There’s a bit of a kerfluffle going on in the mainstream media and the blogosphere around divining the “meaning” of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary election. A lot of it has to do with Senator Clinton’s margin of victory in the race, which was 9.4%, but which has been widely reported as being 10%. When some Obama supporters complain about that particular characterization, they are called nitpicky. Really, though, it’s not about picking nits, it’s about managing expectations.

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign was on the ropes, and looking for a comeback. The conventional wisdom was that if Clinton could keep her advantage from eroding beyond 10 points (or, more often, if she could achieve a “double digit” victory), she would be doing well. 

As it turns out, though, Clinton didn’t achieve a “double digit” victory. She didn’t keep her advantage above 10 points. There is no rounding scheme I know of which can result in a round up from 9.4 to 10. Clinton’s margin of victory was, in fact, a “single digit” victory. She failed to reach the bar set by her own supporters. Even so, nearly every media outlet (certainly every maindstream media outlet) is reporting that she won by 10 points.

Are they stupid, are they ignorant, or do they think we’re not paying attention?