If this is so, then please post the correction in your headline news story on this page.

Sent by Glenn | 12:30 PM ET | 04-23-2008

yes, and a win isn't a win unless it is a man's, er, I mean, Obama's win. Good lord, you have got to be kidding me with this one.

Sent by austintx | 12:49 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Now wait just a minute; you have your facts wrong. It does NOT deny Senator Clinton the opportunity to say she won a double-digit victory in PA; in fact I expect HRC and WJC to say it, and then deny they said it, again and again.

Sent by John Theodorsen | 1:06 PM ET | 04-23-2008

how come on day to day it is still being called a 10 point victory?? you should correct yourself on the radio as well.

Sent by jen | 1:33 PM ET | 04-23-2008

It is accurate to say that there isn't much difference between 9 & 10 percent, but it does sound like a big difference to say Obama pushed Clinton from over a 20% lead, down into the SINGLE digits.

Sent by Gary | 1:48 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I've also seen reports today referring to Sen. Clinton's having "won Texas" even though she only won the Texas Primay. Sen. Obama won the Texas Caucuses, and Sen. Obama won more total pledged deligates from Texas--so it would seem to me that Sen. Obama has at least as much claim, if not more, as Sen. Clinton does to a Texas "victory."

Correcting or clarifying information after the fact does not seem to be a priority for many news organizations.

Sent by Paul | 2:16 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Quibble, quibble, quibble. Anything to detract from Sen. Clinton's win.

Sent by Susan | 2:55 PM ET | 04-23-2008

And still no changes to any of the other NPR stories. Don't the editors/journalists of this organization have a continuing responsibility to make sure their stories are correct? On Day to Day they made a point of it being 10 points.

Sent by Glenn | 2:56 PM ET | 04-23-2008

you might want to correct the reporting on your own website; the 'news in brief' section is reporting clinton's victory as a '10-point lead.'

Sent by j | 3:01 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Wait a minute. The media reports are incorrect, but HRC is at fault for this. Who decides wether to round up? Not the candidate.
The grapes are tasting a little sour onthe morning after..

Sent by Lynda Zielinski | 3:02 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I think the fact that Clinton's high double digit lead turned into just barely a double digit win. Obama has come a long way and Clinton has lost a lot of ground in the past few months. "Hanging on" is not inspiring

Sent by jane | 3:09 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Now the democrats have ground to fight amongst each other for this 0.8% difference in the actual figures of the
Pennsylvania primary. Media is there to
divide and rule but being honest!!Irony is that Democrats are also divided on
the race and religion issue and are unable to choose the right candidate and this also shows a deep rooted hypocracy.

Sent by anser azim | 3:09 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I'm from Canada. OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!

Yes, please make this official/clear to your public.

I was calculating the results to the second decimal point (as figures were being made public) and what you pointed out is EXACTLY what I was saying to myself.

I completely dissagree with austintx (commented below). I also would not think of making this a big deal but given that soooooo much attention was given to the single-, double-digit issue, I belive that one should make the CORRECT results clear.

Sent by Varto | 3:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

There is a lot of difference between the number 9 and the number 10. Please make this your headline as you are THE most respected news authority, and then, the others will follow. Thank you, NPR.

Sent by bette | 3:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Depends on the method you use to round things out. The method below is perfectly valid.

54.6% rounded up to 55%
45.4% rounded down to 45%

55% to 45% is a 10 point difference

Sent by RL | 3:33 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Indeed! Count every vote!

Except those in Florida and Michigan.

OK maybe all states after the superdelegates get the task.

Dems, you best stay away from my healthcare.

Sent by deek | 3:35 PM ET | 04-23-2008

She only won by X still = she won!

Gee, the Obama supporters will try any spin to spread their kool-aid around. It reminds me of the games someone else I've watched in the past played, who was that again... oh yeah, republicans.

Sent by Scott | 3:47 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Pretty ridiculous to spend all this time arguing over how to round numbers when the real story is Sen. Obama outspent Sen. Clinton at least 3 to 1 and still couldn't win. He threw the bank at her and missed.

Sent by Susan | 4:01 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Thank you for posting this - I had been noticing the difference myself.

I won't fault anyone for calling it a 10-point lead, but I'll happily reserve the right to note it as actually 9 points.

