As Chuck Todd likes to put "Clinton got an automatic 3% - 5% in PA," because she has the majority of the PA democratic machine supporting her. Hillary is the incumbent and should have been winning everywhere with greater numbers.
Hillary has the "head of the democratic party former President Clinton," and nearly all of the democratic party establishment nationwide and all of the democratic old line funders supporting her as well as the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife supporting her. This is the Clintons 4th presidential contest and yet Obama is ahead.
Hillary should be worried that it is she who has not been able to put away Obama, a black freshman senator from Illinois.
As "most experienced candidate," and as the candidate who has been working the political scene for 35 years and planning this run for president as far back as 1996: WHY HASN'T SEN. CLINTON CLOSED THE DEAL AND BEEN ABLE TO PUT THIS CONTEST TO AN END?
Why is it that a black freshman senator from Illinois has been able to do so well against the Clintons?
Remember white blue collar folks in many states (including the ones Obama has lost) have voted for Obama. Obama is doing pretty well for a first time run for the presidency. I expected more from the Clintons and not a close fight with someone that the Clintons call inexperienced. Obama has even managed his campaign finances better than the Clintons.
Why, To The Mainstream Media, Does Hillary's 9.4 Victory Margin Equal "Double Digits"?
The official results for last night's debate as of 12noon Eastern time are:
Hillary Clinton - 1,258,278 (54.7 percent)
Barack Obama - 1,042,573 (45.3 percent)
99 percent of all votes have been counted.
When you subtract 45.3 from 54.7 you get 9.4.
The last time I checked my use of statistical analysis, 9.4 isn't 10. It's not "double digits". To call something "double digits", a number has to be at least a little bit more than half way beyond "9" heading for "10".
Senator Clinton's margin of victory fell below that halfway point.
So, why is the mainstream media reporting that Hillary won by "double digits"? Even the AP is using that expression. Why?
Statistically speaking, she really won by 9 points.
Everyone knows that "double digits" is a psychological breakthrough point. "Double digits" is short hand for "big".
Hillary won last night. I respect that. But I am as concerned about accuracy in media reporting as I am in about other issues related to the health of our democracy. I'll write more about larger election integrity issues in the future. But for now, I just want to mainstream media to prove that it knows how to count.
9.4 does not equal "double digits".
Those are the facts.
Please, mainstream media, stop playing around with the psychological aspects of this race. Even though I'm sure it's fun and feels cool to say "double digits", there is way too much at stake for you to be doing that.
Please, mainstream media, prove that you know how to count... prove that you know the difference between facts and emotions.
And if you can't do that, then get out of the game. Because you are hurting America.
---------------------------
Addendum: 5PM Eastern
With 99.51 percent of all districts reporting, Hillary Clinton's lead is down to 9.2 percent. Thanks to PhgMike for contributing this update!
Addendum: Very late Wednesday night
I called ABC, NBC, and CBS News late this afternoon to ask if they would be reporting the results accurately or would they be using the emotional "double digits" phrase. The person at ABC News media relations said they hadn't written the script for tonight's show yet. The person for NBC News media relations said "We'll be reporting it as 9.4 percent". And no one answered any of the several phone numbers I had for CBS News.
When I watched the news shows tonight, I was pleased to see that NBC had kept their word... that Brian William specifically talked about it being a 9.4 percent victory (and appropriate graphics accompanied his comments) and how that wasn't quite the "double digits" win all the pundits had said Hillary needed. But then he said that Barack and Hillary themselves had said "A win is a win" the day before the primary. And that led into the rest of NBC's report on the primary.
The ABC News people ultimately wrote a script in which Charlie Gibson said "Hillary Clinton argues her nearly 10 point victory over Barack Obama shows she's more electable..." while showing a graphic with 55 percent and 45 percent in big numbers, and the vote totals below them. These vote totals, of course, are the ones that calculate out as being 54.7 and 45.3 percent. ABC News made no attempt to define "nearly 10 point," so viewers were left to assume "nearly" meant "almost"... rather than the truth of "below 9.5".
The CBS News people did the worst job at reporting the facts. Harry Smith, substituting for Katie Couric, said "Hillary Clinton's ten point win in the Pennsylvania primary has given her campaign new life and new money...". No effort was made to let viewers know it had not really been a ten point victory. And the graphics CBC News used completely avoided the vote totals. Instead, they showed the delegates gained by each in the primary (82 for Clinton; 73 for Obama) and the Delegate to Date (1715 for Obama and 1585 for Clinton). The saving grace, I suppose, is that the Delegates to Date graphic included the phrase "2025 Needed". I'm calling this a "saving grace" because at least CBS News is still using the real definition of what "winning the nomination" means... the definition in the rules of the Democratic Party... not the definition of winning that the Clinton campaign is using (a definition that changes whenever they feel it needs to in order to show them as being able to win).
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
America needs an absolute revolution in its journalism and media.
Actually, with the first figures given, her margin of victory would have been 9.375%. That's a FOUR digit lead!!!
This probably is actually bad news for the Clintons. Not a big enough win to give her a realistic chance, but enough that she has to keep on keeping on. Since she started April a million in the hole, and spent a lot of money on ads in PA, she probablyis going further in debt every week. Doesn't look like the campaign is going to be able to pay back the $5,000,000 she loaned back in December.
On another aspect, McCain is indicating he'll opt for the $84,000,000 public financing for the general election, means Obama will probably be able to outspend him 3:1.
Guess what? There are still 45 Precincts that still haven't reported in. I believe they are holding back as they will favor Obama and the number will drop down even further.
They aren't holding back *because* they favor Obama, they're holding back because they're likely the most heavily populated precincts - they're all in Philadelphia County. According to the CNN map, all the other counties are 100% reporting. Barack is leading in Philadelphia County by 30% with 99% of the *precincts* (note: precincts are not all the same size) counted. Her number WILL be going down, potentially under 9% depending on how large these particular precincts are. And this is important, as there are two groups of pledged delegates in PA that are awarded based upon state-wide vote (35 Pledge Delegates At-Large and 20 Pledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials, which are different from the 26 Party Leaders and Elected Officials who are "superdelegates" and 3 "add-on" superdelegates). Only 103 of PA's 188 delegates are awarded according to how their precincts voted, and the heavily populated precincts (i.e. Philadelphia area) have more than the rural areas.
Link for this information broken down in a readable format:
http://progresspittsburgh.net/?p=394
OMG. Take your sour grapes and make some vinegar already. In what bizarro planet do you live that you expect the MSM to not round 9.4 to 10? I mean, do you REALLY think there is such a HUGE psychological difference between 9.4 and 10? Jeez, you Obama supporters are such whiners!
Well, in the real world and in all mathematics, 9.4 is rounded to 9. That's just the facts, jack.
Go to the official website for the State of PA and you will see that there are still 45 precincts that haven't reported in yet. So the percentage for Hillary may well drop further..
God, Steve. Didn't I tell you before to stop using pundit arithmetic to teach your kids math?
You sir are correct. Hyperbole is the meat and potatoes of our piss poor media. Colbert and Stewart make quite an easy living harpooning the blundering beast and all it's foibles. Who sets the standard for truth? Who emotionalizes every cross word and avoids substance? Who shows blatant favoritism as if it was run like a high school click instead of by professional journalists?
God there are a lot of cry babies writing on Huffington Post. Face it, Obama got his ass handed to him. Why focus on something this stupid? Huffington Post is trying to sell us this flawed candidate in Barack Obama and the working class people aren't buying.
As the author explains, there are associations with the term 'double digits' that do not apply here. This is not crying, this is stating fact.
You sound a bit emotional. Feel like a crying jag yourself, maybe?
Why? because it would definitely be a "double-digit" win if it was Obama.
We need facts regardless of the candidate.
Thank you Steven I have been posting that fact in blogs all day long. Even if it was 9.6 it ain't 10 percent to this Georgia Tech Geek.
Double-digit win -- means longer primary -- means extending the Clinton/Obama supporter -- means more press coverage of the spectacle -- means more ad revenue -- means employee bonuses for folks working at these media firms ... There's a concise little expression for this phenomenon: ratings whoring.
She needs to win by a 38% margin to catch Obama in pledged delegates; 20 % to catch him in popular vote, and 2/3rds of all remaining superdelegates to reach the magic number before he does.
Look, it's over! I am just shocked that for me to point that out, I might be labeled a misogynist.
Good heavens man. If your are concerned about accuracy in media, how about starting with the incredible bias that has been shown by the media since day 1 for Obama. But I don't think that is what you will do, is it?
55 - 45 = 10 points. Where have you seen other primary wins report tenths of a point? 54.7 rounds up to 55, sorry but that is how math works. 45.3 rounds down to 45.
For accuracy in media, look at New Hampshire votes as reported by ABC news. Clinton actually won ..395 percent of the vote which rounds up to 40% yet on ABC news she is given 39%.
