Does anyone know a good website that shows live results of the 2012 U.S. presidential election?
I don't have a TV, so I get all my news online. I know the election isn't over yet, but I when I had a TV I used to watch the election results come in as they happened. There would be a big map of the country where they would say how many votes were in for each state and who was winning. Watching that change over time was the most interesting thing to do on election day.
I have been looking online, but so far cannot find anything resembling this. All I have found so far is a website (Politico.com) pretending to have "live" election results for the country when it in fact only has 36 votes from the whole country in it, and those only from New Hampshire. They are also the same results that were reported last night.
There are also plenty of opinion polls about who will win, but I couldn't care less about those because none of them really matter since they are not the actual vote.
Does anyone know a good website that shows the actual election results as they are released? Essentially, this would be the same as what is available on a TV, but would be accessible online. It could even be the same news reports as on a TV, but I would be able to access them with a computer.
Thanks!
I have been looking online, but so far cannot find anything resembling this. All I have found so far is a website (Politico.com) pretending to have "live" election results for the country when it in fact only has 36 votes from the whole country in it, and those only from New Hampshire. They are also the same results that were reported last night.
There are also plenty of opinion polls about who will win, but I couldn't care less about those because none of them really matter since they are not the actual vote.
Does anyone know a good website that shows the actual election results as they are released? Essentially, this would be the same as what is available on a TV, but would be accessible online. It could even be the same news reports as on a TV, but I would be able to access them with a computer.
Thanks!
0
Comments
There is a "gentleman's agreement" that results are not discussed until the first polls are closed, to avoid influencing the results of the election. There has been discussion of extending this agreement until /all/ the polls are closed, but the networks don't have any interest in waiting that long...
Once 8 PM rolls around, any of the major network sites will start immediately projecting results (based on the polling results, not the actual vote counts). The vote counting will occur gradually over the next several hours, with the final results not being available until ~5 AM tomorrow (for west coast locations).
Scroll down a bit -- all times are ET.
ABC is streaming coverage on YouTube & their iPad app, too.
Unless a bunch of other stats also swing Obama, we're getting another 2000 on our hand. Romney is currently winning the popular vote and is down like 65 electoral votes.
the Hobbit movie comes out on the 14th, so at least we get to see part one before the world ends
Plus in Canada/the US Skyfall comes out in 2 days. So, umm. Thats something to cherish while absorbing your win/loss/unhappiness/apathy towards the results.
Other important political news this morning is the vote in Puerto Rico. I just read that statehood passed in Puerto Rico, so it is now up to Congress if Puerto Rico becomes a state. I think this would be really interesting since its been like 50+ years since the last state joined.
Question #1: Do you agree to maintain current territorial political status? (53.9% said No.)
Question #2: Status options: statehood, associated free state, independence.
You'll notice that the status quo is missing from the options list. Here, 61.9% opted for statehood (this is the number I usually see when I read that statehood passed). Hundreds of thousands of voters left this blank, possibly because they didn't see their preferred status or thought this question was not relevant if they had previously answered Yes. However, hundreds of thousands who did pick Yes still answered this question, and their votes are counted in the totals.
Based on these results, a plurality of Puerto Ricans actually favor the status quo, but statehood passed because of how the questions were designed. =/
I mean at least the question could be understood (google the Quebec Referendum of 1995 if you want a really convoluted question to ask concerning state independence), but regardless hopefully Congress and Obama take into account the problems when considering this (if they do).
THE BLACK PRESIDENT IS STAYING FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. Mitt Romney was too white, rich and old to be president so I've been told. Please no more George W. Bushes.
I thought it was a real wig...
It's virtually impossible to get journalism that isn't spun, and caters to a particular ideological taste. PBS and NPR are as guilty of this as Fox News and conservative talk radio. And what with the blogosphere, you can now find seemingly credible sources of info for almost any topic that basically stroke whatever belief system makes you happy.
The other good thing is that land mass can't vote, if it could, Obama would be out on his ass. The fact that pundits on Fox News can't understand that land mass doesn't equal votes is astounding. "LOLZ ALL THESE RED STATEZ AND OBAMA WON ITS AS IF THERE ARE LESS PEOPLE IN THE RED STATES".
Most of the states in the middle of the country (Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas for example) typically vote Republican, but their population is really low. It's mostly rural area, small towns, and medium-sized cities. Of course, some states like Texas have more people, but there aren't as many of them, at least there weren't in this particular election. The states on the west coast and in the northeast typically vote Democrat, and while some of them have small populations, most of them have larger populations than the Republican middle of the country, since they tend to have larger cities.
People who can vote not doing so is certainly an issue, but the population factor is also important.
But that said, a lot of folks get their news from CBS, ABC and NBC evening news and PBS's the News Hour, and they still maintain big numbers. And those sources tilt left for sure. (At least from a conservative's point of view, which is a valid criticism about any claim to objective journalism the mainstream outlets might dare to make.) When I was growing up the networks had no idea that they were biased to begin with--they were oblivious to it. They had a few token conservatives on the Sunday morning shows, but they'd put up either really odd or dour personalities. If the News Hour, for example, wanted to be really balanced they would have someone up against Mark Shields the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, or even Laura Ingram. David Brooks is hardly a conservative.
And Fox News being "fair and balanced" is even more of a joke. Poor Bob Beckel, lol! How is "The Five" "fair and balanced when it's 4:1 conservative:liberal?
I'm actually truly independent at this point, and don't identify with either conservative or liberals any longer. But I'm just being honest about how I see the biases played out in the media.
There actually isn't any news outlet that I know of that I feel I could trust not to majorly spin.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/07/why-romney-lost-conservative-commentary-roundup/
But seriously, let's quit with the ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with our views. @Ward: My dad watches Fox News quite often. It irritates the hell out of the rest of my household and I'm glad I don't live with them anymore to have to put up with it, but calling my dad, one of the most successful down to earth smart men I've ever met in my life an "old hick in the central land mass of America" is ignorant and stupid.
My favorite brother resides in Nebraska. Pretty sure he voted Romney. I doubt he watches Fox News, but he does reside in the central land mass of America and leans conservative. Is he a stupid hick, too? He currently programs for the Air Force and is one of the smartest and nerdiest people I know.
This post election shit is driving me crazy, pardon the french. This whole "HAHA, THE OTHER SIDE IS STUPID," or "OH MY GOD THE COUNTRY IS DOOMED" nonsense from both sides has to stop. Let's save the internet bullying for mocking people who think bards are bad or something relevant to video games at the very least, eh?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/nov/07/election-2012-bill-oreilly-white-establishment-minority-video
O’Reilly went on to predict that Romney would lose the election if he lost Ohio. “How do you think we got to that point?” host Megyn Kelly wondered.
“Because it’s a changing country,” O’Reilly insisted. “The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff, they want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.”
“The white establishment is now the minority,” he added. “And the voters — many of them — feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way.”
“People feel that they are entitled to things. And which candidate between the two is going to give them things?”
@sandmanCCL I was mass generalizing. If your dad is an old hick in the central land mass of America, he still applies, there's plenty of successful old hicks In fact the world is run by them. Australians lap that Americanized rubbish invented by your American businessmen like a sandwich.
That does not mean your dad is stupid or is as morally absent as businessmen, however, if he watches Fox News and doesn't take it with a grain of salt he maybe susceptible to what assholes like Sean Hannity utter.
@Aosaw Yep.
- With the rise of the Tea Party and it's winner-take-all no-compromise ethos running the party, Republicans have essentially surrendered the political center to the Democrats.
- An approach that protects the interests of the wealthiest, especially during a deep recession and with a middle class stretched paper thin, was sheer political suicide.
- A platform that doesn't grant amnesty to illegal immigrants alienates Hispanic voters, without which it is virtually impossible to win the presidential election.
- Relatability and likability are the decisive factors for swing voters who can't make up their minds. (And these days it is they who decide elections.) Those undecideds ultimately vote for the personality they like better--it's a gut call about the person. Republicans couldn't have picked picked two more stiff establishment white guys as the face of their brand.
But that said, Democrats need to understand why half the country is conservative and genuinely respect those concerns. Mainly that government is bloated, inefficient, and bureaucratic and needs to limit itself. The current level of federal spending is unsustainable. We need proper regulation of business, such that government allows it to flourish without punishing it. And the more money folks keep in their paycheck each month, the more they will spend, which invigorates the economy.We are actually poised for another even worse recession than the one we're in--or more likely a depression--with the banks. They now truly are "too big to fail." Which means that if they're on the verge of collapse once again due to poor decisions and management, and/or excessively high risk behavior, they must be bailed out by the federal government again. And that, in turn, disincentives responsible behavior on their part. We literally can't afford to bail them out again.
And ultimately, the biggest underlying problem is that the wealthiest interests in our country basically control legislation to their benefit, and they are driven by profit and profit alone. Without a dramatic overhaul of the campaign finance system we probably will head off a cliff eventually--perhaps sooner than anyone ever imagined.
Democrats have been just as 'in bed' with these lobbies as the Republicans, it's just more on the downlow.
So both parties continue to hold onto their voter bases by ginning them up with emotional issues at either end of the political spectrum. We all take for granted now that both parties ruthlessly lie and distort reality, and we shrug it off as "just the nature of politics." But at the end of the day, both parties serve the masters who contribute most to their campaigns. Not the greatest interest of society first and foremost, as if they were rational, objective scientists sincerely looking to solve the problems of society.