Sent by Tom | 4:06 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Hello deek,

Yes you're right .. Dems stay away from the US healthcare system because citizens of the US sooooo much trust the Republicans right?!? I don't think so!

I'm a Canadian, and yes, we have some healthcare problems of our own, but in all cases it is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING that the MOST powerful nation in the world is not able to provide health care for ALL of its citizens.

On the other hand, you seem to have the trillions to wage a war where one should not have been waged. Canadian soldiers are at war also BUT they are fighting a war at a location where your aggressors were in the first place.

I wish you all the best with Obama as your president.

Sent by Varto | 4:08 PM ET | 04-23-2008

what annoys me is how the media protrays obama as some saint when actually he is not. if he had won by "9.99%" you would have no problem stating that he won a "10%" lead. face it obama is falling behind.

Sent by Anna | 4:20 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Hello Tom,

You know, the only reason we perform rounding is to save space, because it's pleasing to the eye and the like. There is no logical reasoning in using the rounded number as being "official" results.

If you round results, then you are, for all intents and purposes, ingoring some of the votes!! You must see this to be the case!

Also, was it not the decimal points that gave Bush his victory?? How come it counts there??

Sent by Varto | 4:21 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Hey Clinton supporters, if NPR had not made a point of calling it a double digit win, if David Greene had not said that Clinton needed a 10 point win and that's exactly what she got, then you're right, this is mostly a quibble.

However, as Clinton's hopes for winning the nomination depend solely now on massaging expectations and crafting narratives around "momentum" and "decisive victories" as opposed to boring things like "delegate math" then no it's not a quibble.

And the fact that NPR leaves up stories with a dishonest percentages does not reflect well on them as a news organization.

Sent by glenn | 4:24 PM ET | 04-23-2008

This news entry is amateurish, even childish. Get some perspective.

Sent by Sree | 4:35 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Threw the bank? He spent less than 10% of what he had on hand while she went into debt. Who was helping the economy more? I don't know her interest rate so I can't say.

Sent by Larry | 4:36 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Come on--you're basing this on real facts and sound logic.

Regardless of what the statistics actually are, the Clinton-spin machine will use this to say that this is a mandate for her to be the democratic nominee, win the presidential election, end world hunger, cure AIDS,...

The cold hard reality: she cannot win the nomination without a brokered convention. Period.

Too bad her priorities are herself rather than her party.

Sent by Ryan | 4:46 PM ET | 04-23-2008

What's the difference between 9 and 10? Easy. You get ten yards, you get a new set of downs. You get less than 10 yards, you give up the ball. With 9.2, Clinton missed the downs marker, and now it's Obama's ball.

Sent by Cynic | 4:50 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Varto, no one in this country is denied healthcare. No one.

Kindly mind your own affairs.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125458.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjM2NTVmOGZlYmNkNmYxZWIxNWNlOGI2MWYwYzM0N2M=

Sent by deek | 5:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I think this shows the real bias of the media - it isn't towards Sens. Obama nor Clinton. It is a bias towards making this train wreck continue on so they have easy stories to write.

Sent by Grant | 5:19 PM ET | 04-23-2008

It is curious that those who tolerate Hillary Clinton's pandering, lies, hedging and moonshine escapades expect something different if she gets into the white House.

On Pennsylvania win and Clinton's problem: Her main argument for wanting to be nominated over Sen Obama, the leading contender, becomes "See, I can win the big states we need." Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, however, said on "All Things Considered"
that performance in the primaries is not an indicator of performance in the fall -- in fact, in the big states that Clinton has won in the primaries, Obama polls just as well against Sen. John McCain as does Clinton. [Note: This is a nice plagiarized paragraph]

Poor Hillary: Big states are not all there is: RCP NATIONAL poll averages (democrats) have Obama 50% Hillary 40%. (Apr 23, 2008)
Do you get an impression that her desperate arguments only make some kind of sense to those uncommitted superdelegates? Do those uncommitted superdelegates have the interests of the democratic party at heart? Do they care about the integrity our political systems and our way of life as we know it? Are they radical (Islamic) terrorists in sleeper cells? Why isn't there a pastor issuing a ('Catholic' Parsley/Hagee-style) statement in these people?
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

Bosnia / Hillary '08 WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 5:22 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Tom,

Though it's not the topic of your article here, I nevertheless do so much wonder what your thoughts are regarding deek's

"Varto, no one in this country is denied healthcare. No one.

