Final votes from Philly in (100% reporting), it makes rounding to 10 even more fuzzly mathematical

[usregimechange]

Clinton 54.64%
Obama 45.35%

= 9.29

or

9.3

This rounds to 9, which is a single digit.

Thanks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Rendell is worthless!

:grr:

[MannyGoldstein]

2. You Obamabots With Your "Math" And "Facts"

The American People hate math and facts - that why we voted for Bush. Once again the voters will throw off the heavy yoke of reality, and elect Hillary Clinton as our president.

[wisteria]

16. So you are saying only the stupid voters voted for Clinton? She won the stupid vote. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. No

and yes.

Hillary did not get only the stupid vote, but the stupid voted only for Hillary.

She won the stupid vote.

[dsc]

3. and I am sure Obama never benefited from similar rounding

[BeyondGeography]

4. Net gain of 10 delegates...is that final, too?

[mod mom]

37. According to the NYT only 1 more delegate:

extra delegates awarded to areas where Democratic candidates perform very well

link:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/PA.html

[ORDem]

41. The NYT posting doesn't reflect the full awarding of delegates, just the 127 from the first

allocation.

[Guaranteed]

5. The rounding doesn't even matter. Even if it was 9.8, that's

not a double-digit victory.

A double-digit victory requires the victor to get 55% of the vote. If not, it's only a single-digit victory.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Remember this one?

Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%

That was the first in the nation Iowa Caucus. Rounding off gave Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, and Clinton 29%.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. They're so simple-minded. They feel that a decimal point is more than we can handle.

Actually, they're probably right with regard to the majority of Americans these days.

:dunce:

Shoot, maybe they should have rounded it to 4/10, 3/10, 3/10

What was it Einstein said? Things should be reduced to their simplest form - but no simpler.

Seriously though, rounding is all well and good until you start using the results of that rounding to make statements such as "Edwards beat Clinton by a full percentage point" and "Clinton beat Obama by ten points". I guess we can at least agree on that much.

[Levgreee]

11. the one % didn't matter here. They didn't repeatedly claim "38 point win" as if it meant something

they are parroting the double digit win over and over to alter perception. That is the problem, i could care less if they were just lazy and decided to say 10, but they are doing it purposely to be misleading.

[Kittycat]

21. That looks like accurate rounding to me.

You could maybe argue Edwards & Clinton both at 29%. However, you clearly round up at .5 above five, and down below it.

[usregimechange]

That is what I learnt in grade school

Got some math? Yacka doer furr ya!

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Yes. And by the same standards

Clinton gets rounded up to 55% and Obama gets rounded down to 45%. I know that the actual margin between them is closer to 9%, but I am just pointing out that there is not always a huge conspiracy going on to explain why and how things happen.

[VolcanoJen]

30. The night of Iowa, Clinton surrogates on TV spinned it as an Edwards "tie"

They both got second place.

I'm more annoyed now than I was then, but, just sayin'.

[DerekJ]

7. Hillary won the last precinct?!!

Of course because otherwise she would have dipped 54- 46%

:tinfoilhat: Big time

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Even Rachel Maddow said in the end, it was 9.3 "or something like that"...

...and then there was silence. NO ONE picked up on it! Scarborough and Buchanan continued with "double digit victory".

Rachel, exasperated, noted "It's like no one is facing reality here. Facts don't mean anything."

How true, Rachel. How true.

This was on the David Gregory show this afternoon.

[Barack_America]

14. That show is god awful. Even worse than Tucker...

Five or six people all shouting over one another. It's like Crossfire with the added confusion of satellite delay.

:thumbsdown:

[blogslut]

10. Think that's gonna make CNN change their results numbers?

Somehow I doubt it.

[jackson_dem]

12. Only political junkies care whether it is 9.3 or 10.0

In the real world the verdict is in: she win by a solid margin.

[Levgreee]

15. in the real world the verdict used to be "she needed a double digit margin in PA"

but the goalposts moved, of course

[jackson_dem]

17. The political junkie world and MSM pundits aren't the real world

The people read the papers the next day and concluded she won solidly. Even the MSM was convinced by the win. Obama cut the lead to about 4-5 points but lost by 9.3.

[Levgreee]

18. many people only get their political news from the MSM, FYI

[jackson_dem]

27. Yup and after the vote was held the MSM story was it was a big win

There is a difference between the MSM's reporters and the political pundits like Matthews. They may dispute whether 9.3 is enough because she "needed" an extra 0.7 by an arbitrary bar but the public verdict is in as is the MSM's.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. No, what she needed was a 20+ point win, because even with

this 'victory' she is farther from getting the delegates than she was before it. She now needs to get a higher percentage of the remaining delegates since PA than she needed to get before PA.

It's over.

So dry your tear, buck up, and rejoin the Democratic party. The DLC is dead.

[Moochy]

23. Thats why Hillary's goalposts have wheels

I think the goalposts are on the 45 yard line now.

[hendo]

26. the short side 45

[MilesColtrane]

46. And she's doing every thing she can...

...to start playing with 13 men on her team. (Fla. and MI. delegates)

[wisteria]

20. No, the media and the Clinton's cared about the "double" digits until the realized she didn't

make it. I for one am telling everyone that Clinton didn't meet her goal and them just as amy good cheater does, changed the spin.

[jackson_dem]

28. Obama said it was going to be close. So he is a cheater too then?

Obama didn't spent $16 million on ads and travel alone to lose by 210,000 votes...

