PDA

View Full Version : Pennsylvania "Win Margin" question answered


RVD
Apr 24th, 2008, 09:02 PM
The current update is in, and may stand as the final one.

(Apologies if this has already been posted).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/24/was-pennsylvania-a-double-digit-clinton-win-or-not/
Was Pennsylvania a double-digit Clinton win — or not?

Posted: 03:05 PM ET

(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.

************************************************** ************

For those interested, the exact margin of victory looks like it will stand at 9.4 percent.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 09:06 PM
I thought it was already known that it didn't quite reach 10%, but I don't guess we got that on this board. The media needed it to be double digits in order to prolong the race.

RVD
Apr 24th, 2008, 09:13 PM
I thought it was already known that it didn't quite reach 10%, but I don't guess we got that on this board. The media needed it to be double digits in order to prolong the race.I wasn't sure if this was a "known" here on the board or not. If it is, I'll delete the thread. Just thought I'd put this question to rest since it was such a strong point of interest.
Thanks Pureracket. :)

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I wasn't sure if this was a "known" here on the board or not. If it is, I'll delete the thread. Just thought I'd put this question to rest since it was such a strong point of interest.
Thanks Pureracket. :)Actually, you can keep the thread up because it hasn't been posted.

*JR*
Apr 24th, 2008, 09:54 PM
The well paid honcho's of the (cash rich) Obama campaign ignored the old adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" and didn't pay the street organizers the (perfectly legal, and traditional in urban areas) "walking around money" for the GOTV (get out the vote) effort. Which resulted in the lack of a huge turnout in Philly. Which probably cost Barack a point or so in the statewide margin.

And more importantly, the Tuesday night/Wednesday morning reports of Hillary winning by double digits. Such greed on the part of campaign hierarchies is one reason I haven't done volunteer work for one in 16 years, and never will again until and unless this changes. (Ditto many issue groups, which rely on "voluntary slave labor" while their exec's rake in the dough).

RVD
Apr 25th, 2008, 12:34 AM
The well paid honcho's of the (cash rich) Obama campaign ignored the old adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" and didn't pay the street organizers the (perfectly legal, and traditional in urban areas) "walking around money" for the GOTV (get out the vote) effort. Which resulted in the lack of a huge turnout in Philly. Which probably cost Barack a point or so in the statewide margin.Be that as it may, would that have been a wiser course of action for the Obama campaign? In the end, Hillary didn't pull off a double-digit lead afterall. And Obama would have looked rather desperate if he were to have altered tactics at this stage. This is all guess work on my part, of course, but it seems (looking at all this from the outside) that Obama has created a situation within his campaign (the upper-road approach) that could possibly cost him vital superdeligates in the end. The reason I suggest this is because many of these superdelegates "think" much like Hillary. They'd rather continue 'business-as-usual' not because it's advantageous for the People, but rather due to the fear of actual "change".

I'm fairly certain that in their minds, there is a level of uncertainly as to what new roles there will be under Obama. People have established ties that have taken, in some cases, decades to create. The question is, do they establish new ones, or stick with the old? Even knowing that the system is broken, doesn't necessarily mean that they want it repaired---by Obama or anyone else for that matter.
maybe I'm over thinking all this, but politician are scheming animals of a completely different nature than the common man/woman.

Again, this is all theoretical on my part, but as I speak to folks on this side (liberal Californians) who are familiar with abrupt political changes (Pete Wilson, to Grey Davis, to Arnold Schwarzenegger) :scared: it seems as though they may not be so embracing of Obama's message. I'm speaking specifically of the corporate/economic P.O.V.

Still, Obama needs to re-invent himself at this stage in order to further distinguish himself and enhance his message. It's a mighty huge task, but that's what it will take to influence (sorry for this, but it needs to be stated) White Americans, because of the years of ingrained fear.

Regardless of what people might want to believe, this race hinges more on the White vote than it does the African American. :shrug:

And more importantly, the Tuesday night/Wednesday morning reports of Hillary winning by double digits. Such greed on the part of campaign hierarchies is one reason I haven't done volunteer work for one in 16 years, and never will again until and unless this changes. (Ditto many issue groups, which rely on "voluntary slave labor" while their exec's rake in the dough).Truer words have never been spoken. *nods emphatically!*

Would you believe that at my wife’s place of employment (an very large and reputable investment firm), there are key executives on "PAID" sabbatical campaigning for McCain?!?! the disgusting part is that they are riding a thin 'Conflict of interest' line here. The company lawyers are even involved in this.

This country is really funny in that way.
What I mean to say is that when most in this country are discussing the political interplay between the Presidential candidates, there are backroom schemes going on to create situations that are disadvantageous for those of us who are considered 'lesser folks'. :mad:

doni1212
Apr 25th, 2008, 12:42 AM
I wasn't sure if this was a "known" here on the board or not. If it is, I'll delete the thread. Just thought I'd put this question to rest since it was such a strong point of interest.
Thanks Pureracket. :)

I definitely didn't know that, so thanks for the info!

RVD
Apr 25th, 2008, 03:09 AM
Actually, you can keep the thread up because it hasn't been posted.Okay, thanks again. :wavey:
I definitely didn't know that, so thanks for the info!My pleasure. :D

mykarma
Apr 25th, 2008, 03:29 AM
The current update is in, and may stand as the final one.

(Apologies if this has already been posted).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/24/was-pennsylvania-a-double-digit-clinton-win-or-not/
Was Pennsylvania a double-digit Clinton win — or not?

Posted: 03:05 PM ET

(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.

************************************************** ************

For those interested, the exact margin of victory looks like it will stand at 9.4 percent.
Thanks boo, :worship::worship::worship: