Arguing over whether Hillary won an arbitrary measure like "double digits" is stupid

[Hippo_Tron]

It amazes me how we're spending so much time arguing over whether she won by 9.6% or 10%.

Just saying

[bobbert]

1. You're right, she can't win the nom either way

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I think it's highly unlikely she will win the nomination

But my point was that we're spending an awful lot of time arguing about something so arbitrary.

[Skittles]

4. LOL they just can't stop, can they?

CLASSIC first response

[Skittles]

3. it's called SPINNING

and they're putting freepers to SHAME here on DU tonight :o

[Eurobabe]

5. She's done. Toasted. n/t

[oasis]

7. And then you woke up.

:rofl:

[TTUBatfan2008]

6. 9.6? I thought it was 8.5?

[Changenow]

9. It is 8.5, but a new truth has been born- nt

[MercutioATC]

8. It wouldn't be an issue if she'd stop moving the goalposts.

First, she claims states like OH, TX and PA as her "firewall" states...she can use them to overcome any gains that Obama makes in "the states that don't matter".

Then she wins Ohio with a mere +9 delegates (now +7) and actually loses Texas. The goalposts move.

She has a 20+ point lead in PA 6 weeks ago (remember, PA is a firewall state...a simple win isn't enough, she needs to offset Obama's wins). As the primary grows closer, she moves the goalposts again. Repeatedly. A "win" is 15 points...a "win" is double digits...a "win" is anything over 1 point...

The "double digit" issue is just to remind some of the Clinton supporters here that the rest of us DO have memories. We've very conscious that Clinton is losing by her own standards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Clinton never defined winning PA by percentages

Pundits and commentators have been doing all the spinning. Can you find a single quote by Clinton or her official campaign that states she needed to or even expected to win PA by double digits? Any link?

[zerostar]

11. they just make up shit over and over

I am starting to laugh at how low some have stooped HAHA