This happened back in 2004 with the presidential election. They predict or project the winner WHEN THE VOTES IN THAT RESPECTIVE STATE HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET! And only 50 to 80 percent of that state's voted have been counted. They get too overzealous and overexcited when they have boring stretches of time on their marathon show.
I go--How do these anchormen go through this pattern day after day in those network TV studios reporting the news live just as the cameras roll? It's like a nonstop round the clock pattern when most of us take a more slower pace.
Chris Matthews is a good host, but he can get a little too hyper. Sounds like he drinks 7 or 8 cups of coffee or Red Bull energy drink before Hardball goes on the air on MSNBC.

I don't think the media knows yet who they want to win between Obama or Clinton...just push Edwards out...and of course they loove the liberal McCain....push ush push there.

Sassone, please stick to TV shows.
If i need any political analysis, it's not going to be from you.

While Bob was trying to evoke Dewey defeats Truman in his headline, he is in fact off the mark about their similarities. It was the polling that had been reliable up until New Hampshire that let all the analysts down. Matthews was more than willing to say he was wrong, and today he followed up his show in analyzing why the polls were wrong.

I'd also like to point out that Bob Sassone is the most annoying blogger on this blog.

Clinton is not evil. She is a moderate Democrat, less liberal on some issues than Obama and Edwards. She has a lot of experience in Washington and in politics in general, which is both a good thing and a bad thing.

The crying was not fake. At the absolute worst, I will believe that she has had advisors telling her, rightfully, for days now that she needed to show a softer, more feminine, more heartfelt side, but it would take the most cynical mind to believe that the tears welling up in her eyes and the words coming out of her mouth at that moment were not 100% genuine. The main reason people don't like Clinton is that she has a tendency to try to fake warmth and friendliness; what makes people think that her acting skills suddenly quadrupled in a matter of a week?! It was genuine.

For those who are confused about the post's title... Bob is riffing off the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline that the Chicago Tribune printed after the paper mistakenly projected Dewey's victory in the 1948 presidential election. As we all (?) know, Truman came from behind and won.

Your fellow commenter Ry got the reference, as he/she sent a link to the famous pic of Truman happily showing his supporters the mistaken headline:
http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/dewey_defeats_truman.jpg

i dont understand what the big deal is here. Help me understand here.... Did any news agency ever really project Obama as the winner and/or announce he had "officially" won. As far as i can tell the worst they did was PREDICT he was going to be the winner.

Does this mean i should be all up in arms the on sunday if a room full of ESPN analysts predict the New England Patriots are going to win, only to be upset by the San Diego Chargers.

* sorry for the repost wanted to make it its own post so others could reply

Come on, if the networks didn't learn their lesson after the 2000 presidential elections, what made anyone think they would learn now?

As far as MSNBC's coverage goes, I broke down and made a news crawl cover out of cardboard to preserve my sanity. I hate those things and can't watch more than 5 minutes with them. Matthews was all right. Olbermann was a total professional, earning more points as a serious anchorman (that seriousness and lack of bias is not always evident on his own show, which I like for what it is). I found all the trips to Williams, Russert, and Brokaw kind of useless. Williams & Brokaw really didn't have much meaningful to add, and Russert didn't get an opportunity to do what he does best, get all geeky with the numbers.

so am i the only one who was confused by this headline/article??

I saw the headline obama defeats clinton, the chandler bing statement ("could the networks be more wrong?"), and the picture projecting hillary as the winner.

This lead me to one conclusion... that the networks were wrong about clinton and obama had made a late surge to win again.

Boy did i feel stupid when i stated calling people with that info. Thanks guys