Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary Thursday, April 24, 2008
Posted by rationalpsychic in blogging, politics.Tags: CNN Political Ticker, corruption of journalistic integrity, getting it right is important, journalistic incompetence, no "double-digit win" for Clinton in PA, Obama in PA, reality vs. wishful thinking
trackback
(CNN) — It’s one little point that’s making for a whole lot of discussion. Was it 9 points or was it 10? That’s the question many people are asking about Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory over Barack Obama in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Primary.
According to the most up-to-date vote totals from the Associated Press — used by all networks and national news organizations — Clinton won 1,260,208 votes in Pennsylvania to Obama’s 1,045,444. If you break it down by percentages, that’s 54.65 percent for Clinton and 45.34 percent for Obama. If you round up the Clinton number to 55 percent and the Obama number is rounded down to 45 percent, you get a ten point margin of victory for Clinton.
But if the difference between 45.34 and 54.65 is 9.31 percent — the margin of victory for Clinton — the result should be rounded down to nine percent.
Got it?
(Updated numbers after the jump)
Why does this matter? Maybe because the candidates spent six long weeks campaigning in Pennsylvania, and because so many political pundits said Clinton needed to win Pennsylvania by double digits to keep her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination alive.
But regardless of the margin of victory in Pennsylvania, the race has now moved on to Indiana and North Carolina, the next battlegrounds in the road to the White House.
UPDATE: As the count in Pennsylvania continues, Clinton’s margin has edged up slightly. According to the latest tally released by the Associated Press, she now has 1,260,416 votes, or 54.7 percent of the total; Obama has 1,045,910 votes, or 45.3 of the total. That makes the current margin of victory for Clinton 9.4 percent, which still rounds down to a 9-point victory.
This race should not have been this close. Obamamania is getting old. That is what happens when the election season runs too long. This might hurt him come the general election.
double digits sounds nicer to the media and to those who benefit from it : the Clinton campaign.
In politics, it seems truth is defined by whoever screams the loudest and longest.
Obama spent $11 million in PA to lose by 10 pts… that’s $1.1 million per point lost! Yikes! And people want this guy to handle our tax dollars?!
Can’t wait to see how much he loses IN by.
Clinton ‘08!
Jen,
What a disingenuous response on your part. You know very well that as part of that cost Obama halved the lead that Clinton had over him in PA.
On the subject of handling tax dollars, I suggest you look into which campaign has a better balance sheet, whether with or without Sen. Clinton’s loan to herself, and which one has the better reputation of paying off small vendors who have provided services to their campaigns. Sen. Clinton left a number of folks–especially caterers for her events–wondering if and when they would receive payment.
CNN.com poll shows Obama and Clinton tied at 45% each with 10% undecided in Indiana. While North Carolina is still being predicted as a win for Obama.
Oh. That big “win” for Clinton in Texas? NYT results published today (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html) show her with 50.9% of popular vote there compared to 47.4% for Obama. Texas Democrats’ method for awarding delegates then gave Obama 99 delegates to 94 for Clinton. Some of these claims of “winning” by Clinton fall apart when they are examined as if they have the possibility of being decided as being facts or untruths.
Remind me not to post comments by trolls who don’t put a connection to their blog or a photo next to their comment. As it is, this comment gave me the chance to express my disgust at this type of rhetoric. Please refute this crap when you see it, folks.
I’ll refute it!
Sen. Clinton went in with a 20 point lead in a state overfull to the brim with a Clinton network! Because of her husbands and her connections in the Democratic party, the state was practically sealed for her.
The fact that Obama cut into her lead at all is impressive.
That race was hers to lose, not hers to win. The former slam-dunk, front-runner has somehow convinced people she’s been the underdog. Sen. Clinton was the front-runner and she lost her lead because people are beginning to say NO to her.
another thing, if I may ramble some more
Obama had $11 million to spend because the PEOPLE gave him that $11 million. All this talk about his outspending Clinton as a way to make him seem “elite” or “out of touch” or “shady” is ridiculous. I, too, think the amount of money needed to win an election is crazy. But lets not kid ourselves, Obama has more money to spend because the people are giving him more money.
Your last point is a good one I had not taken into account. It shows the value of negative rhetoric: sling enough mud and some is bound to stick.
As far as rambling is concerned, feel free. Fair warning, however. If your thought processes meander more than mine it may indicate a need for medication. But I will love you all the more.