Election results may come very, very late

Pundits, talking heads, and yes, newspaper reporters may not have much to say about Tuesday night by way of actual results, especially on the Democratic side.

Local election officials have told Politex that many polling places may not report their results until hours after the polls close at 7 p.m.

There are two reasons:

1) Polls officially close at 7 p.m. but those still in line will be allowed to vote. Local officials are bracing for the possibility that some polling locations may have more than 100 people still waiting to vote at 7 p.m.

2) Many election clerks and judges plan on participating in the precinct conventions once everyone has voted and polls close. That means some won't deliver the poll results to the county until AFTER the precinct convention, which could be hours later.

The Texas Democratic Party sent me a memo from the Secretary of State's office that said, "The responsible election judge or clerk must complete the paperwork, finish making out returns, and deliver the records and ballots to the custodian before he or she may attend the precinct convention."

In practice, at least in Tarrant County, this isn't going to happen. Tarrant County Elections Administrator Steve Raborn said he wouldn't be surprised if some polling places don't report their results to him until after midnight because the election workers were at the precinct conventions. By 11 p.m. tomorrow, he wasn't sure if he would have results from 50 percent of the county's precincts.
-Aman Batheja

Comments

[Richard Fassler]

The neutral, esteemed British publication, The Economist, in its 2/23-2/29 issue had this to say about McCain’s possible opponent:

“On February 19th Mr. Obama’s tenth consecutive win over Hillary Clinton made it yet more likely that he will be the Democratic nominee. This is bad news for Mr. McCain, since Mrs. Clinton would surely be easier for him to beat. Half the country already dislikes her. And although Mrs. Clinton could out-wonk Mr. McCain in any debate, he could crush her simply by asking voters whose character they admire more.

He is a war hero; she is not…He freely admits mistakes; she is bizarrely incapable of doing so. He often takes brave and unpopular stands; she is cautious and poll-driven. He has a reputation for telling the truth; she, to put it mildly, does not. And the best thing, from Mr. McCain’s point of view, is that he would not need to make any of these charges himself, because a legion of freelance Hillary-haters would do it for him.

Devising a strategy to shoot down Mr. Obama is much harder. He is plainly nice, intelligent and almost scandal-free.”

[WML]

I think it will be the opposite. There aren't any skeletons in Mrs. Clinton's closet; the latest polls show both Democrats neck and neck with McCain (ok, enough with the Saint Obama who can do no wrong); and Obama has things to answer for--his scant record, his anti-war stance when it didn't mean anything (jhe had nothing to lose or gain) and then saying he didn't know how he would vote (waffle much?). his ties to Chicago entities... the list goes on. Americans, and not foreigners (or the media), need to decide this election with open minds that look to the issues and what America needs.

It's nice to be a cheerleader--GWB was one in college--but it's the substance that gets America going and growing again. It's no wonder that Oprah endorsed Mr. Obama--he's a lot like self-help gurus that she hosts on her show. They are filled with "yes, we can."