NY Times
Carol Novack just pointed me to the page where the New York Times is tracking the race. I like this. Very, very easy to follow all the states at once. Check it out at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections2004/2004President.html. I love having just a straight text layout like this. The only issue I have with it is that I have no way of knowing which precincts have reported and how they have trended in the past. Florida, for example, has 3.2% of precincts reporting, and Bush leading 56.3-42.8%. That is so far off the last pre-election polls that I'd have to assume that the precincts that are in trend GOP. But I can't know that for sure based on this layout. In all fairness, I similarly can't know how the Ohio numbers I reported earlier relate to usual trends.
Are we having fun yet?
posted by Dave Clapper @ 4:49 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I don't think we're going to get the results of this election till next April. Best to relax, drink whatever poison suits you, watch a video, and play with the cats. --- yours truly, carol novack
I'm not so sure. Ohio, in particular, looks a lot better, based on exit polls, than we'd ben led to believe by pre-election polls. Plus, this is a helluva lot more interesting than the coding I'd otherwise be doing. :)
I'm thinking of four years ago, a few days after the selection, when I was sitting with a Welshman, glued to the BBC and Internet in a country cottage in Wales, not knowing the results. What a nightmare that was!
I hear ya. Kerry's final poll results this time around were a bit better than Gore's four years ago, though. And the number of new voters registered is unbelievable. Really tough to say how much of an impact that's gonna have, but my fingers are definitely crossed. Additionally, voters abroad mailing absentee ballots are facing much more vitriol than they were four years ago. Tough to know whether that'll make the majority of 'em dig their feet in and declare a Dubya-induced "fuck you" stance, or if they're tired of being vilified.
Post a Comment
<< Home