The numbers:

Candidate   St Del   Del  %
Obama        93,952  27  38%
Edwards      74,377   4  30%
Clinton        73,663  14  29%
Richardson  5,278
Biden          2,328
Uncommitted   345
Dodd           58
Gravel          0
Kucinich        0

Not sure who called HRC for 3rd, but since the whole purpose is delegates, seems like HRC placed second by a considerable amount.

Not sure what you point is, because you remember something about 2008 that is how it should be called in 2016 ?  

HRC won by a delegate, but considering 4 months ago she was predicted to take the state easily, I don't think it's out of line for a guy who had no real shot back then, to declare an extremely close loss, a victory.

People began asking early in 2015 if the local Democratic party was working on 2016. I told them we started working on 2016 the day after the election in 2014.

Each week I pick up messages at our local Democratic headquarters. For months, people have called to ask how they can get in touch with the Bernie Sanders campaign. (Even a disenchanted Republican now and then.) For months, I've directed them to the grassroots group organizing for Sanders here. Several hundred volunteers. On the ground it looks like 2008 all over again. They are phone banking out of our offices twice a week. Bernie Sanders is not a registered Democrat, but the memo from DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says he's running on our ticket.

I also get (fewer) calls from people asking how they can get in touch with the local Hillary Clinton campaign. I tell them I wish I knew. They are nowhere to be seen. Unless you've got the money to attend a high-dollar fundraiser downstate. Clinton volunteers could use our space too. But so far there aren't any.

A party activist in the Raleigh area confirmed Monday that she is seeing the same in Wake County. "Huuuuuuuge grassroots activist presence, already well organized and phonebanking into Iowa, NH, and SC," she wrote. "Clinton's NC presence is all fundraising."

    [Tim Kaine, a Clinton supporter says:] The lack of focus in Clinton's message to voters has emerged as a weakness. Her stump speech, which can wind on for 40 minutes or more on the minutiae of virtually every major policy detail, tends to impress voters at her events, but it poses a challenge for her surrogates, who are countering a far simpler message from Sanders focused on income inequality.

Clinton is trying to run an Obama-style campaign. Since 2008, everybody wants to run an Obama-style campaign. North Carolina Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan ran a pretty solid campaign in 2014. An Obama-style campaign. Hagan lost. Problem was, Hagan wasn't an Obama-style candidate.

Neither is Hillary Clinton. As her campaign makes adjustments post-Iowa, they might want to wake up and smell the cold pizza.

That being said I think he has a rock solid support of around ~25% almost everywhere, and he should be able to pull that with minimum effort.

As the primaries move forward and other candidates drop out, I'm thinking that their supporters will probably gravitate to and distribute themselves amongst Trump's remaining opponents. That's because while those who like Trump really like him, those who don't really can't stand him.

Trump's current plurality of support isn't necessarily going to translate into a majority over the long haul in this race. His national polling numbers have consistently remained in the 30-35% range for months now, and they've not risen at all even as other candidates have withdrawn. 65-70% of Republicans still want someone else.

When there's a dozen candidates in the race, 30% support is more than enough to impressively establish oneself as a frontrunner. But as the field narrows, 30% just isn't going to cut it. Trump has to expand his appeal beyond that initial base of support, and he's clearly having difficulty doing so.

Now that the campaign process has actively engaged and votes are starting to be cast, it comes down to organization and logistics. New Hampshire and South Carolina will probably reveal to us if Trump has an effective ground game. But from what I've seen thus far, his campaign appears more like a concert tour promotion, than oriented toward actually driving the vote and getting people to the polls.

That's why Trump lost in Iowa. While the Ted Cruz campaign actually had boots on the ground, with evangelical Christians going door-to-door, making phone calls, and literally picking up supporters at their homes and driving them to the caucus sites, Trump had lots of loud and profane rally attendees who apparently couldn't be bothered afterward to actually get to those sites on their own.

If Trump's ground game isn't there and he's relying primarily upon his own nativist bombast to carry the day, I'm hard pressed to see how his lead is going to hold. Will his supporters actually show up at the polls? Does the candidate himself even know where that support really resides, and how firmly committed it actually is? Given what happened in Iowa, those remain open questions.

I headed up the ground game for Neil Abercrombie in the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial primary, where the polls one week out from election day showed us neck-and-neck with our challenger, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann. We won by 22 percentage points, 60-38%.

That's because we knew where our supporters generally resided, and had a system in place down to the precinct level to ensure that they turned out. Hannemann, on the other hand, sat back and relied on media buys. We worked our tails off to see that our voters showed up, and they did. He didn't, and his support went MIA at crunch time.

Does Trump have a ground game in place to drive the vote -- or is he, like Mayor Hannemann, all mouth?

You once again completely missed the point of my remarks, which was not to take anyone to task for the Sanders-bashing - it was a response to Howdy's comment about the "thrashing" Sanders was getting, and a reaction to the lightning-quick pouncing going on over media reports that were all over the place.  It was about the execrable "reporting" that's being done and my interest in what questions and issues will be raised with Clinton and Sanders tomorrow night.

Even if I had seen your comment, it wouldn't change the fact that the media couldn't get its act together to be consistent in what was being reported - and that was the whole point.

Not the same thing.