Ridiculous media bias in calling states for Trump

[Arbitrage1980]

I was at the Trump election night party in NYC (one of the most glorious exciting nights in American history) and was stunned at how late the networks waited to call states for Trump. Yes, some of the states were pretty tight, but I went back to prior elections won by Democrats to see how quickly states were called and their final margins of victory. This year, the networks waited until roughly 75-80% of the votes were in before calling Ohio for Trump, despite the fact that Trump won the state by 8%, the biggest margin by any nominee since HW Bush 1988. In 2008, when the liberal messiah Obama won, the media called it for Obama when just 11% of the votes were in. He went onto win the state by 4.5%. There are other examples of course, but you get my drift. The liberal media was so shocked and upset that they waited until the last possible minute before reluctantly calling key states for Trump.

[Old Man Willow]

I still don't understand how GA and NH were called at poll closing in 1992...

[Arbitrage1980]

I still don't understand how GA and NH were called at poll closing in 1992...

Yup. GA was actually the first state called for Clinton on election night, and it ended up being the closest state that year, with Clinton winning by about 0.5%. He won NH by just 1% (HW Bush won it by a whopping 20% in 1988). And let's not forget the disgusting media malpractice in 2000 when they prematurely called Florida for Gore even before the polls closed in the panhandle.

[Matty]

Yea, it was really bad. More than 70% of the atlanta vote was in, trump was still up 7, and they were not calling it.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, it was pretty pathetic. They basically refused to call PA/WI (and thus the election) for Trump until Trump's victory speech was already over.

[Arbitrage1980]

Yea, it was really bad. More than 70% of the atlanta vote was in, trump was still up 7, and they were not calling it.

Trump's margin in GA was similar to Obama's margin in PA and NH in 2012: between 5-5.5%. In 2012, the networks called PA when just 7% of the votes were in and NH when 18% were in. With GA, they waited until around 80% were in before reluctantly calling for Trump.

[catographer]

Trump was called the winner before Bush was in 2004, so it actually seems pretty fair based on past calls. Though while watching the results I was surprised that they weren't calling some states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was funny how different networks called different states, and Trump had 270 between them, but no network had called 270.

[Santander]

To be fair, milking the ratings probably had something to do with it, too.

[vote for pedro]

I'm thinking ratings moreso than any bias.  Fox News didn't call Ohio any earlier than anyone else did they?

Once you call Ohio I think you lose a lot of viewers.

[Arbitrage1980]

I'm thinking ratings moreso than any bias.  Fox News didn't call Ohio any earlier than anyone else did they?

Once you call Ohio I think you lose a lot of viewers.

This year, Ohio was not a tipping state, so I don't think it was the case that the networks would have lost viewers once it was called. Trump was either leading or slightly behind Hillary in Ohio throughout the campaign. The attention was on FL, NC, PA.

[DPKdebator]

I remember Clinton leading in PA for most of the tallying, but Trump pulled ahead at the eleventh hour when ballots from western PA came in (same thing with FL, but the leader in the results constantly changed).

[vote for pedro]

Sure, hardcore political junkies will watch no matter what.  It's pretty hard to win without Ohio though.   If the average viewer has to work in the morning, he/she's probably seen enough at that point.

Just my opinion.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Yeah, it was pretty pathetic. They basically refused to call PA/WI (and thus the election) for Trump until Trump's victory speech was already over.

it was theoretically possible for him to lose those states at this point.

it was just unlikely but his advantage in MI/PA has shrunk significantly since then.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, it was pretty pathetic. They basically refused to call PA/WI (and thus the election) for Trump until Trump's victory speech was already over.

it was theoretically possible for him to lose those states at this point.

it was just unlikely but his advantage in MI/PA has shrunk significantly since then.

Nah, Iowa and Ohio should have been called the moment Trump overtook Clinton there. NC and GA also took way too long.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

It's possible their was a delay in calling battle ground states for Trump because both polls and exit polls showed either much closer races compared to the actual results or Clinton ahead. In 2008 as an example Obama was well ahead in both the polls and exit polls.

[Xing]

I love how even when the Trump side wins, many still whine about how "rigged against him" everything is, lol. Maybe the fact that the exit polls suggested different results gave them pause? Or maybe, in the case of PA and WI, they were right to wait a while, since both states were very close? It took them a while to call Virginia as well, and they even teased it as being "extremely close", even though Clinton eventually won by more than 5%. But I know many of you are having a great time pretending to be the biggest victims in American society, so I'll stop being a spoil sport now.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

CNN and FOX had the election called for Trump when he began speaking, so it was hardly universal. And part of it was the PA and NC exit polls showed a significant lead for Clinton.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

For several hours, some networks had called Wisconsin and others had called Pennsylvania.  If you gave Trump both, he was over 270.  Both had been called for Trump, but no major network had called both, so no one was reporting that he had won.  That sounds like milking ratings to me.

But, there were a couple bizarre ones.  I'm not sure why the Georgia call took as long as it did (it almost felt like FOX had forgotten about it when I was watching).  Plus, some huge-margin states (like Alabama) took 30-45 minutes to call- and it wasn't just because of no exit poll, since there wasn't one in Tennessee either and it was an insta-call.

[Mr. Smith]

Ohio 2004, called for Bush absurdly quick, ended up being the tipping point/bellwether that would either grant the first Democrat into office without The South or the first Republican without The Northeast.

[peterthlee]

You should know that crooked media are with her, not him. Haha!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, according to Tender Branson, the media called the race for Van der Bellen 10 minutes after polls close nationally, and Van der Bellen won comfortably 54-46. The media did not do the same thing in the first runoff, and VdB only squeaked out by 50.3-49.7.

Indeed, I support the media called the race lately as this could reduce statistical errors (before the counting of panhandle Hillary won FL by more than 2 points) and they could be accredited of this.

[publicunofficial]

Jesus even when you guys win you complain.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It was because no one believed Trump was actually going to win.

So somehow, the results could not be called because Hillary was about to receive a whole heap of county votes bringing her the state and the election.

It was really tight in Michigan and Pennsylvania for a long time.

Even Trump himself was preparing his concession speech.

[emailking]

Do you guys not believe the networks when literally all of them say that the decisions are made by an isolated decision desk without input from anything but exit polls and raw results? No outside media, no calls from network executives etc? Do you think they're all lying about that? Or that the statisticians and election analysts that make the calls know what their overlords want and thereby hold off calling red states when possible?

It was funny how different networks called different states, and Trump had 270 between them, but no network had called 270.

Same thing in 2004. Bush had 270 in called states by some network, but no individual network had him at 270 until the next day. One might surmise that, after the debacle in 2000, no network wanted to call the election before Kerry conceded...that is, if one thinks the decision desks let such an unconscious bias sway their decisions, or if the network executives explicitly intervened to prevent the final Bush call(s) from taking place.

[Klartext89]

I watched CNN (cause it's the only US network I get in Germany...) and it was hilarious. The AP, the NYT (!) and other networks called states sometimes an hour earlier than CNN. Poor Mr. King couldn't find any votes left in Dem areas but they kept their narrative of "too close"...

For a few moments I then watched German government TV and it was even more embarrassing than the whole biased coverage in my country. Trump was leading by nearly 100.000 votes with over 95% reported in PA and the moderator said with a sad face that "in PA everything is still really close, could go either way" :-D Pathetic.