Updated Late Afternoon Exit Poll Numbers

http://www.slate.com/id/2109053

Updated Late Afternoon Numbers
Mucho flattering to Kerry; plus Nader makes an appearance.
By Jack Shafer

Updated Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, at 7:28 PM ET

Florida
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Ohio
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Michigan
Kerry 52
Bush 46
Nader 1

Pennsylvania
Kerry 53
Bush 46

Iowa
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Wisconsin
Kerry 51
Bush 48
Nader 1

Minnesota
Kerry 52
Bush 46
Nader 2

New Hampshire
Kerry 54
Bush 44
Nader 1

New Mexico
Kerry 50
Bush 48
Nader 1

Colorado
Kerry 49
Bush 50
Nader 1

Arkansas
Kerry 45
Bush 54
Nader 1

Missouri
Kerry 47
Bush 52

New York
Kerry 62
Bush 36
Nader 2

Nevada
Kerry 49
Bush 48
Nader 1

New Jersey
Kerry 54
Bush 44
Nader 1

West Virginia
Kerry 45
Bush 54
Nader 1

I volunteered full time for K/E since May so I was invited to a party above the Kerry hotel celebration. I remember sitting w staffers in disbelief as some funny numbers appeared. I remember still at ~10;30 one of the staffers coming up to me and saying "stop worrying, our 'boiler room" is still saying we won". I remember leaving at 1:30 in full tears. I became an election integrity activist on Nov 3, 2004. I was so pissed at Kerry until I heard this about Carville:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

:mad:

political operatives can switch allegiances so easily - I couldn't. You just had to think
it was in the back of Carville's mind -- 08.

So much of what it happening today is so driven by not what is right - but by who
you are for. Normally, people who are the first ones to raise holy hell
about smelly elections and disenfranchisement are totally ignoring the improbability of
NH results and the attempt at disenfranchising voters in Vegas.

Thanks for sharing your Nov 04 experience ! I was working in DC at the time.
We had seen the early exits. I will never forget walking back to my hotel
that afternoon. As I walked by the WH, the sun was casting a direct ray of
sunshine, through the clouds, right on it. I remember thinking, thank God - a new day and new
hope for countless people who need it. The rest of the day - a nightmare!

coming out of the Clinton Camp after both 2000 and 2004. Our "first black president" sure had a way of supporting all those disenfranchised African American voters-silence.

The paid users of exit-poll data have signed a blood oath not to divulge it to unauthorized eyes, and the networks have promised not to call any states before their polls close. But the numbers always leak out to other journalists—such as the writers at Slate—and starting at about 5 p.m. ET or so, the news anchors start giving clues about what they've learned from the exit-poll results. As John Tierney writes in today's New York Times, the result on television is sometimes like a "version of the Dance of the Seven Veils, in which anchors or correspondents will pretend not to know what's happening in a state but give enough clues for the discerning viewer. They might allude to the high spirits at one campaign headquarters, or start speculating about what effect the loss of this state would have on the other candidate."

-SNIP

Slate believes its readers should know as much about the unfolding election as the anchors and other journalists, so given the proviso that the early numbers are no more conclusive than the midpoint score of a baseball game, we're publishing the exit-poll numbers as we receive them. Some people say it's irresponsible to publish the numbers—or broadcast early projections of winners—because it may disturb voter turnout. As Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg put it in today's Times, he doesn't want to put the Web site "in the paternalistic position of deciding that our readers aren't mature enough to react in the proper way to truthful information we possess."

that's also why i know it was bogus. They were
all still chiming Obama.