|
|
Tags for This Article:
Obama-Barack (1379) Barack Obama (769) Media Distortion (727) Hillary Clinton (482) Media-News (437) Hillary Clinton (257) Clinton (44)
|
Add to My Group
The official results for last night's debate as of 12noon Eastern time are: Hillary Clinton - 1,258,278 (54.7 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. --------------------------- www.trimtabmanagementsystems.com Steve Brant is an independent researcher, theorist, and Corporate Social Responsibility brand-building consultant. His mission is to help the Corporate Social Responsibility movement transform the global sociopolitical economic system so that sustainable peace and prosperity for all becomes a reality. Through Trimtab Management Systems, Steve offers an innovation-based synthesis of the systemic redesign principles developed by Drs. Russell L. Ackoff, W. Edwards Deming, and R. Buckminster Fuller as the most powerful approach for achieving that global transformation. Key innovation leverage points for Steve are the CSR movement's potential capability to make war obsolete by advocating a "one world/one human family" political reality, and the entertainment industry's ability to communicate a hopeful vision of the future to the public at large. Such a vision is essential if humanity is to live together in peace. Steve has participated in The UN Global Compact since 2001 and is currently writing his first book, entitled "A World Beyond War In Our Lifetime".
rounding up wizards So if they're rounding up, I guess that means gas hit $4 already. Let's see them report that. by
Kiko (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:22:12 PM
Rounded, not truncated Clearly the MSM rounded to the nearest whole percent, so 54.688% = 55% and 45.312% = 45%. The difference is 10%. I doubt it will make much of a practical difference to anyone. The next two primaries are two weeks after Pennsylvania’s and Clinton’s margin of victory in PA will be forgotten by then. People will remember a “big win” and will decide for themselves what sense to make of that phrase. For people who expected her to win by 4% to 6%, a 9.375% margin is indeed a big win, whether it reaches some imaginary 10% threshold or not. It leaves me with three other questions: Obama outspent Clinton significantly on TV advertising. He spent about $11 per vote received; she spent about $3.80 per vote. Why was her advertising so much more productive than his? Clinton’s campaign is nearly broke while Obama has about $41 million. With resources like that, why couldn’t he put her away? Obama has demonstrated his appeal to the party faithful in caucuses and in the smaller states. Clinton has won the eight most populous states in the country. Those states will have 220 electoral votes at stake in the fall, winner take all. What might that mean if Obama is the nominee? by
Richard Wise (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:29:00 PM
August Adams is a CPA and holds a Masters Degree in Psychology. He is an activist striving to create a fair and just world for all.
MSM and the debates are free I think one of the reasons Obama is having a difficult time is that in the run up to Pennsylvania the Main Steam Media again failed to focus on issues that matter. They focused on Obama's speech in San Francisco where the spirit of his speech was misconstrued and played out of context to his detriment at nauseum. Now the MSM keeps asking the question, Does race matter? And they keep publishing the results of polls that discuss race and people's opinions of wether or not it matters. Race would be irrelevant if the people were discussing the issues. Considering this campaign has dragged on for over a year it is amazing to me that we still know so little about the issues. There has to be a better process for electing a President. Guess for now we all just have to put up with the phony selection process... by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 372 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:14:28 PM
It might mean Obama is president... Obama polls better against mccain in almost all of those states, and obama will get the democratic vote out in the way Hillary will not, and Obama will get the crossover votes in a way that Hillary will not, and Hillary will motivate the conservative base to contribute money and get out and vote against Hillary. by
Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 290 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 12:59:24 AM
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Why didn't Hillary put it away a long time ago? Hillary Clinton came into the primary elections with universal name recognition, a pot of gold to choke any five colonies of leprechauns, the most powerful pushers on K Street, sky high poll numbers and overwhelming public opinion that she only had to extend her hand in order to receive the prize. Now we see her reduced to a harpy like clinging to the shreds of her political career, struggling against the offstage hook, telling any lie, twisting any arm and issuing any threat to impose her rejected candidacy on the nation. How did we come to this pass? There is only one reason. Hillary. Her hubris blinded her to anything other than the prospect of her coronation, and gross mismanagement of her campaign resources squandered what should have been fait accompli. She is a sub standard candidate and would be a sub standard president. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 8:32:47 AM
I do have writing credits in a major newspaper--long ago.
Wisely Said, Richard Wise I have another point to throw into this conversation: over at Real Clear Politics, dateline Wed., April 23, Hillary is winning the popular vote. That means citizens are giving their seal of approval to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries, i.e., for the nomination, ergo, for President of the U.S. If the certified, MI and FL votes are tabulated here are the totals: Hillary--15,095,663 Obama--14,973,720 That's a lead of 121,000 in the Clinton column (I'm rounding it off; statisticians can quibble). Therefore, can we assume more American voters prefer President Hillary to Obama? George the Second didn't win by that whopping margin in 2000 in Florida! Of course, most are fully aware that the voter black boxes can be victims of tampering and we have known this for quite a while. IMO, if Obama gets the nod, it may be collusion on the part of both major political Parties. Some in high places want Barack to win. Ask yourself why and it may open up a whole new set of criteria for conspiracy theories. Until this is settled, I will personally just focus on electing Senator Clinton. Seems, as usual, the will of the people may come in second. by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 8:52:38 AM
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Hillary is winning the popular vote... which is not the metric governing nomination if she counts the votes in Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot, and where writing in his name on the ballot would cause the ballot to be destroyed. Moreover, she claims that votes for her are hers, but votes for uncommitted delegates are not to be assigned to Obama. Its just another Hillary pirouette (spin[filthy lie]) to dupe the public into accepting a load of manure instead of their dessert. She has lost by the rules. It is emblematic of her deep well of dishonesty and hubris that she persists in her belief that her lies count for more than truth. She has deceived herself more than anyone else, although it is not for a lack of trying. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 9:58:12 AM
I do have writing credits in a major newspaper--long ago.
