Question on Media reporting Entrance Polls

[dave29]

Ok. I'm ready for the flame, accusations of sour grapes, etc. But this is not about that - Kerry won, and handily - and I give him credit for that. Edwards did the same with a little help from Kucinich. This is about the medias reporting on "entrance polls". How is this any worse than reporting on "exit polls" while the polls are still open?

I would like to know if you think that the media reporting Kerry having a clear advantage "heading into the caucus" had any impact on the caucus process itself. It seems to me anyone involved in the caucuses could have determined that this is what the media was saying. There were televisions everywhere. People were on their cellphones.

From my understanding of the process, people are supposed to show up, designate themselves for "their" candidate and then debate each other for the undecideds.

Could the media have helped influence the margin of Kerry's victory by immediately calling it for Kerry? And should there be a campaign to tell the media to just shut up until all elections are over, and the votes have been cast?

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. in my opinion

entrance polls could be more manipulative in affecting the results (push polls)

[graelent]

2. Florida in 2000

As I was watching the Caucuses on CNN, they showed houses watching CNN as they debated, and this was after Kerry was projected to win.

Everyone likes to vote for the winner.

I remember when Republicans raised a stink about the networks calling Florida for Gore when polls were still open at the Northwestern part of the state. It gave them credibility as they embarked on their White House takeover.

The media needs to keep silent until all voting is done everywhere.

I realize it would not have made a difference in Iowa, but it still needs to be addressed