Elite media voter-suppression alert!

What's racist? An election-day case study

Preemptively coping with an Obama defeat

4 Comments

• Kris Nelson said:

  It IS voter suppression to claim Obama the early victor.  Not only does it suppress the republican (assumed McCain vote) but it also suppresses the votes against progressive ballot measures and state propositions on ballots.  

  It makes no sense, other than to suppress the vote, to declare Obama the winner or McCain the winner before all the polling places are closed.  There is no need to hurry to declare a winner, the winner isn't sworn into office until January.  

  The hurry for these media talking heads is to be remembered as the first to declare and thus get more people to watch and then be able to raise ad revenue for such big tune-in numbers.  Then they'll be able to advertise later "we had it first, remember that".  It cheats the voters out west to declare a winner so early as has been mentioned (7 or 8 pm eastern) in some stories.  It is an effort to suppress the vote just as much as somebody calling a person telling them their voting place is closed or moved or they are supposed to vote November 5th due to the large voter turnout.

  November 4, 2008 5:00 PM

• Adam Reilly said:

  But Kris, what about the fact that it gives Obama backers a reason not to vote, too? I agree that, in theory, there's a general suppressive effect; I just don't understand why it's supposed to affect Republicans but not Democrats.

  November 4, 2008 5:53 PM

• Adam Reilly said:

  By the way, the idea that telling people one candidate is far ahead in the polls is tantamount to telling them the election's happening a day later than it is is absurd. One's a statement of fact; one's a lie.

  November 4, 2008 5:57 PM

Leave a Comment