NYT calls MA for Sanders! And then takes it away.....

[Bjornsdotter]

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts


Edit: They have changed the results to Hillary +2%

[New Earth]

1. hmm that's interesting....

everyone else called it for Hillary. A mistake maybe? It still shows her ahead.

[TDale313]

2. ???

[Gregorian]

4. ? also.

Everyone is scrambling to figure out what is going on. Weird.

[TheDormouse]

3. very interesting! what do they know about the outstanding 10% precincts? nt

[New Earth]

5. they just changed it.

showing Clinton "ahead by 2 points" rather than calling it for anyone.

[Bjornsdotter]

7. I just saw that!

I wonder what is going on?

[monicaangela]

6. This is the tally at present...

Candidates

Bernie Sanders 528,259 48.3%
—

Hillary Clinton 552,336 50.5
—

Don't know why they called it for Bernie, guess it was mistake.

Okay, they have called it for Hillary Clinton now.

[Nyan]

8. NYT figures where they include super delegate numbers are really pissing me off.

[TheFarseer]

9. Interesting they say 99% is in

but there's way more than 1% of the counties/town/whatever that have 0% reporting. Don't think we'll win, but it could tighten up.

[Stand and Fight]

10. No they have not. They've called it for Clinton. n/t

[Bjornsdotter]

18. Yes they have flipped the results

....when I (and others) posted they were reporting Bernie had won.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. That said Clinton won.

[Gore1FL]

12. They appear to have reversed this. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Called for Clinton

[MelissaB]

14. The Guardian did the same thing, but it is corrected now.

That makes 3 organizations.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. 2.2% Big deal.

[New Earth]

16. here's a screenshot of it for the hell of it

they've changed it to Hillary winning.

[link:|

[Bjornsdotter]

19. Thank-you!

I think a few thought I was making it up.

[New Earth]

20. you're welcome!

I do wish it was real!

[TheFarseer]

17. Now saying 100% in but

27 towns/counties/whatever not reporting?!?!