Yeah, I noticed both of these things as well. The 10% figure is easily explained by the fact that, at least according to media figures, she did have a 10% lead with about 97% reporting. Late returns ate into it, though.

Your second point (which leads to the difference between 9.4% and 8.5%) is really rather odd, and I can think of no rational explanation at this point.

I'm truly puzzled. I didn't follow returns minute to minute, but when I did check, the margin bounced around between 8% and 10% (on the TV crawl).

It's odd that even now the 55-45% reported everywhere, including on the web - which lacks hard print deadlines - does not correspond to any data I can find.

In terms of margin, it's a significant win for Hillary whether it's 8.5% or 9.4%. But it's hard not to wonder if some partisan individual in charge of a single data feed to all major media (and TPM) is intentionally fudging the numbers to get Hillary into double digits. It's equally hard to believe that each and every major media outlet (and TPM) has independently obtained accurate data and decided to round up in a very unconventional way.

Should we lack confidence in the data, in the reporting, or both? Or, as a math-challenged country, should we accept the inconsistencies as the best we can do?

54.3, 45.6, explain that rounding again?

An innocent but still ridiculous explanation?

By the set of numbers NOT from the secretary of state, Hillary has 54.69% and Obama has 45.31%. So it just looks as though the rounding was done to the individual numbers to get 55% and 45%, making the margin look bigger than it is.

If the same approach applied to the secretary of state's numbers, it would be 54.2% for Hillary and 45.8% for Obama, so you would round, presumably, to 54%-46%.

Psychologically, that's a big swing.

It will probably be corrected later today. I think the media gets their numbers from the AP.

Oh, that unbiased AP with people like Nedra Pickler.

I think it is obvious that Big Media is slanted in favor of Clinton, if only to continue the race and create "drama"

TPM says these numbers are outdated. But in their post mentioning this, they also say that Obama has more votes 1,043,174 in the state count than in the AP count 1,042,297.

How is this possible? Do the 'updated' AP numbers include supervoters with the ability to cast negative votes for Obama?

I would guess that the AP extrapolated the remaining votes from what was already counted, and that the votes trickling in are ending up being strongly for Obama. (Didn't this happen in Missouri?)

If there is a more rational explanation for this phenomenon, I would love to here it.

Precisely, with regard to letting results sink in. The mindless narrative in this country dictates that we can't comprehend small movements. The MSM will not cease their position that Hillary won Texas, which she, of course, did not.

I hate to point this out, but if your candidate would just win a primary we wouldn't have to worry about this noise.

You could add Minnesota to the list of primaries because what we have is a "presidential preference ballot" -- NOT a caucus for the presidential choice.
We also have a caucus that same night for other elected positions and party business; the presidential choice is NOT part of the caucus session.

Randi Rhodes was talking today about the Republican crossover vote and how the Limbaugh effect fizzled in PA. This doesn't surprise me because it is a closed primary so people have to formally register as a dem to vote. Obama had a healthy majority of the crossover vote (not sure the exact amount) showing that he does appeal to the disenchanted former Republicans much more than she does. I'm sure that there was some Limbaugh vote in there too.

In an open primary it is easier to crossover as you don't need to be registered to a specific party to vote in that party. TX has an open primary and the Limbaugh effect is believed to have been large there, estimated at 119,000 votes (Obama lost the primary vote by 109,000). Ohio has a closed primary but there was a strong push for faux Hillary votes. The Limbaugh effect was thought to be large there also based on exit polls. Later it was publicized that technically it was voter fraud since they had to make a sworn party declaration in OH. There was talk of filing suit against Limbaugh so that may have tamped it down for PA since theirs was closed. Indiana has an open primary and NC's is closed.