Who "won" the presidential election of 1888?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1888

declaring a nationwide winner.

Historically, the title winner has always gone to the person who got the most votes in that state. Obama did not say before the contest that he wanted that standard changed. And again, I am pretty sure that Hillary got more delegates than Edwards out of Iowa--but boy did we ever hear that she came in third.

the winner.

To me Obama won Nevada as the goal was to win the most delegates.

Note that caucuses are a little more complicated than primaries and can muddle the final result.

a declaration of victory. The contest is about being called top tog in that particular state on that night.

The standard used has always been who could get the most votes. The standard was used to declare Bill Clinton a loser in Connecticut in 1992, and Hillary a 3rd place finisher in Iowa in 2008--that very election, just a few weeks earlier. Obama's announced standard was brand spanking new.

And we heard absolutely nothing about this standard until after the caucus was over.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you or I consider to be the winner. It only matters who was widely announced as the winner of that competition. And for better or worse, that was Hillary. There was no major media outlet who did not proclaim her the winner on that day. And that is why Rachel's commentary was silly: She was matter-of-factly referring to Barack Obama as having been the winner of the 2008 Caucus, and talking about the impact of his efforts, even though the "Obama victory" was a non-event in 2008, because he was not regarded as the winner.

the most delegates.

coming out of Nevada due to her being declared the winner.

Obviously, it didn't get her the nomination. But I suspect that if Obama had been declared the winner in Nevada, and then won South Carolina, he would have destroyed her on Super Tuesday.

in my opinion.

It was about Rachel Maddow.

I don't think Rachel's commentary was a good one, because she was matter-of-factly reporting about an Obama 08 victory in Nevada, when he was never treated as the winner by any major media outlet in the country. And the positive benefits from Nevada's caucus results went entirely to Hillary.

At the end of the day, of course, it wasn't something she could parlay into the nomination.

primary and we did not have a primary, We had a caucus. President Obama won the caucus 12 to Clinton's 12. Later it was finalized with Obama 14 and Clinton 11.

declared the winner by everyone. The national media. The local media. Probably the other candidates (perhaps except Obama) who all called to concede and congratulate her. (At that point Edwards and Richardson were still in the race).

Who was on the front page of your local paper the next day being touted as the winner?

Neither did the networks. She was recognized as the winner, nationwide. And that was never reversed. The only media outlet that called Barack Obama the winner was Obama's own website.

In 1948 there was only one paper that called Dewey the winner--and by the next day they were no longer saying that.

The media didn't call Hillary the winner prematurely--they simply used a different standard than Obama and Maddow wanted, and they stuck to that standard.

And it should come as no surprise that they used the popular vote standard for declaring a winner in a particular state, because there was precedent for that. Bill Clinton suffered a devastating loss in Connecticut to Jerry Brown in 1992 while winning more delegates. But Clinton's defeat had people seriously worried about the strength of his candidacy in the GE. And Hillary was savaged over what was universally declared to be a third place finish in Iowa, even as she got more delegates than John Edwards.

Obama got the delegates, he got the 'win'. That's what Bernie needs to do this year - get enough delegates to not only 'win', but to overcome any 'superdelegate' shenanigans that might be pulled.

Just like Bill Clinton was widely excoriated for losing Connecticut in 1992 to Jerry Brown, even as he got a few more delegates.

delegates and Hillary lost the delegate count even if she had more caucus votes. The distribution of those votes did not lead to winning the delegate count. This is why I often hate the media. They fail to provide complete information which can cause confusion and anger.

"hugh" is supposed to mean or refer to.

PUMAs really have to let it go!

him at the time, but I still voted for him. I really started to like him a lot when he got the ACA passed. And I have been a big supporter of his many, many years now.

Besides, did you read my post? It wasn't about the winner of the 2008 primaries, it was about the Nevada Caucus. Clinton was widely regarded as the winner, based on multiple precedents from history. Every media outlet treated her as the victor in that contest.

My post wasn't about Hillary or Barack, it was about Rachel Maddow and what I considered to be a silly commentary that she did.

Sure there were a couple web sites with a few people posting stuff - there was impatience and temper in the air - and, if you'll recall, Rush Limbaugh wasn't just pushing the meme along, he either invented it or almost did.

James Carville on national television with his PUMA sneakers - what an ass.
But then, Carville's wife worked for McCain, and I can't see how Hillary was smart to link up with such a two-faced person so in that sense, I suppose, she "deserved it". And I don't think she's learned.

These primaries are ridiculous with their obsession with personalities and social-media-friendly ephemera.

So I was just kinda digging in the dirt and jabbin ya. Sorry about that.

I don't remember Carville's sneakers, LOL. I do remember that he said something about making a donation to Obama. He and Matalin must have separate finances.

In the end, we will have a nominee and we will all get behind her or him, given how awful the alternative is.

to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.

I realize that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the liberal icon on the bench these days, but I just love Sotomayer. She is so brilliant.

Did you notice who appointed him?
Did you notice that his "evolution" exactly mirrors Hillary Clinton's - a synced timeline right on the button?

Do you find that interesting?

I hadn't really noticed his particular evolution, since it seems that most people "evolved," including Clinton and Obama.

I thought I heard that Kennedy had a gay mentor many years ago, and some people think that affected his level of empathy on this issue.

Incidentally, Reagan had wanted that seat to go to Robert Bork. I thank God that didn't happen. But I wonder what might have happened if Douglas Ginsberg hadn't been forced to withdraw when it was revealed that he had smoked pot when he was younger.

What made me such a great admirer of Sonia Sotomayor was her passionate defense of the Indian Child Welfare Act when it was being gutted.

but kudos for them for finally evolving.
Of course, only one of them has "evolved" so far as to now assume that she's always been a leader.

A lot more people evolved a lot sooner.

anymore. I sill believe Obama would have waited until after the election otherwise.

Clinton seems to have waited to see if Obama was reelected before "evolving".

I don't think Rachel or anyone else should be dwelling on it and I don't say that because Hillary lost. There are so many legitimate topics to talk about in 2016, that is besides 75% Trump and 10% Hillary's emails/Benghazi.

His strategy for the whole campaign was brilliant. They figured out state by state how to get the most delegates and that's how they played the game. Hillary might have gotten the highest popular vote, but it didn't translate into delegates. Why on earth are we arguing about the 2008 campaign anyway?