|
Title: Polls and projected winner vs too close to call Post by: Plankton5165 on July 28, 2019, 02:54:57 AM In the NC senate race in 2010, Burr was ahead by 12.8 points. In the IL race for president in 2016, Clinton was ahead by 11.5 points.
The NC senate race in 2010 was too close to call and the IL presidential race in 2016 was called for Clinton at 8 pm when the polls closed. Does anyone have an idea why? Title: Re: Polls and projected winner vs too close to call Post by: Mr. Smith on July 28, 2019, 07:32:28 PM In the NC senate race in 2010, Burr was ahead by 12.8 points. In the IL race for president in 2016, Clinton was ahead by 11.5 points. The NC senate race in 2010 was too close to call and the IL presidential race in 2016 was called for Clinton at 8 pm when the polls closed. Does anyone have an idea why? Chicago was already too dicey for Trump by that point, whereas the vote in Charlotte and The Triangle hadn't proved to be underwhelming for Marhsall. Cities are slow counters. Simple as that. Title: Re: Polls and projected winner vs too close to call Post by: UWS on July 28, 2019, 07:49:56 PM In the NC senate race in 2010, Burr was ahead by 12.8 points. In the IL race for president in 2016, Clinton was ahead by 11.5 points. The NC senate race in 2010 was too close to call and the IL presidential race in 2016 was called for Clinton at 8 pm when the polls closed. Does anyone have an idea why? Chicago was already too dicey for Trump by that point, whereas the vote in Charlotte and The Triangle hadn't proved to be underwhelming for Marhsall. Cities are slow counters. Simple as that. In cities, there are much more votes to count because, of course, there are very much more people than in more rural areas. Title: Re: Polls and projected winner vs too close to call Post by: brucejoel99 on July 28, 2019, 10:21:50 PM Yeah, mostly just the fact that it was easier to project how the slow-counting areas of Illinois (especially Chicago) were gonna vote compared to those of North Carolina.
|