Kindly mind your own affairs."

Thank you

Sent by Varto | 5:27 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Strange that the people who say that they are tough on crimes and strong on justice, "rule of law" and/or "law and order" as well as swift and sure punishment for the evil doers are among those vehemently insisting that wayward Michigan and Florida must escape punishment ...

Soft on Crime Hillary '08 WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 5:31 PM ET | 04-23-2008

deek,

Maybe I didn't specify "coverage" ... healthcare "coverage".

You're right deek, no one is denied healthcare in the U.S., even if one doesn't have healthcare "coverage" one would still get healthcare at the hospital. My mistake.

How would they pay for that healthcare you might ask? Well, one can declare personal bankruptcy or have to sell one's home (which one worked 30 years to pay for) to have to pay for that healthcare bill. My mistake!!

Ok! You win ... I'm a Canadian and so I have to mind my own affairs, though you may want to see Sicko made by own of your own sons. Don't take my word for it!!

Sent by Varto | 5:43 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Where do people come up with figures that Obama outspent her in PA 3 or 4 to 1? For ad buys, he spent $11 million to her more than $5 million. Each spent about $5 million on travel. So $16 million to $10 million. Where's the 3 to 1 there? Sounds to me like she's working Dubya's "fuzzy math," which would make sense given that she's now carrying water for the GOP attack machine.

Sent by Sweetie | 5:46 PM ET | 04-23-2008

hooray. just like she did NOT win texas. and i will pose this question, she asks why he does not have a KO? well why doesn't she with all her experience???? why didn't she know how to caucus with all that experience? why hasn't she already put this to rest if she is SO electable??? and why should i trust her with the US budget when her campaign is nearly broke and she has mismanaged it????/

anyone who throws around the nuclear option like she was ordering another whiskey shot will not get my support and i am a white 48 year old femail (and my parents are with me on this!)

Sent by bekka key | 6:25 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Thank you for finally noting this. Please make the correction on your main web page and in future reporting on the Pa Primary the real story is how Clinton went from a 20%+ lead to winning by only 9.2%

If a double digit win was that important to her - than at least acknowledge that it didn't happen!

Sent by Patrick | 6:37 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Be bitterly thankful for small mercies from the Clinton/McCain sympathizing media.

The cute spinmeisters could have rounded the figures to the nearest hundred and declared Clinton 100%, Obama 0%.

Stay tuned.

Moonshine Fibs / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 7:01 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Why would they call it a 9 or 10 point victory, when defection of 5% of the votes would give the other candidate a win? I realize that they do the same thing Obama wins

Sent by Mitchell | 7:17 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Please 9 points or 10 points who cares, enough already. Please!!!!!!! Let's get to the real issues.

Sent by Barbara | 7:29 PM ET | 04-23-2008

9 or 10 points does not matter. It is impossible for Clinton to win nominee. She just cannot make up the huge lead Obama has. Obama's victory is inevitable.

Sent by Ron Trimmer | 7:33 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I guess it is important enough to you to show your mathematical brilliance if you offer this pathetic piece of provocation as a story for your blog. Very meaningful indeed whether she won by 215,00 votes or 218,000. Anything to discount, belittle Hillary and encourage the Obama side, which is a regular diet on blogs. Mostly this is a function of the age of most bloggers who because of that age do not appreciate the value of Hillary's experience and have an inclination to interpret the kinds of experience she's had as not all that valuable.

I felt that way about experience to some degree as well at an earlier age. But Hillary's experience deserves recognition and is valuable probably beyond our comprehension. To have her background, talents and intelligence and be able to have spent the many years she has involved so closely with a governor and president would be so valuable, even if it had been merely to see the process, although we know that she was intimately involved, often with his toughest issues, as the person closest to Bill Clinton for all those years. And then to have served effectively in the Senate gives her experience that few have had to prepare her for maybe as difficult a presidency since FDR. But next to Obama who made a conscious and strategic decision to run for the presidency after only one year in the Senate it is an enormously important difference. Any woman would have been laughed at trying to run for the presidency with as little experience.