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Obama also said that he wasn't going to win but that...

... it'll be closer than everyone thinks it will be. I saw him say it.

All the pundits and talking heads said that Hillary needed to win by double digits in PA, and then added "the polls show her leading Obama by 18-25%" - DOUBLE DIGITS.

Now, she only won by 9 percentage points, SINGLE DIGITS {which is a loss no matter how you wanna spin it}, but when MSNBC called PA for Hillary, they didn't say "Clinton won by 10 percentage points". They reported "Hillary won by DOUBLE DIGITS."

It's all psychological and it was meant for her financial supporters so they'd reach deep into their pockets aiding and abetting in the damage being done to the Democratic Party while giving the Republican party the excuse they need to go smoothly toward victory.

This doesn't bother you?

At the moment, the Clinton's disastrous campaign is snatching certain defeat from the jaws of a potentially easy Win for the WH and it should infuriate ALL angry-because-the-SCOTUS-stole-the-election-from-Al Gore, anti-Iraq-occupation, anti-IRAN-war and anti-more-of-the-same Democrats, shouldn't it?

So again, why aren't you outraged?

[rocktivity]

32. Hillary got he majority of the vote in PA, but not the victory

Because Obama succeeded at hitting his "magic number" of 45% of the vote, Hillary did not get the 65 per cent that she needed to get close enough to impress the superdelegates. Now her magic number is 68 (in ALL the remaining contests) while Obama's drops to 42: If he wins NC and gets at least 42% of IN on May 6, his mission is accomplished.


For your future reference:

41-point or more margin of victory = blowout for Hillary

36 - 40 points = victory for Hillary

30 - 35 points = good, but not good enough for Hillary

11 – 29 points = wash for Hillary

5 - 10 points = useless for Hillary

1 - 4 points = concession speech for Hillary


:headbang:
rocknation

[jackson_dem]

33. Who told you the supers demanded she get 65%?

The stories right now are that the supers are very worried about Obama's electability after his PA performance. She did basically what she had to do: win, win by enough to go a long way to denting Obama's popular vote lead, and sow doubts about Obama's electability in the minds of superdelegates by crushing him among certain demographics.

[rocktivity]

35. That is what she will have to do to get the superdelegates to take her seriously

She has had plenty of opportunities to get her numbers closer to Obama's. If she can't do so before it is mathematically impossible for her to get 2025 delegates, the superdelegates are not going to give her the time of day. Don't forget that a lot of them have to re-apply for THEIR jobs in November, too.

:headbang:
rocknation

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Only the stories in the Hillary echo chamber.

You really out to get out into the real world and find out what DEMOCRATS are saying.

[MattBaggins]

38. Could we get a link to some

of those "stories"?

[jackson_dem]

39. Here is one, probably the most important given who published it

Is this what Obama wanted on the front page of the New York Times the Thursday after the PA primary? Hardly. This is the worst thing that could have happened to him coming out of PA. Whether she won by 9.3, 10.0, or 15 doesn't change this dynamic with the supers.

[rocktivity]

40. Both stories are by Adam Nagourney, the author of

In a Polarizing Case (Terri Schiavo), Jeb Bush Cements His Political Stature

After Win, Democrats Revert to Finger-Pointing

The Democrats are celebrating their big victory of Nov. 7 with recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting, no matter that they won control of the Senate and the House for the first time since 1994.

...Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, and Mr. Carville used the forum...a gathering of newsmakers and reporters, to say Mr. Dean wasted an opportunity to make historic gains by refusing to take resources out of his effort to build up parties in all 50 states and put them into Congressional races...

Check out Atrios post from the '04 race. And here's a Media Matters story about a column he wrote comparing Hillary to Ann Coulter!


:boring:
rocknation

[ShortnFiery]

13. I found it "curious" why the total percentage LOCKED on 99% for over 24 hours?

Hey, perhaps I just have my tin foil hat on but I found it strange that it took so damn long to count those 1% of votes from Philly. :shrug:

[Zachstar]

19. Good!

[IDemo]

22. I averaged a group of PA polls that were all over the map and got 9.33

I wonder how accurate a method that would be if applied to past elections (not to mention future ones).

No, I'm not going to Google them all up and do the math now. :)

[jackson_dem]

29. Go to pollster.com. They do that and list the averages for all previous states

The poll average ranged from 5-6 in PA before the vote. People forget Obama lost a bit of ground over the weekend...

[AtomicKitten]

24. It's all smoke and mirrors from now on.

[rocktivity]

25. This squares with what's on the PA Department of State page

with 99.99% of the districts reporting.

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSS!

A towel and a cigarette, please...

:smoke:
rocknation

[BenDavid]

42. nope, you round it up .64 is now 55.00 and 35 is rounded down to45.00

there you have 10. but i could give a chit. what she has done is beat your guy when he cannot close the damn deal. she beat your one trick pony and all you obama folks do is post something that says she did not win by 10. who cares? Hell, she has you all fighting metal health and making your lives all turn upside down and i say good for her.....DAMN!

[cottonseed]

43. It's a delegate race which Obama has now essentially won.

It's exciting to look at the race by states (which Obama has won twice as many of), but this entire primary process is for delegates anyways. Hillary's measly total won from the PA contest essentially ends any realistic chance she had. With NC and IN coming up, this thing is officially over.