Dang them rules, John Obama could have left his name on the ballot in MI; it was his choice. Obviously, his campaign did the math and decided it was against their interests. Now you don't really think his was a gesture of pure patriotism. Hillary said, from the beginning the DNC was not being fair to the voters in either MI or FL; they deserve a vote. It was the political maneuvering of the two state legislatures that jumped the primaries. The DNC awarded NH a waiver to move up theirs and Michigan and Florida were denied the privilege and thus they moved legislatively to overturn the DNC. The Obama legislators voted with the Repubs in MI to jump the primary against the Dem rules. In Florida, where Repubs rule the process, the Dems had no voice at all. Is Howard Dean and the DNC deliberately complicating an already encumbered Democratic primary system with their shenanigans? And are we to believe, like the Bushistas, everything that transpires is due to incompetence? Wayne Barrett wrote a piece that layed out how the Repubs used the vulnerability of the Dem system to micromanage the outcome. Since the Obama people are screaming foul and won't allow the MI and FL delegation to be seated (i.e. vote), methinks there is method in the madness. What do you think? I mean, if you set aside your bias... Sean Wilentz Salon.com wrote a piece entitled "Why Hillary Should Be Winning." Posted earlier and figured, it was the "apportional" thing. It is rather to me similar to states like Wyoming having two senators and the same voting number as New York. A small precinct can go Obama and get all the delegates; this is not really representative of the total population which may vote for Clinton in greater numbers. That doesn't sound sensible to me. That is what Hillary is up against, along with the negative press and clacking leftists who think they finally have their man. The rhetoric pouring from Obama's mouth isn't half as nasty as from his devotees. All we Hillary supporters can do is try to stem the tide of unfair practices and distorted information. by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:23:16 PM
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
You should start curbing the distorted information... by muzzling your candidate and her campaign functionaries. Obama could have left his name on the Michigan ballot, but as an honorable man he chose to stand by his commitment. Hillary and company, being bereft of honor exposed her commitment as just another filthy lie, showing the nation why she should never be trusted with as much power as it would take to run an MP3 player. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 3:55:13 PM
Moving the goal posts It's unnerving. The rules were all agreed upon - FL and MI would not be counted. Many, many voters did not bother to vote for that reason. Let's not count the votes now, just because it would put Hillary over the top in the popular vote column. That would be....sneaky! Let's choose the winner by the rules - the delegate counts. Not "big" states, not states that didn't count, not the popular vote, not the older vote, not the blue collar vote....just the delegate count. Anyone want to discuss Hillary's economic, healthcare, military or ethics reform policies versus Obama's by the way? by
Gustav Wynn (45 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 215 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM
It is 9.4 is Double didgits unless my eyes are going, I see two digits. by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 470 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:57:37 PM
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Yeah,... Howard Wolfson was holding the 9.2% result on a piece of paper held between his thumb and forefinger and claimed that he saw four digits. I expect their claim of a quadruple digit victory to emerge at any time. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 8:37:29 AM
Paul has worked in health care for the past 30 years and writes a weekly column for a local newspaper in California. He is involved in local civics, a member of Citizens for Democracy, Temecula Valley and active in the election integrity movement. Paul has been on the planet for 48 years and married to his soul mate for 27 years and counting.
Magic Numbers Double digits was the number the pundits said that Hillary needed to continue the race with a shred of credibility. But the bigger question is how did Hillary really garner the extra 2-4 percent of the vote at the polls? It was reasonably expected that Hillary would win PA by 5-7 points. A tweaking of the voting machines would give her a boost to call it a double digit victory and keep her in the race to satisfy GOP wet dreams. This has all the earmarks of a programmed result. Factor in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos to get GOPers to switch parties to ensure Hillary is the Dem nominee, and that is the the recipe for President John McCain being sworn in to office in January, 2009. HAVA = Help Anesthetize Voting Americans *Part of the above was posted on a similar article. by Paul Jacobs (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 2:05:43 PM by
Paul Jacobs (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 3:46:03 AM
Austin computer geek and Buddatarian
Renaming media might make it clearer Many of these issues would be clearer if we quit calling it the Main Stream Media and called it what it really is, the Moneyed Media. They will follow the money, whether it be left, middle, or right. This impies not giving a damn about truth or fairness. Declaring 9.4 "double digit" keeps the flow going, keeps their pundits from looking foolish, and, they hope, keeps people primed and watching for the next dust-up. -JN by
johnneale (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 7:21:29 AM
|
|
