WHY is the media calling 8.5% a "double digit win" for Clinton?

[MH1]

I just looked at the official PA election returns site - note though these are UNOFFICIAL results at this time - and here is what it says:

Clinton: 54.3
Obama: 45.8

with "9,177 out of 9,263 Districts (99.07%) Reporting Statewide"

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/


The difference between the Clinton and Obama numbers is 8.5%. NOT 10% which would be the minimum to call it "double digits".

With less than one percent remaining to report, then the final difference cannot possibly exceed 9.5%, right?

What am I missing?

I am not going to post this in GDP because I'll admit I have no stomach for the vileness out there. In fact maybe someone else already posted it out there - I am not even going to look.

And actually I know WHY the media is reporting it that way - the question is will they get away with it?

[mrgorth]

1. That's an excellent site

I can't believe he didn't carry Bucks. :(

[IndyOp]

2. Please posted this in GD:P ASAP or I will.... We need to help kill the "double-digit" meme.

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) 1,235,067 54.3%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) 1,041,366 45.7%

It is 8.6% now...

[Inuca]

3. Kos has this on the front page

Okay, as pointed out in the comments, the AP's numbers jibe with the county's own numbers. So it looks like the PA DoS screwed up. That puts us at:

Clinton: 54.69
Obama: 45.31



That's a difference of 9.38 percent which, if you're going to round, would round down to 9 percent, not 10 percent. That is, unless we decide we're averse to odd number splits.

And there may be more precincts outstanding than just the Delaware County and Philly ones, plus provisional ballots still left.

Psychologically and perception-wise, there is a bog difference I think between 9% and 10%. But it is probably too late, the media has latched into the "double digits" talking point and are not likely to give up (or admit their own mistake).