Quote:
Quote by: sdbest  You're right and therein lies CNN's error. They compounded rounding errors. The rounded Clinton up to 55%, then rounded Obama down to 45% and came up with the 10% spread. However, had they done their math correctly to determine the difference in the results, they would have subtracted Obama's unrounded percent result from Clinton's, and come up with 9.32%. Then they, if they wanted a round number, would round that down to 9%. Of course, this would not have fit into the CNN "Obama-failing" narrative on the race, as earlier there was commentary about Clinton needing to cross the 10% threshold. The fact is she didn't.
She didn't in a state perfect for her candidacy in which she once held a 20 point plus lead. |
I would question that 20% lead poll, as the same poll only showed that Clinton might win by a 6 to 7 lead, when she closed at a 9 plus lead (Penn primary). We still have two states where they cannot figure how to count the popular votes of how to determine the deligate count that cannot be seated. Those two states will be important during the show down with McCain.
I think Indiana will also be very close. The two states coming up together have more deligates up for grabs then Penn did. No one seems to be winning a slam dunk election anymore, and who ever can sway the Super Deligates that they can beat McCain will be the winner no mater what other math one might do. At least so far that seems to be the projection they are headed for.
I would like to see a one on one debate about the real issues where they do not have those hosts asking questions about religion or the lastest miss-spoken terms. Especially in areas not often talked about concerning the change they are both represent.