Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on November 03, 2004, 07:52:36 AM
-
I think so.. they didn't make one mistake aned they did everything right. the other cable news sources acted like they were watching different returns..
lazs
-
No doubt about that.
-
No, The Daily Show.
-SW
-
cnn was a joke
what the heck a "green state"?
their panel of "experts" was about as left as they could get without placing gore and clinton on it
LOL LOL LOL
-
yep... they all tried everything they could to throw the election... I think people will backlash at em.
lazs
-
A quick scan around the news sites this morning has left me wondering. Bush is up by 130,000 votes in Ohio and some still have it as too close? Kerry has several states called for him with a lead of under 20,000 but Bush has the same type of leads in Iowa and N.M. and they are still undecided? Odd.
-
Flipped through all the channels just to watch how the different networks covered it
Fox was pretty good. But I thought they seemed to favor Bush more particularly when awarding Bush Ohio
I thought MSNBC did a pretty decent job also. And actually was the better of the two
CNN was without question slighted to the left. I noticed at one point they were quick to jump and put Kerry ahead yet were slow or I should say slower to award states to Bush
CBS while they still havent awarded Ohio to Bush did..ok
didnt watch enough of the other networks to give an honest opinion
-
State officials in Ohio just declared the state for Bush.
lazs
-
Originally posted by majic
A quick scan around the news sites this morning has left me wondering. Bush is up by 130,000 votes in Ohio and some still have it as too close? Kerry has several states called for him with a lead of under 20,000 but Bush has the same type of leads in Iowa and N.M. and they are still undecided? Odd.
Because there is still probably around 130-140,000 provisional and mail in votes not yet counted in theory they could all go for Kerry.
thats in theory.
Problem is, its not very likely
In the other states, the outstanding uncounted votes dont equal the amount of difference between the two candidates
-
Originally posted by majic
A quick scan around the news sites this morning has left me wondering. Bush is up by 130,000 votes in Ohio and some still have it as too close? Kerry has several states called for him with a lead of under 20,000 but Bush has the same type of leads in Iowa and N.M. and they are still undecided? Odd.
When they call states, they take into account what votes are left, and where they are from, and from that whether they are likely to be Democratic or Republican. It could be in Iowa and N.M. that the votes left have a possibility of having the majority be democratic votes, thus they are not calling it. That and they probably want to make sure 100% that what they call is accurate to avoid another fiasco such as in 2000.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
cnn was a joke
what the heck a "green state"?
their panel of "experts" was about as left as they could get without placing gore and clinton on it
LOL LOL LOL
I was watching CNN when they declared Ohio a "green" state and made a big deal about them never having done that before. I told my son and wife they should have chosen yellow to better reflect their cowardice. Then one of the commentators said they had used yellow before. :D
All the votes are in and they still haven't called it. Hope springs eternal. ;)
-
The State cannot call the winner until they have mathematical certainty.... (Dred's comment then pertains). As long as there is a mathematical POSSIBILITY that someone else could win, the state will not call it.
Now, the idiot talking heads can call it anytime. The liberal left just couldn't bring themselves to admit they were going to lose the election. 135,000 vote lead with 140,000 provisional ballots out there (some absentees too, many from Military clearly going to Bush), it's a no brainer. THis has been over for hours. (I have seen states called with 2% precincts reporting.) Florida, last year, was such a mess that the networks coined the phrase, "Better right than first".
I commend the rightish FOX NEWS for restraint. They really distinguished themselves with class and, I think, elevated their credibility
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think so.. they didn't make one mistake aned they did everything right. the other cable news sources acted like they were watching different returns..
lazs
I have to say FOX coverd it ok, NBC was good too..
ABC messed up by saying polling and voting in Ohio was complete when it really wasn't complete till 3am.
-
Fox leaned right while CNN slightly left. NOW that's FAIR and BALANCED...
-
i thought foxnews and msnbc did a pretty good job, i didnt like cnn's format with the super huge screens, and commentators etc.
-
Originally posted by narsus
i thought foxnews and msnbc did a pretty good job, i didnt like cnn's format with the super huge screens, and commentators etc.
