So Josh has weighed in on the decimalistas that have dared point out that Hillary didn’t get the “double-digit victory” that she not only claimed, by had awarded to her by most media outlets.

The boards (both here and on other sites) are chock-full of cross fire between those who insist that the subtraction of decimal numbers be correctly performed, and the Clinton supporters who complain about Obama-camp whiners.

Only in a math-challenged America could a 54.6% to 45.4% spread be rounded to 55-45 before the subtraction to produce a 10% spread.  And that the news shows were doing this there’s no doubt…the percentages posted on the crawl last night bounced back and forth from 6% to 8% to 10%, with nary an odd number in sight.

If Hillary stood at 54.4%, would the cable news shows rounded down, such that a 0.2% difference produced an illusionary 2% shift?  Probably.  But I can’t help but think that Chris Matthews and all the rest would rather it be 10%, just to be able to use “double-digit” to express the spread a different way. 

And the real rub?  Complaining about the fuzzy math is fruitless, and probably counterproductive.  After all, only the well-educated elite would care about decimals and significant figures, right? 

Guess we can “math-loving” to the list of hyphenated pejoratives applied to the “typical” Obama backer.  But where should it be placed? Before “latte-slurping,” or after?