Not that it matters, but Clinton won by 9% in PA, not 10%.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How about putting the amount you're quibbling about into a better context? myboynoah got it exactly right, the media called it a 10 point victory because the results (as rounded to the nearest percent) was 55 to 45. Is there some sort of media obligation to use 3 decimal places instead of 2? Look at how CNN.com displays the results out only 2 places.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#PA

Besides, dipshit, it was 54.6436% to 45.3564% which is a difference of 9.2872% which rounds to 9.3% going out to 3 decimal places, not 9.2%.

What does 9.3% round to? Perhaps your great statistical mind can be of service. At least you have now agreed they reported it incorrectly.

Why not round each districts reporting up? I mean, if we aren't actually interested in being accurate?

Like I said, I have learned an important lesson about your numbers today.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What does 9.3% round to? Perhaps your great statistical mind can be of service.

Why not round each districts reporting up? I mean, if we aren't actually interested in being accurate?

Like I said, I have learned an important lesson about your numbers today.

Tell me when has the media, as a rule, reported results in anything other than whole percentages? What real interest is there to suddenly up the level of numerical precision?

You are seriously one of the stupidest people I know that allegedly got a higher education.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Tell me when has the media, as a rule, reported results in anything other than whole percentages? What real interest is there to suddenly up the level of numerical precision?

You are seriously one of the stupidest people I know that allegedly got a higher education.

I didn't realize that rounding from 9.2% (or 9.3% which you agreed to) to 9.0% made one stupid. I thought that was kind of a standard practice in rounding. It must be my higher education that taught me wrongly. If you don't want the media to report past the decimal point, they can easily go with 9 and be closer to the truth than they are with 10.

I do enjoy debating an actuary about the importance of 0.8%. You may be the only actuary I know who doesn't see any difference between 0.8% and 0.0%. I guess if you squint a little they both look the same.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He didn't have any seeming advantages in Pennsylvania. That state is perfectly set up for Clinton to win, just as NC is set up for him to win. All of his money is a good thing- it clearly indicates that people like him, so much so they are willing to give him cash and lots of it.

I think you will find yourself very surprised at the margin of victory he has over McCain in November.

you're the tex of the Obama campaign.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I didn't realize that rounding from 9.2% (or 9.3% which you agreed to) to 9.0% made one stupid. I thought that was kind of a standard practice in rounding. It must be my higher education that taught me wrongly.

I do enjoy debating an actuary about the importance of 0.8%. You may be the only actuary I know who doesn't see any difference between 0.8% and 0.0%. I guess if you squint a little they both look the same.

Because their differencing is coming AFTER the rounding, where you're doing the differencing first and then rounding (although you didn't get that right since you came up with 9.2% instead of 9.3%).

If a person looks at the Vote% column on CNN.com, they see 55% vs 45%. What's the difference? 10%. Is 55% incorrectly rounded? Is 45% incorrectly rounded? Is 55 minus 45 not 10?

And since you couldn't even get the rounding to 9.3% correct, you don't have a leg to stand on.

In a race where the object is to get more votes than the other person, an actuary doesn't care about 9.2% or 9.3% compared to 10%, because the different rounding algorithms all yield the same winner in the contest.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

you're the tex of the Obama campaign.

No truer statement was ever made.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How about putting the amount you're quibbling about into a better context? myboynoah got it exactly right, the media called it a 10 point victory because the results (as rounded to the nearest percent) was 55 to 45. Is there some sort of media obligation to use 3 decimal places instead of 2? Look at how CNN.com displays the results out only 2 places.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#PA

Besides, dipshit, it was 54.6436% to 45.3564% which is a difference of 9.2872% which rounds to 9.3% going out to 3 decimal places, not 9.2%.

There actually is a protocol for broadcast news concerning giving perentage information. The simpler the better. They'll go with 10% or 9% over 9.27% every time. Reading lists of numbers makes for bad TV and radio. It bores audiences and broadcasters are more likely to misread and make mistakes.

They occasionally report "9.2%" or whatever, but only when they deem it very important. The tendency is to avoid saying it in a broadcast, and even if the info is being represented on a graph or something.

[BarbaraGordon]

I realize that this dialogue is part of an ongoing CG drama between Cali and everyone else, so there's no point in trying to infuse reason. But Cali's post was not essentially about the numeric fudging. The numbers he cites merely represent a pixel in the larger picture of the ongoing media attempt to make Hillary to seem more competitive than she really is.

Cali and I (and, I imagine, others) knew the day before the primary that Hillary would win and that the win would be spun as another "resounding" comeback-kid victory for the girl that refuses to quit. In fact, if you followed the news online that night, it was clear that most of the articles were written before the polls even closed. The headlines were pre-determined.

The truth is that in only two weeks, Obama closed from twenty points down to a 9-10 point loss, in spite of saying some monumentally stupid things, in a state in Hillary's own backyard. He managed to limit Hillary's net gain to 12 delegates. It's impressive he did as well as he did.

In addition, he's heading into two states where he has significant advantages, and Hillary's losing her previously-pledged superdelegates at a rate of one every few days. But you rarely hear about anything that favors Obama. But in spite of the overall MSM coverage, there are reasons Hillary's chances at the nomination are now trading at less than 20%.

Cali's complaint, if I'm not mistaken, is not simply that the numbers were misrepresented, it's that entire storylines are omitted altogether, and others are embellished, in an effort to play up Hillary's potential to snatch the nomination.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Cali's complaint, if I'm not mistaken, is not simply that the numbers were misrepresented, it's that entire storylines are omitted altogether, and others are embellished, in an effort to play up Hillary's potential to snatch the nomination.

If there is anyone who has received kid glove treatment in this election cycle, D or R, it's Barack Obama. I'm not shedding many tears over a perceived rounding problem by the network news for a man who's barely been vetted for the most important office in the land.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

If there is anyone who has received kid glove treatment in this election cycle, D or R, it's Barack Obama. I'm not shedding many tears over a perceived rounding problem by the network news for a man who's barely been vetted for the most important office in the land.

Did you watch the last debate?