seen caucus goers report Dean either beating Kerry or tying with him...mostly winning. What towns have Kerry won?

[mitchum]

17. Great news!

[Paulie]

18. You only need less than 5% to pick a winner

Guess the story on how UNIVAC picked the 1952 election has been lost to history.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/30/1952.idg/

http://www.cedmagic.com/history/univac-cronkite.html

http://www.computer.org/history/development/1952.htm

It's probably harder today with such a striking split in the electorate, even at the precinct level. :)

[madfloridian]

25. Again, I see people thinking this is all ok. Calling elections early.

I just came to DU in 2002, but I believe it was founded because of the Florida election.

Anybody here remember how that was called? Anyone remember how that played out?

You just can not think it is ok to call a whole state after 7000+ votes. I just have trouble with that.

I just don't think it is ok, and I am surprised again how few are bothered by it here.

:shrug:

[Tansy_Gold]

27. It's only a projection

The attention span of the American populace is about 30 seconds, and their patience is even less. Remember how easily the GOP persuaded Americans that if the 2000 election weren't decided immediately, it would generate a constitutional crisis? The fact that most people accepted that allowed the bushnazis to effect their theft without riots in the streets.

People want instant results, they want immediate answers to questions. So the news media have developed means of "projecting" the winners in elections but using time-tested methods of statistical sampling. So when their models predict that, on the basis of a scientific sampling, the end result of counting all the votes will show Candidate Schlomotly the winner by 12%, all they're doing is allowing a lot of people to get on with their lives rather than going crazy wondering who's going to win.

I love it when people get passionate about voting, but it sure bugs the hell out of me when people don't understand the processes of non-electoral polling.

[madfloridian]

29. Don't be upset with me.

I am not passionate about voting, and I don't pretend to understand it.

I just think the actual votes should count.

I feel less passionate all the time since the steamroller hit us here in Florida.

Sorry I bugged the hell out of you.

[revcarol]

30. How do statistical samples apply when the turnout is

UNPRECEDENTED??

Every state has exceeded the predicted numbers of voters by hundreds of percentage points.No connection to previous caucuses' and primaries' numbers.

I'm gonna put all projections on "ignore," put a video on, and wait for the actual results.

[ModerateMiddle]

32. aren't those numbers delegates?

This was a real caucus, not like Michigan or New Mexico. They don't report raw numbers of "votes" or people in the groups. They only report the number of state delegates earned. That's why Maine and Washington's numbers looked so low when folks were saying there was a HUGE turnout.

[madfloridian]

34. Not that many delegates.

http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D80JD4P81-38.shtml

Looks like votes. Out of over 17,000.

They have already assigned delegates, I saw somewhere. 15 and 9.

[ModerateMiddle]

36. not that kind of delegates

the kind that go to the state convention where they actually vote on delegates to the national convention. I heard HUGE numbers at some of the caucuses. Like one where they were expecting 1000 and got 2500?

Are you sure these are people? That isn't usually what caucuses report... they report state delegates.

and from the article you linked (thanks, btw):

"National delegates will be allocated officially at the state party convention in May. In addition to the Maine´s 24 delegates, 11 "super delegates" including party leaders and top office holders attend the Democratic National Convention."

[madfloridian]

37. I know what you mean.

Here is the CNN link. They call it votes, only a few more are in at 50% than before.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/ME/

[markus]

39. Because it's over

Didn't you get the memo? It's all over the Cable Nets. We can't let the desire for actual reform in our party or government interfere with the selection of our nominee. It might upset some people if presented a real choice between a largely corrupt system and something else. We just need to replace Bush and everything will be all right. Trust us.

Now, shut up and put the Kerry sticker on your car like a good boy/girl.

:evilfrown: