If I were an election-night reporter for one of the major networks and wanted to summarize the results, now six days later, I'd start this column off with a disclaimer: "Please don't think I'm being forward or journalistically irresponsible for what I'm about to say, because I certainly don't want to call anything too early," or something like that.
Then, I might express six-day-old misgivings about whether the GOP has its first dual-term president in two decades, citing a 20-plus vote lead in the Electoral College (with only two states totaling 12 votes remaining) and a favorable popular vote difference of more than one-third New York's population as insufficient evidence.
Reasserting my belabored and meticulous caution to avoid predicting or characterizing in this election, I'd continue that it is also possible Republicans could pick up four Senate seats, four House seats and, it is likely, one governorship: "I'm not saying it will, but if it does, the GOP will retain advantages in the Senate, the House and state governorships - but, remember, this isn't for sure. Just a prediction."
Then, I'd address other ballot measures: "Now, even though bans on gay marriage passed by huge margins in all 11 states, I just don't feel comfortable enough yet to call those - we'll leave their status as too-close-to-call-even-though-they're-already-over-with. (That margin in Mississippi is just too close: 86 percent in favor.)"
Unable to discuss the defeats of Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Rep. Phil Crane, D-Ill., because the results' straightforwardness can't really be that straightforward, I guess I'd just skip mentioning them.
Somewhere along here, though, I'd realize that this mum rule makes it impossible for me to say anything of value. So I'd do what those networks did: I'd abandon it, albeit selectively, and call a couple of swing states, some of them within an hour of that state's polls closing.
I'd call Pennsylvania for Kerry, although its numbers were closer than Ohio's, despite a larger electorate. (The next morning, Bush had a 136,483-vote lead out of 5,455,811 voters in Ohio; Kerry had a 121,458-vote lead out of 5,619,258 voters in Pennsylvania.)
Then, I'd throw in New Hampshire, whose race was within 15,000 voters (or one percentage point), and Wisconsin, whose race was also within 15,000 voters but had an electorate nearly five-times the size of New Hampshire.
And none of these states had counted all of its absentee ballots yet, which historically lean Republican and would tighten these races.
But, then - mimicking my presidential-hopeful hero - I'd flip flop. I'd realize news is all about fairness and balance; I can't give all the states away; that's just not fair. So I wouldn't.
I'd hold on to Bush-leaning Ohio, despite the fact that Pennsylvania's race was almost 20-percent tighter, and Nevada, even though its two-point spread in Bush's favor was almost double that of New Hampshire or Wisconsin. These states also had absentee ballots out, which would spread these races even farther apart.
If I were a certain veteran news anchor on CBS News, when things started going downhill for Kerry, I'd mull over - aloud, of course - every scenario that would give Kerry victory, at one point defying logic and math by claiming that Kerry can win even if Bush gets Ohio. I would demonstrate this with repeated illusory swing-state what-ifs, trying to assuage my fears by highlighting in blue every single remaining state with a little stylus I've been provided for just such occasions.
Then I'd eke out a nervous smile toward the camera, hypothesize something ridiculously unbalanced about a "fourth-quarter comeback" and take a commercial break to recoup, although I should be elated that my taxes aren't going up and that my multimillion-dollar salary won't be the only source of governmental income for the next four years. (I'm not letting this guy off until he renounces his "neutrality.")
If I were that anchor, I'd pronounce my network was "accuracy central" for the night, utterly missing any form of irony while doing it. While on the subject of irony, this would come after repeatedly citing the results of those evil, misleading devils known as exit polls as evidence that Kerry might have it in the bag.
If I were the other networks, I'd point to the exit polls too as a reliable indicator for the final results. But then Id claim that I didn't want to make the infamous Mistake of 2000 - a repeat would undoubtedly be the undoing for broadcast journalism - by announcing who wins each state too early.
If I were one of those reporters, I might use my failures from four years ago - no matter how slight or immaterial - to mask new lows of irresponsibility and fast-shuffling legerdemain in 2004.
But I'm not one of those guys, so I have no qualms about parading it in this column.
Rainey is a journalism sophomore.
Be the first to comment on this article!