Larry King didn't add anything substancial to the program. it seemed like he was just there to hangaround.
Wasn't very well thought out.
-
Well good old Wolf Blitzkrieg (CNN) had all the personality of a lump of coal, in fact thats probably insulting to coal. Will be expecting a lawsuit on behalf of coal all over the US delivered by Mr Thunderbird (Edwards).
Seriously I thought Fox ahd the most unbiased coverage, but must admit looking forward to Bill O'Rielly tonight.
-
I hopped around early and wound up sticking with Chris Matthews and MSNBC for the duration. I thought they did a great job.
-
Larry King was out of his leage with the other commentators. They should have dumped him and brought David Gurgen live into the studio.
I only watched CNNs coverage and IMO they seemed to skew left and you could almost see their dissapointment at times.
-
CBS and CNN seemed to be the only trustworthy ones.
They didn't give any states to any candidates until they were assured they'd get them.
Fox News, however, was a bit on the stunninghunk side, what with giving Bush 269 WAY before it was over.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
CBS and CNN seemed to be the only trustworthy ones.
They didn't give any states to any candidates until they were assured they'd get them.
Fox News, however, was a bit on the stunninghunk side, what with giving Bush 269 WAY before it was over.
Better political analysts, as it turned out they were right. ;)
-
I checked once..at about 1:45 am
soon as the coverage had started I popped in the 1st of the star wars trilogy that a buddy had made...somewhere during empire i was fumbling with the remote in the dark and switched over to the reg. tv...looked like the same stuff as 2000...calling states befor all the votes were in and i heard mention of SKeery's 10k layer teams waitng to drag us down even further. It was at this point i saw a similarity between Edwards and Admiral Piett. I quikly switched back to my movie and all was well with the world. well up until lando doublecrossed his buddy but leia still looked hot! And Vader has the shinest helmet of all the bad dudes...but i digress
I'm WildCrd and I approve this message.
"Brought to you by "The People who could care less about the Election hooplah/spin for ratings " and from " The People for the number 69"
-
CBC was good. If kind of bland and having to resort to a white board for the graphics.
-
They gave Bush the 269 early because they're *******s. I know that Bush won Ohio in the end, but still, my point remains.
They would've given Bush the lead even if Ohio was Kerry's.
-
How CNN has fallen, with Blitzer running around like a doorman looking for tips.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Seriously I thought Fox ahd the most unbiased coverage, but must admit looking forward to Bill O'Rielly tonight.
Will Bill have a loufa in his pants? Or maybe ask his guest to use a vibrator?
:lol
-
Well I watched Fox most of the night and they didn't give a state till they had the numbers to prove it.
They not only took the numbers but from what counties they came from and what percentage of each party was IN that county so to say they called it early is wrong.
It took them forever to call Florida for Bush even though it was clear a few hours before that Bush couldn't lose it.
The way I look at it is that the media has shifted so far left that most people think just because a network tries to be fair to BOTH sides that they must be FOR Republicans.
The mainstream media and people who rely on them have forgotten what Fair really means.
-
Fox did well.
MSNBC did a good job.
ABC, while a touch bland, also did a good job.
NOT sure WHAT election CNN was watching.
While the other three news outlets showed about the same numbers in EC votes, CNN was in their own little world. It was amazing. CNN had Bush 254, Kerry 252 most the night, and acted like it was probable that Kerry would somehow win.
CNN coverages SUCKED.
I also ended up watching alot of MSNBC.
-
I flipped channels during every commercial and I gotta say Dan Rather was entertaining
'Whisper of the Ax" etc...
Of the big 3 CBS actually did a good job I thought.
I had imagined Dan would speaking through gritted teeth but I give him credit for proving me wrong.
FOX was the best but the Susan biotch is just to annoying to look at and listen to.
NBC / MSNBC did well but CNN was a ****ing joke. Nice Stage set but they couldn't find any else beside the 3 clowns for the studio?
Wolf walking around pointing to screens like a local weather man just didn't work for me.
Larry King was so far out of his league it was comical at points.
-
Dan Rather and CBS are expected to declare Bush the winner sometime before Christmas.
I would say the bias was a little evident on several stations.
dago