The New York Times did a piece on Obama in the Senate (March 9, 2008) and pointed to his frustration and disenchantment within months after entering the Senate. After quickly deciding that he couldn't effect the changes he wanted in the Senate, he decided he would run for president and run now before his record might be blemished with difficult votes. He not only lacked an appreciation of experience, he feared that experience would hurt his presidential aspirations. Obama's anti-political games message/image is all as politically designed as any other candidate, as is his stand on the NC debate, the Florida and Michigan re-votes and his commitment to public funding.

It will take at least sixteen years to make significant headway on the mess we face and it would make a great Obama presidency more likely if he were more prepared to do his part with more experience.

And the disclaimer about how I know it's only a little thing but... Please give us a break.

Sent by Steve Z | 7:41 PM ET | 04-23-2008

excuse me, the DNC and the two states you mentin are the CAUSE of the problem. obama did NOT create it. the states knew as did all other states, about the consequences of moving up. the beef is with the states.........i am so tired of this ending up at obama's feet like he made the mess. go call howard dean for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!

Sent by bekka key | 8:03 PM ET | 04-23-2008

and while you are at it, i am a woman and a single mom of a daughter. the Last thing i want to teach her it to run to a symbol and disengage her brain. I refuse to vote for hillary because she is a woman, and if bosnia doesn't tell you something, nothing can.

Sent by bekka key | 8:10 PM ET | 04-23-2008

As a physician I wanted to agree with Varto that the American healthcare system is very, very broken.
I'm sorry Deek but you are mistaken when you announce that no one in our country is denied healthcare. I see it all the time as a provider when I have to transfer or even discharge patients from the hospital who still need inpatient care because insurance is refusing to pay, or when I have to not prescribe needed medications for them, or when I can't get them into outpatient programs that they need. All this is directly because of our broken system.
We could take a lesson from the Canadians on this one indeed.

Sent by Meg | 8:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

If Obama has more popular vote/delegates and the superdelegates hand Clinton the nomination, I will vote McCain. There's not much difference between a Clinton puppet and a Bush puppet when the strings are being pulled by special interest groups. Lobbying for anyone's interests but your own or getting paid to lobby should be illegal.

Sent by Paul | 8:25 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Having watched a certain 24 hour news channel last nights I think I know why I no longer tune in to that network. It is clear to me their audience mirrors Senator Clinton's political base. Bottom line if the old guards insist on stealing the nomination for Obama, they will lose the general election. McCain is not Bush and many educated and enlightened voters will cast their first republican vote. It is time to put an end to this kind of nonsense.

Sent by C. L. McMillan | 8:43 PM ET | 04-23-2008

well there you go. that is why i am turning you off and no donation. i know that lots of posts have happened and yet they do not appear.............

Sent by bekka key | 9:06 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I will stop listening to this station sooner than I was thinking. Tell me why you keep telling in the news that she won with 10 point, and here you are saying that it's 9.2, just dont get it.

Sent by Jeff | 9:14 PM ET | 04-23-2008

There was a gentleman on todays' "Talk of the Nation" show who called in and said , "What about the super delegates? , having the super delegates from all states having to lock in their decisions now does not represent the people , but only gives a skewed viewing of the majority vote." I wanted to call in and say, "If we vote like lemmings then the votes of super delegates actually do matter and the electoral college is alwready going to matter once November comes." The sad fact of the matter is that most of the blue collared workers from places with racial problems whom are white will vote like lemmings. And why isn't Obama's experience with the man who has plenty of foreign policy experience being put on the table for the American public? I forget his name , but Obama was an intern for this guy before he made senator. Why isn't Obama's experience with this guy being reported in the media?

Sent by Damian Aranda | 10:21 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Varto, even the left in this country said that sicko was a total joke.

We have an insurance and cost problem here which we will solve just fine without having to resort to destructive socialism.

Sent by deek | 11:46 PM ET | 04-23-2008

How funny that someone actually tried to argue in favor of a Math error.

