Update: Not a double-digit win

Update: There is a discrepancy between the media's count which shows a 9.4 point Clinton win versus the Pennsylvania Secretary of State which shows an 8.499% win. In either case, it's not a double digit win, and it's narrower than Clinton's Ohio win. It's just not clear whether it's an 8 or a 9 point win. I'll try to sort it out tomorrow but for now, I'll be conservative and assume it's 9 points and update this post accordingly.

Earlier in the evening, I thought Clinton was on her way to a 10-point victory.

Looks like that won't be happening. Instead, she'll probably win by nine points -- a let-down for Clinton folks who had really set their sights on a 10-point win and went to bed last night thinking they had accomplished their goal.

So she's looking at a bit of a drop-off from her Ohio performance.

Given that Pennsylvania was supposed to be a better state for her than Ohio, that's going to be hard for her to explain. As a refresher, here are some of her advantages:

1. She positioned herself as a favorite daughter with her strong family ties to Scranton.
2. Pennsylvania has a closed primary, restricted to registered Democrats. (In Ohio, 20% of voters were independents, a group Obama won.)
3. Obama endured the worst six-week stretch of his campaign (Jeremiah Wright, Bitter-gate, terrible debate).
4. The media was clearly rooting for her to do well.
5. Clinton won the endorsement of the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (Okay, snark.)

Given all those advantages, the fact that she actually lost some of her lead in Ohio is bad news for her campaign. She's already far behind, and can't afford to fall further behind the pace.

All in all, Obama seems to have actually had a stronger performance than the initial numbers would have indicated.

Update: ayjaymay adds a few more good points in the comments, including Clinton's support from Gov. Rendell and Mayor Nutter, plus her husband's popularity in PA in 1996.