<< Military Robots and the Future of War??? | Would it really be that bad to find life in our Solar System? >>

Do the Math - Hillary Can't Win!

OK, I know, this has nothing to do with programmed reality, nanotech, transhumanism, AI, philsophy, and the rest of the topics we discuss on this site. But nobody else is saying it and it has to be said. Mathematically, HILLARY CAN'T WIN!

But somehow, all the pompous political pundits are pontificating that the tide is turning in the Democratic race.

Check out this one from CNN: Analysis: Did Clinton's latest victory come in time?

Or this one: Why can’t Barack Obama close the deal?

I just don't get it.

It was predicted that Hillary would beat Obama in Pennsylvania by 10%. She beat him by 10%. Exactly. No upset, no big win. Let's do the math...

Disregarding the Florida and Michigan mess and the flip-flop potential of superdelegates (which can go either way), of the remaining primaries and caucuses, there are 408 delegates left.

Barack is currently beating Hillary by 133 delegates.

That means, for her to win, she has to pull 271 of the remaining delegates to his 137 - almost twice the number. What are the odds that with Obama being 9 percentage points ahead in the national poll, that Hillary will instead beat him 2 to 1 in the rest of the races? Mathematically, it has to be near zero. Someone, please tell me where I did my math wrong and I will gladly pull this post off the blog.

Then again, mathematically, Al Gore won the 2000 election, so I guess anything is possible.

Currently rated 2.0 by 2 people

Currently 2/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Tags:
Categories:

Posted by thearchitect on April 23, 2008 20:41 99 Comments
Actions: E-Mail | | Permalink | Comment RSS RSS comment feed

Non-locality Explained!Quantum Non-locality Explained by Programmed RealityString Stars - You Heard It Here First!White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, Quark Stars, and now String Stars?Where Does Leveraged ETF Leakage Go?Leveraged ETFs supposedly "leak" away value as the underlying index fluctuates. But does this reall...

Comments

April 28. 2008 08:37

Douglas Rushkoff said something similar a month ago. His point however was that if people continue to deny reality then reality will change. So maybe your point has a lot more to do with programmed reality than you think.

mortimer

April 28. 2008 13:02

touche. i wonder, though - can one person continue to deny reality and actually change it? or does it need a mass consciousness denial?

jim

May 30. 2008 10:48

Perhaps this response isn't quite in the same vane. . . Technically, Gore did NOT win the 2000 presidential election, that is why he was not President. The United States popular vote count is only done as a curiousity. There are 50 seperate elections held on a winner-take-all electoral vote basis. Due to the flukes of group think and population *density/distribution* (for lack of a better term), overwhelming individual votes in one state mean absolutely nothing. Look at the '80 and '84 elections. Reagan won HUGE electoral college wins (in the 95% range) without getting 95% of the vote.

Mike

July 5. 2008 10:43

Actually, I was not referring to the popular vote discrepancy, but rather the questionable voting and counting practices that seemed to mostly weigh in on the side of Gore winning the election. To see but one example: www.failureisimpossible.com/essays/norcdata.htm

jim

January 23. 2009 09:54