From R.L.s post above:

>>54.6% rounded up to 55%
>>45.4% rounded down to 45%
>>55% to 45% is a 10 point difference

To R.L: Suppose Clinton had received 49.5001%, Obama 49.4999% and a third candidate received 1%. Would that mean that Clinton beat Obama by 1 percentage point? According to you it would, since 49.5001 rounds to 50 and 49.4999 rounds to 49.

Sent by John | 2:30 AM ET | 04-24-2008

The 9 point win for Hillary needs to be broadcast everywhere. This was a massage cover up by the Pennsylvania officials, that needs to be investigated. It took less than 5 hours to count 99% of the whole state, but it took almost 15 hours to count the last 1% of the Philadelphia votes, which is what made the predicted 10 point victory, just a 9 point victory. Why was it important to hold off on including that last 1% of the votes counted; that's common sense, Hillary would be able to announce a double digit lead, she would in turn receive more campaign funding, she could get as many delegates to commit before the truth comes out, all of the newspapers would put in print that she won by 10 points-that would not be retracted, and she would get all of the news channels to braodcast a 10 point victory, that would make every believe that she has turned the tide. Investigate the Phillies mayor and the governor.

Sent by AL | 3:03 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Sen. Clinton says she will keep jobs in America, but she supported Nafta when her husband was in office (please include this in her overall experience), Mark Penn, former head of her campaign resigned last month when it was reported he was brokeraing a free-trade deal with Columbia, and do not forget that Bill Clinton has received millions to give speeches that promoted free-trade. Both canidates have their own issues, but we need to end this pointless race now, so that we can beat Mccain in November. Make one of them the president and the other candidate the vice-president; get this over so we can help our economy.

Sent by AL | 3:27 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Man this is hilarious.

Sent by deek | 10:24 AM ET | 04-24-2008

She was supposed to drop out if it were less than ten points.
I guess she doesn't want to, so it is very lucky that any number over 4 rounds up to 10!

Sent by Don | 11:16 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Hillary does have experience in telling lies. The problem is many a time she gets caught.

Sent by concern | 11:46 AM ET | 04-24-2008

The margin of victory was more than 9 but less than 10, that's pretty big either way. The Obama campaign looks petty if they quibble even though they're technically correct. The Democratic party is destroying itself with the bickering and the Republicans are loving it. If Hillary wins the nomination by dragging this to the convention it would be a Pyrrhic victory - she will lose the general election if she continues her campaign like this as Obama-supporters and independents will turn away. If Obama fails to close this off by winning Indiana decisively then he too can be faulted for damaging the Democratic party chances of winning the election(forget North Carolina, it's a given for Obama). Hillary will carry on to Convention as she is not giving up no matter what happens. Neither of them want it but if I was Howard Dean and the DNC, I would be calling them both to broker a deal with her taking the VP if he wins Indiana. I would also be pressuring all superdelegates to get off the fence if their states have already voted.

Sent by irishfrankintexas | 12:52 PM ET | 04-24-2008

How about a news story on how the race is OVER. How about a story on that math. Its OVER OVER OVER OVER. Math is an exact science. Sorry Hillary! One point here, two points there, it doesn't matter at all. Obama will be ahead by any metric you use. Momentum be damned. We don't elect people on momentum, we elect them based on numbers.

Sent by Matt from Montana | 3:29 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Just curious: have you done any research to determine how similar victories have been characterized in the past? I'll bet you'll find each candidate's share of the vote is properly rounded and that the difference between those post-rounding numbers is what's been reported. Just how pathetic you Obama folks have become: "Nah nah nah nah nah, you didn't beat us by ten points, you only beat us by 9.2. (And, more current figures on the NY Times website show the number is now 54.7-45.3--in other words, 9.4 points. And she may very well pick up the extra .1 needed by the time the count is over so that a 10-point win it will be. I assume--but with you Obamaites I probably shouldn't--that everyone is in agreement that 9.5 is properly rounded to and reported as 10). She won, she cleaned your clock, and you should just admit it and move on.

Sent by Joe B | 4:04 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Is it actually 5%
45% + 55% = 100%

The percentage difference is actually 5%

45% + 55% is not equal to 110!!!!!
Where did the extra 10% voters come from?

Sent by Edwin Merced | 7:46 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Please e-mail this to CNN election center they are reporting still 10 %

Sent by Kathy | 11:17 AM ET | 04-28-2008