I' m sure there are other examples like this but since you started it and are getting paid for it, why don't you do the math. In fact, I expect you to list every primary and how it should have been rounded up or down and reported.
It is so funny that you criticize mainstream media as they are leading the charge for Obama and nary a critical question will pass their lips (maybe once in a blue moon and then they are heartily attacked by the rest of the mainstream media and the so-called non mainstream media).
Clinton's NH percentage is 39.4. That's why it was rounded down.
New Hampshire 01/08 Obama: 104,815, 36.8%; Clinton: 112,404, 39.4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Expecting the media to be accurate is not a novel concept.
Expecting people like to understand the important difference of fact versus spin is not novel either, but a difficult task.
Words matter. Numbers matter. They're not "just words," or "just numbers."
Similarly, the media continues to insist that Hillary has a path to the nomination. She doesn't. The media knows that but for ratings they continue to spin in her favor.
My post isn't about media bias towards candidates. I'm writing about accuracy in reporting and the media's addiction to emotional ("She won by double-digits...Wow!") reporting.
Also, I am NOT paid for doing this. I blog here for free.
MSM leading the charge for Obama? I guess you didn't watch the debate on ABC last week.
Hey Dude (1,259,832 - 1,044,663))/(1,044,663+1,259,832) x100= 9.4 percent . Call it the facts!!!!!! Not Spin that you prefer.
"55 - 45 = 10 points. Where have you seen other primary wins report tenths of a point? 54.7 rounds up to 55, sorry but that is how math works. 45.3 rounds down to 45."
Exactly wrong. That's not how math works. If you are going to round, do it after the subtraction. Rounding beforehand would be "introduced error."
Thank you so much! I couldn't remember the math rules but knew intuitively there was something fishy about kikiva's calculations. It is just plain common sense. But thank you for validating my suspicion and giving the technical reason: introduced error.
I would take points off of one of my students' exams if they rounded numbers BEFORE doing all the calculations.
But we live in a Humpty-Dumpty world where a number "means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less".
Just in case you didn't notice, the mainstream media doesn't care if they hurt America. There is a very simple explaination to what happened last night, lobbyists and liars are the winners.
And it is down to 9.2, with 99 and 44/100ths of the vote counted.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
Thanks very much for the update. I'm looking forward to seeing if the networks are still saying "double digits" tonight.
Two digits, 9 and 4. Two digits. Double digits. The reality is, there's a political class in America that's paid a LOT of money to spin shit into gold. That's because the American political process is so full of shit.
"Two digits". Very funny. I hadn't thought of that.
Lets be serious, they enjoy creating the drama. Its fun for them. It is just as easy for the reporters to say "just under ten percent" as it is for them to inaccurately say "double digits". Its just not as dramatic.
A 9.4 percent losing margin is a much impressive outcome for Obama? I can think of some larger issues to worry about in the new coverage.
Agreed. It is amazing to see all these Obama folks dealing with this half a percentage as if it makes any difference to anything.
You know the difference would be even more if the vote in the minority precincts hadn't been depressed.
In a few minority precincts all the machines went down except one or two, several people left. In other Precincts the machines weren't able to start until 2 hours after opening--several people left. In other Precincts when voters were given a "Provisional Ballot" Obama's name wasn't on it, only Hillary's name.
This is the state of election is this country and all you Republicans and other right-wingers, just know these machines can be turned against you so you better help solve the problem, because it just may end up in your lap.
And, FINALLY, every machine used in PA yesterday was hackable. EAT THAT!
The answer to this one is the question of the decade: are you stupid or are you lying? Either they can't count or they are lying.
But!!! I saw a Hillary Clinton supporter on another blog here explain it this way: Obama rounds down to 45, Hillary rounds up to 55, that's now a 10 point lead, there's 2 digits. Woo Hoo! Double Digit Margin!
Let's call it Double Digit Margarine.
Well! This is post 9/11. Bushit and HilLiar will have us believe that we are winning in Iraq. They are both warmongers. Black is white...up is down and 9.4% is 20%.
The reason is that they are rounding. If you report the results as 55% to 45% which is the natural way to round the results for reporting purposes then it becomes natural to describe that as a 10% win. But since each of those percentages comes from rounding by .3% or so, the actual figure is 9.4 which would naturally be rounded down to 9%.
Does not make sense. Let's say Obama had 45.6 percent to Hillary's 54.4 percent. Then it's an 8 percent win when the actual is 8.8 percent or more like the 9 that Hillary actually won by.
How does that show it doesn't make sense? I don
Posted April 23, 2008 | 12:19 PM (EST)