New Rules: Margin of Victory Edition

The press needs to come up with some consistent language to describe margins of victory. Barack Obama's 7 point win in Iowa was referred to as a "big win". But MSNBC is currently running with a headline "Romney edges McCain in Michigan". But Romney won by 9 points! Doesn't that make it a "big win"?

I suggest "narrow margin" for three or fewer points, "modest margin" for three to seven points, "healthy margin" for seven to ten, "big win" for ten to twenty, and "blowout" for anything over twenty.

Comments

[Nate]

sometimes isn't just winning huge? If Paul beat them by 1% wouldn't that be a HUGE F'n win. Romney was expected to win MI so 9% is a win. Obama surprised people in Iowa thus 4% is big.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

Then you can just add "unexpected" or "surprising" or "upset", e.g. "upset win by a narrow margin".

[Jason C.]

The "Romney Edges McCain" headline was a truly egregious offense. A 9% victory may or may not deserve a "wins big" or whatever, but it's clearly not close enough for "edges."

[Jason C.]

Also, if I were Mitt Romney, I'd use this kind of thing as a club against McCain. I can't really understand why he isn't already.

Harping on the fact that McCain gets so much love from the hated liberal media would expose McCain's biggest weakness - he doesn't piss off "liberals."

[bystander]

Nicholas, personally, I think the choice of descriptor reflects the degree to which the media "likes" the result. They like Obama's lead - ergo, "big win." They're not so pleased with Romney "edging" McCain. For readers who don't do numbers, the choice of descriptors could shape the reader's point of view.