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

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Freaky. I doubt it lasts, but making Obama spend time and money in Mass would be a major victory for McCain.

Right. It's simply a hint of how formidable an opponent McCain may prove to be.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are a light in the darkness.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You can just see the media doing whatever it can to extend the "drama" of the race.

A loss is a loss.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

A loss is a loss.

Not entirely true. Politics is a game of expectations.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not entirely true. Politics is a game of expectations.

That is Poppinga logic at an entirely different level.

"I expected to lose by 10% but only lost by 9%."

No, a loss is a loss. Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary, no matter the margin.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

That is Poppinga logic at an entirely different level.

"I expected to lose by 10% but only lost by 9%."

No, a loss is a loss. Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary, no matter the margin.

It really isn't. Clearly winning is better than losing. Nobody is arguing that. But there is a world of difference in the margin, particularly for the Democrats where the margin determines the number of delegates awarded. A 1% loss is different than a 5% loss which is different than a 9% loss which is different than a 10% loss.

In addition, the media has created a non-sensical and arbitrary standard that Clinton needed to win by 10 points to remain viable. When she didn't, the media manufactured a 10 point win.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It really isn't. Clearly winning is better than losing. Nobody is arguing that. But there is a world of difference in the margin, particularly for the Democrats where the margin determines the number of delegates awarded. A 1% loss is different than a 5% loss which is different than a 9% loss which is different than a 10% loss.

In addition, the media has created a non-sensical and arbitrary standard that Clinton needed to win by 10 points to remain viable. When she didn't, the media manufactured a 10 point win.

Well, the media also reported that because her campaign raised close to $10M by the next day, that she was raising campaign money at the rate of $10M per day.

The media is full of idiots.