CNN Silly Math: 1.11% = 2% Spread in IN

[Kittycat]

With 99% reporting, and only Hancock & Hamilton waiting to finalize (provisional ballots) - The spread is only 1.11%

644,590 - Clinton
630,395 - Obama
--------------------
14,195 votes apart or, 1.11%

That is not even close to 2% :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Those are just numbers.

[Teaser]

2. It doesn't matter

The media narrative is still quite good for Obama. I don't think that small error would change anything.

[rucky]

32. Another 1.11 people agree that it doesn't matter

I've gained a little weight recently.

[SoonerPride]

3. The Skim Milk Victory

Less than 2%

[Fresh_Start]

4. if you have 2 dresses

one priced $644 and the other priced $630....what is the percentage difference in the price of the two dresses?

The dress which costs $644 is 2.22% higher in price.
You don't total the cost of the two dresses to see the percentage difference in price.

[JBoy]

8. If you have two dresses that are $644 and $630

you just might be an elitist.

:)

[Yael]

10. Rim shot!

[Hutzpa]

17. Or latte drinking Prius driving lebrals

:evilgrin:

[Android3.14]

11. OMFG - This is why we are so screwed up

This is the reason I quit teaching college.

If you are going to use the purchasing of dresses as an analogy for vote totals, then you have to realize you are not comparing the price of two dresses. You are finding the difference of the percentage of the price of each dress compared to the total price.

That is, the two dresses have a total price of 644+630 = $1274. The $644 represents about 50.5% of the total price. The $630 dress is about 49.5% of the total price. The "winning" dress cost approximately 1% more more of the total price as the other garment.

You are mixing up the "percentage increase/decrease" concept with plain old percents.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Hush. Math is silly.

[TheDoorbellRang]

19. Thank you. Nice to have a math dude weigh in with the correct info

You should post more often.

[Fresh_Start]

20. Clinton had 2% more votes than Obama in Indiana

that is a fact

The denominators is set by the question asked and not by 'its a vote'.
Thank you for playing.

[stevenleser]

21. Anyone with a math background knows you are wrong.

If one candidate has 49.5% and the other has 50.5%, the difference is 1%, not 2%.

[dbmk]

30. The terminology is strictly speaking in his favour

Mathematically speaking his interpretation is right.

The correct term would be 2% _points_. But everyone knows that is what we are talking about.

[anigbrowl]

22. No, no, no, no. You are failing spectacularly.

The total of votes in an election is 100%. You calculate the percentages for the candidates based on their share of the total, not relative to each other's votes.

If there are 100 voters and 60 of them vote apples and 40 vote oranges, the result is 60% vs 40%, and the difference is 20%.

60 is 150% of 40 while 40 is 66% of 60, but you wouldn't say apples won by 50% or 33% would you?

[dbmk]

28. So you are saying

That if Obama takes 75% of a state and Hillary 25% - that they will call it a 200% victory for Obama?

BS. Its always called in the percent point difference of the total voter count. They just call it percent or points. The latter being the better way. But everyone knows what we are talking about.

[JVS]

31. Someone in another thread got it right by saying that although the difference was about 1%....

which would make it about 49.something% vs 50.something% and that since the media don't like using decimal points they have to express it as either 50-50 or 49-51. Since 50-50 implies tie, they ended up making the difference larger than reality.

[NotThisTime]

5. I think it's 1.09% now, maybe we should all email them

They are obviously clueless... just like 9.4 translated to 10.0

[EffieBlack]

6. Sort of like how 9.2% is "double digits?" n/t

[Hutzpa]

18. Well it is... if you move the decimal point

it becomes 92.... there you have it, double digit


:shrug:

[EffieBlack]

24. And 1 plus 1 times 1 equals 2. So there!

[IDemo]

7. Rounding numbers is rocket science

or it is to some, anyway: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5865984&mesg_id=5865984

:dunce:

[meow mix]

25. lol i loved that one

:rofl:

[mod mom]

9. Clintonian Math always rounds up to favor the Clintons-didn't you get the memo?

:eyes:

BTW have we heard how many provisionals?

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Who cares? She's going to be out in two weeks anyway, no need to harp on little things

[BzaDem]

13. Not this again.

I really didn't think people were this petty,

NEWSFLASH: The rounding affects everyone the same way. They round each candidate up or down individually, and then they subtract the rounded numbers to get the margin. They do that regardless of who benefits. In Iowa, Edwards came in .2 or .3 % ahead of Hillary. But they didn't say near tie -- they said resounding 3rd place Hillary. Complete rejection of her message. Etc. And Clinton supporters weren't whining then, because they rounded .2 or .3 up to 1.

Please stop whining over petty nonsense.

[Kokonoe]

15. Its 1.1133%, heres how I did it

49.443752 % Obama
50.557108 % Clinton

If you add 644,590 and 630,395 = 1,274,985

multiply 1,274,985 by .000078432297 to get 100

now multiply each candidates totals by .000078432297 to get the percent of that 100.

[madrchsod]

16. wow i predicted 5%

dam she pretty much lost....just over 1%? not good

[progressoid]

23. You people and your accuracy.

Jeepers. :crazy:

[Bucky]

26. Actually, the spread was 1.1!!!1!!!eleven!!!%

[JVS]

27. It's really not that important. Everyone knows she didn't clear the hurdle

[baldguy]

29. 9.2% = 10% in PA

The only way she can con people into listening to her is if she keeps fudging the numbers.

[harun]

33. Every pundit after PA said 10, even though it was 9 (n/t)

[Mass]

34. CNN and other media cannot be bothered with tenths and 100ths. So they round up

everything to the closest whole number and then substract. Though the errors that we have been seeing again and again. It could have fallen on the other side and they could have found the difference to be 0 for 0.99 %. And it would not have bothered them either.