If the press is obsessed with keeping the "horse race" going now...

[Ken Burch]

...why WEREN'T they in 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988?

[regnaD kciN]

1. Actually, they WERE in 1980…

There was a lot of excitement about a "nail-biter," or even, due to Anderson's third-party run, the possibility of an EC deadlock that would throw the decision to the House. Reagan's unexpectedly-easy win was a big disappointment to much of the media, which saw Carter concede just at the point in the night when they were hoping things would start getting exciting.

[unitedwethrive]

2. Because back then we got our news for 1/2 hour each night.

They have since figured out that delivering news is a business, and the more people they can get to tune in, the more money they make. No one will watch if the outcome of an election is already assumed.

[MFM008]

3. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

💰💲💳💶💷💸💱💵💴💵💰💲💲💲💲💲💲

[still_one]

5. The press has not been a viable institution for sometime now. It has evolved into

an "entertainment" reality show, based on rumors, speculations, and actual lies. There was a time when the press would check and double check independent sources that a story was accurate before reporting it. That time is long gone.

Ironically, this is Walter Cronkite's 100 year birthday today

[Demsrule86]

6. A different kind of news...and a different GOP party.