Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Nov 21, 2013
- 45,564
- 11,757
CNN Presidential Election calls 1992-2012: a timeline study
This thread is a good, solid tool for people who like election information. The link above takes you to the study.
As far as I know, this is the only study of this kind that you can find on the internet, compliments of Statistikhengst. I have been looking through the internet for 6 months now, and have yet to find another study like it.
Go take a look at it - it compares the timelines of election calls from CNN over 6 cycles. There are links to 6 individual timetables, plus a link to a large excel table that compares them in many way. For each individual state +DC over 6 cycles, the exact amound of delay time is also calculated. The EXCEL data is sorted in three ways:
-chronologically, by poll closing time.
-alphabetically, by state name
-by frequency of having been called immediately.
Frequency is probably going to be the most interesting table to look at.
Sometimes, very noticeable patterns appear.
I also took all of the timelines and then concentrated only on the rolling electoral vote totals, by half-hour, and put them in one handy table to read.
Based on the data, I generated some interesting maps. This is an example:
(the reason for the green coloring you can find at the link)
It was also fascinating to see how the reporting format of CNN changed over time - that is not what this particular study was about - that will be coming out in 2014.
When you go through the video -as I did- and examine what is actually said, you hear certain phrases that were often spoken, many of which have been changed with time. Today, we are used to hearing the phrase that "No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio", but through 2000, the phrase was actually "No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio AND Illinois". But as soon as it was apparent that another Democrat other than Bill Clinton could handily win the Land of Lincoln, then Jeff Greenfield changed the phrase.
But the next time a buddy asks you exactly when, for instance, Arizone was called for whom, when, you have a reference tool back to 1992!
Here a small electoral tidbit for you:
And the rationale for doing such a study?
This thread is a good, solid tool for people who like election information. The link above takes you to the study.
As far as I know, this is the only study of this kind that you can find on the internet, compliments of Statistikhengst. I have been looking through the internet for 6 months now, and have yet to find another study like it.
Go take a look at it - it compares the timelines of election calls from CNN over 6 cycles. There are links to 6 individual timetables, plus a link to a large excel table that compares them in many way. For each individual state +DC over 6 cycles, the exact amound of delay time is also calculated. The EXCEL data is sorted in three ways:
-chronologically, by poll closing time.
-alphabetically, by state name
-by frequency of having been called immediately.
Frequency is probably going to be the most interesting table to look at.
Sometimes, very noticeable patterns appear.
I also took all of the timelines and then concentrated only on the rolling electoral vote totals, by half-hour, and put them in one handy table to read.
Based on the data, I generated some interesting maps. This is an example:
(the reason for the green coloring you can find at the link)
It was also fascinating to see how the reporting format of CNN changed over time - that is not what this particular study was about - that will be coming out in 2014.
When you go through the video -as I did- and examine what is actually said, you hear certain phrases that were often spoken, many of which have been changed with time. Today, we are used to hearing the phrase that "No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio", but through 2000, the phrase was actually "No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio AND Illinois". But as soon as it was apparent that another Democrat other than Bill Clinton could handily win the Land of Lincoln, then Jeff Greenfield changed the phrase.
But the next time a buddy asks you exactly when, for instance, Arizone was called for whom, when, you have a reference tool back to 1992!
Here a small electoral tidbit for you:
And the rationale for doing such a study?
Last edited:
