Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election.
(...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)
...She didn't win 50.4% of the popular vote. She won 48.2% to Trump's 46.3%, as of the latest count. But I'd like a citation for New York Times reporting that she did.
I see. The earliest copy of that page on the Wayback Machine includes the label about only counting Clinton and Trump, but I'll take your word for it that it was originally missing. It seems like a pretty minor error given that it was a small part of an article primarily focused on comparing the counties won by Clinton and Trump, and was apparently promptly corrected, but eh. (And of course their main election results page has the right numbers.)
Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election.
(...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)