A couple of final thoughts about the results from Election Day ...

Here's a number that may have leapt out at you from the pages of this newspaper or LancasterOnline this week:

16.1.

That was the percentage-point margin by which Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who represents most of us in Lancaster County, won re-election to a ninth term in the House on Election Day.

It's a comfortable victory by most standards, certainly.

But not as comfortable a victory as the dean of Pennsylvania's delegation has enjoyed in past re-election races. In fact, this was Pitts' narrowest win over a Democratic opponent.

Looking back:

Pitts beat Lois Herr in 2010 by 31 percentage points.

Pitts beat Bruce Slater in 2008 by 16.4 percent points.

Pitts beat Herr in 2006 by 17 percentage points.

Pitts beat Herr by 30 percentage points in 2004.

Pitts was unopposed by a major-party candidate in 2002.

Pitts beat Robert S. Yorczyk in 2000 by 34 percentage points.

Pitts beat Yorczyk in 1998 by 42 percentage points.

Pitts was re-elected to the 16th Congressional District by a margin that is still considered landslide territory. His seat is still safely Republican.

There are a handful of factors, though, that made this race a little closer than normal.

First, and most obvious: The new district, as redrawn, now includes urban Democratic strongholds of Reading and Coatesville. At the same time, the 16th lost a good-sized chunk of conservative eastern Lancaster County and part of Chester County.

Second: Shifting demographics. This county and congressional district are still red, but not as red as they were a decade ago. We've written many times about how popular this area is to those in Philly and its suburbs looking to relocate.

Third: This was a presidential election year. In Pennsylvania, the Democratic challenger will do better in these years than they will in midterm elections. Consider Slater's 2008 run against Pitts.

Fourth: There were three challengers, not just one. In essence, voters in the 16th had more choices this year, including a candidate from Lancaster County. They'll siphon some votes not only from the challenger, but from the incumbent, too.

Finally, a few words about the presidential race.

About how close it wasn't.

On Wednesday, after all was said and done, I did something I rarely ever do. I flipped on the evening network news to see what the mood of the nation was.

And there was the anchor talking about how the result was a decisive victory for President Barack Obama even though — and this is the part that kills me — all the so-called experts had predicated a "tight race."

Tight race?

No, no, no.

Let's get this straight right now: Very few folks outside the bobblehead bubble on cable TV or partisan poll outfits really thought this was going to be close.

You might have gotten the impression it was close by watching the networks, which spent way too much time talking about the national popular vote. Two points about that: the popular vote is almost always tight, and the last time I checked we were still using the Electoral College to elect presidents.

Those of you who followed the constant and reliable polling being done at the state level by nonpartisan, independent outfits including Franklin & Marshall and Muhlenberg colleges know that Obama was consistently leading in Pennsylvania.

And in other battleground states, both RealClearPolitics and Nate Silver, the statistics guru at The New York Times, were projecting big electoral-vote wins for Obama for weeks, if not months.

Really, folks.

It really never was that close.
tmurse@lnpnews.com