Barely Double Digit Win

CNN is now reporting that Hillary Clinton won in Pennsylvania by a 10% margin, 55% to Barack Obama's 45%. This despite huge expenditures by the Obama campaign. ABC News is asking the same thing I did last night, though: is it enough?

Clinton's Pennsylvania victory fuels questions about why Obama hasn't been able to sew up the nomination, despite having more money, having won more states and having a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, according to ABC News' delegate scorecard.

The pressure was on Clinton today to win by a large margin. She won 55 percent of the vote, to Obama's 45 percent, with 99 percent of the precincts reporting.

"Hillary Clinton needs a clear and convincing victory today in Pennsylvania if she wants to continue on in this nominating process," Democratic strategist Tad Devine told ABC News this morning.

With neither candidate able to get the 2,025 delegates needed to win the party's nomination, tonight's win in Pennsylvania will bolster Clinton's argument to superdelegates — the 795 Democratic party officials and members of Congress who may ultimately decide the nomination.

As the results pour in, pundits, Democratic superdelegates, and the media will characterize whether Clinton won by a large enough margin of victory. Devine and other Democrats have long argued the New York senator needed to win the Keystone State over Obama by double digits, and dig into Obama's delegate lead.

"If she wins by 10 points or more, it will be viewed as a clear and convincing victory, but if it's closer than that, it will be less than a clear and convincing victory," Devine said.

Well, she got the 10 point win despite Obama's huge investment. Hillary Clinton says she was outspent in Pennsylvania by a three-to-one margin. But for all that, the relative delegate count has changed very little. As much as the Democrat's leaders would like it to be, this is not over yet. And there appears to be little hope of a conclusion before the convention, either.