Boston Globe Error: Posted Town-by-Town Final Results at 12:45pm, Hours BEFORE Polls Close

from the Bostonist.com:

NEXT »

 

So, we knew the Globe had its problems, but today we’re really confused. As of 12:45pm today, January 19, 2010, a Globe infographic (pictured above, in case they fix it) has Martha Coakley winning with 50% of the vote and “100% reporting” as of “3:48 pm” (elsewhere known as “12:36 am”). Additionally, more than half of Massachusetts’ approximately 4 million registered voters have already turned out to vote—and had their votes recorded—by 12:45 slash 3:48 pm. That’d be impressive turnout for an entire day of voting. Can you spot additional errors? Our heads are imploding over here. Is the Globe rigging this election? (Note: we’re not seriously suggesting this would happen.) Did somebody hack its data feeds? Are we dreaming? WHAT IS GOING ON?

In case you can’t see the insanity, we’ve helpfully added some pointers in the second image.

Update, 12:55pm: The Phoenix also noticed this, though the Globe appears to have removed the infographic now.

Update, 1:20pm: Now everything is at 0%. Did nobody vote today? Did the Globe’s data/apps all go kaput? Not a great day for this to happen.

Update, 2:00pm: Not only did this map explode, Scott Brown supporters used the pollwatcher feature to talk about nuts. Did the Globe not realize today was going to require a little preparation and moderation? (Poor Abington.)

Update, 2:22pm: The Herald has an explanation: “It was a test on a tool and it meant nothing. I don’t know how these things happen,” said the executive assistant to the editor of boston.com.

http://bostonist.com/2010/01/19/martha_coakley_wins_with_100_of_pre.php

Liberal Paper, Phoenix, Reveals that Brown won in 2004 Despite Democratic “Cheating”

The Boston Phoenix revealed a disturbing piece of information about the 2004 special election which sent GOP’er Scott Brown to the Massachusetts legislature. The article is about the conscience clause debate in the state, which embroiled not only Mr. Brown but also his daughters. After attacking Mr. Brown for introducing a bill with a conscience clause amendment as pay back to the Catholic Church for backing him in his 2004 election, the Phoenix  gives a piece of information from an unnamed Democratic source about how dirty the 2004 special election for the state Senate appears to have been.(bolding is mine) :

In 2004, Brown won a special election to become state senator, despite the state Democrats scheduling the election to coincide with the Presidential primary, when Democrats would be flocking to vote for John Kerry. (As one Democratic operative recently put it to me: “We cheated, and he still beat us.”) Brown then won a re-match in November, on the same ballot as Kerry vs. Bush.

There were at least four contributing factors to Brown’s victories in 2004. 1) Brown is an outstanding campaigner (a fact the Democrats seem to have forgotten until about a week ago). 2) Brown, a state representative at the time, had a strong voter base compared to his opponent, who did not hold an elected office. 3) That Democrat, Angus McQuilken — although one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet — as a candidate is about as inspiring as a low-fat Twinkie. 4) That was the year that Massachusetts allowed men to dress up in tuxedos, put rings on each others’ fingers, and smooch.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/15/boston-paper-dem-operative-admits-cheating-brown-0/