“Journalists” are bad at math

Many journalists and pundents are proclaiming that Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points (AKA “double digits”).

Maybe they have some new way of doing math that I am not aware of, but Hillary received 54.6 of the vote, while Obama received 45.4. And for those of us who attended grade school, 54.6 – 45.4 does not equal 10. But in the world of media spin — and perhaps poor math skills — it apparently does.

For those of you without mental or physical calculators, that comes out to 9.2. Typically when rounding, 9.2 would be rounded down to 9. And if you don’t know how to round properly, 9.2 will suffice.

Now, I’m not sure if the discrepancy is simply due to arithmetic errors or due to certain media members wanting to make Hillary’s win seem bigger (they all said she needed a “double digit” win to soldier on) and thus making the race go on further, which will certainly lead to better ratings and more papers sold.

Frankly, I don’t know which is worse: not possessing basic mathematical skills or deliberately misleading the public for personal (financial) gain.

Even the supposed guardian of American journalism The New York Times couldn’t get the math right. No wonder people don’t trust journalists, especially mainstream media members. They’re always trying to sell you something, and it’s not always the facts.

At least the public has bloggers (notice that 9.2 in the second paragraph?), who apparently aren’t trying to sell the public anything but the truth.

Post navigation

  • http://gbook.dvercity.net/ Ceci Bell of Florida

    If Hillary Clinton steals the Democratic nomination from Obama, I will not vote for her or John McCain. I feel strongly about voting because people died so that we could have the right to vote; however, I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton or McCain. Early during the primary season, I was okay with Clinton or Obama winning; however, the prolonged fight, increased negativity, and dirty tactics have soured my opinion of Hillary Clinton.

    I don’t trust her now, so how can I trust her as president? I’m a registered Democrat. I used to be an Independent until I realized in Florida you had to belong to a particular party to participate in primaries. Her kitchen sink strategy and determination to muddy Barack Obama beyond repair for the General Election is too much.

    If Clinton “steals” the nomination and you plan on staying home or writing Obama’s name in on the ballot, please sign this guestbook so that the media, pundits, voters, and superdelegates realize that the media spin and polling is not always accurate and can be skewed.

  • maria

    I don’t really know if she won because true Hillary-democrats voted for her. I know of at least a dozen Republicans who voted as democrats for her because they know that McCain can beat her more easily than Obama.

  • Silent_Edge

    I think it’s ridiculous, needless to say, for Hillary Clinton to be raising the issue of electability in the case of Obama being unable to win the big states… Duh! If any real genius looks at this contest, it’s not Republican VS Democrat yet, it’s still Democrat VS Democrat–What does that say for electability? That means in Obama’s case, there is a record turnout of Democratic support that will allow Obama to win in the election should he get the nomination. I don’t think it’s fair for Clinton to spin this out in the way that makes it look like Obama will lose the larger states just because ‘she’ won them.

  • Redphilly

    I think you should contact someone in the media (Cafferty, or bettter yet Obama’s camp) and inform him that she did not win by 10%. We didn’t know this. But there is something else that no one is talking about. Everyone is assuming that Hillary would make a man her running mate. What if she chooses another woman? How are the blue collar folks going to feel about that? Hillary appears to be more man than woman anyway, so she just might. Also, there are nations who think women are, well, dirt. Some of those places are not going to want to even have dialogue with her. Be careful what you wish, or vote for.

  • Michael

    Reviewing all the comments about Obama inability to cut into Clinton’s core support group (female / foters ofver the age of 45 and white voters.) makes him not electable. Is that saying the Obama core group that Clinton has not been able to cut into (Black / affluent upper middle class /and young college students) are not a factor in the general election?

    Be careful who you alienate!!

  • Bijay

    If you ask me, I tell you that Hilary lost PA, because winning by just 9.2% in her own state where she has been sticking or roaming around perhaps for 2 decades, no surprise that she hot little moer votes than Him. For me he won the PA.

  • Ross Nicholson

    What are you complaining about? Hillary’s ahead in the popular vote, she’s been ahead for most of the way, too. Addition is even harder than rounding–with which you seen to have some trouble. Here, let me help you, you silly helpless kitten: 99% returns means 2 significant figures, not 3. 54.6 must be rounded to two significant figures, 55%. So it’s basically you with the acalculia, my friend.

    Second. Florida and Michigan were fair, state sanctioned primaries. Barak withdrew his name from Florida so he got no votes. Hey. Hillary didn’t fully compete in a lot of ‘junk’ red state caucuses with republicans allowed, either. So, Alaska gets to decide in your mind? 75% of Alaskans are for Hillary? Fat chance. 1% of eligible voters found the caucus. One’s ability to brownshirt public meetings (caucuses) and to take over and conduct non-secret ballots without possibility of absentees should not be primary choice mechanism for choosing a president of the United States. It’s primaries that count, not caucuses. Caucus delegates have never determined the Democratic nominee since 1932.

    Math AND History. You’re just an ignorant savage. I don’t know why I waste my time talking back to you.

  • Old Hippie Lady

    Good post. Not only is the math incorrect, so is the so-called core support group. I’m the same age as Hillarious kiddies, Sixty (60) ,female and white….well those of us who use our BRAINS see the OLD warrior and her same-OLD politics (nuke Iran? Hill ur wardog silp is showing) and fail to understand Y???? this liar is still gathering votes. Can we say the core is NOT me & my REAL sisters…NO it is the biased, uneducated, fearful voters young & old who are willing to follow the clinton machine down the rabbit hole.

    The tide is turning??? LOL…on the river of DE..NILE it can be whatever u imagine. Can they really be so blind?

  • http://wmhartnett.com/ William M. Hartnett

    9.14654%, actually! Here’s a good example of the only sort of primary story in which I’m really interested. Delegates. Just tell me about the delegates.

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    @William

    Very true. In the end, this is really about delegates, and right now Hillary only netted about 10 in PA. That’s not really a very big win.

    Of course the delegate math is the epitome of new math or fuzzy math. Not every vote counted the same in each PA district. Those in traditional democratic districts get proportional more delegates. Don’t ask me how this is democratic.