O'Malley is reportedly done as well.

Also, regardless of the final tally on the Democrats' side, tonight is an absolutely huge win for Bernie Sanders and Clinton has to be sweating bullets seeing it so close.

Quick pontificating from these results:

- Rubio seems likely to represent the GOP. Trump has plateaued around 25-30% and there exists a substantial amount of anti-Trump sentiment within the Republican voting base. This leaves Cruz as the "anti-establishment" candidate vs Rubio as the "establishment" candidate, except that Cruz's anti-establishment credentials aren't as iron-tight as you'd expect from having such a label, and more importantly, Rubio has largely avoided the stigma of being the GOP "insider" that hurt McCain and Romney the last two times we saw this circus. Rubio is in a great position to unite the GOP establishment resources behind him, and I expect him to win the ticket.

- I got nothin on what the Democratic Party results (still coming in) mean. Anybody want to explain for me?

They mean that it's split and that the "Bernie isn't electable" crowd are now going to have to rethink. This is similar to how the 2008 cycle started and we all know who got the nomination then.

A truly electable Bernie would have won Iowa by about as much as he's going to win New Hampshire by. He's still just got an outside shot at the nomination.

If Bernie doubles up Hillary in New Hampshire--latest poll shows him ahead 61% to 30% (!!)--then everyone will take notice. The problem is the relentless drum beat of the media, though I don't think necessarily that there is a conspiracy against him.

Even the best journalists have to be wary of their biases. Old media and old journalists favor Hillary by 2:1 while new media and young voters favor Bernie by 2:1.

Interesting tidbit on NPR said that 1970 was the turning point year for when Democrats switched from supporting Hillary to Bernie. That's me.

Man do I see it on facebook with my peers +/- 2-5 years. They are really going at each others throats at times, quite unlike the relatively civil campaign.

And yeah, I'm old. Get off my lawn.

Once Bernie-maybe or Hillary-maybe-not voters see how viable he was in Iowa tonight, they will come to his side en masse. Landslide for Bernie.

It's already a landslide among younger voters. We just need to get more people to come out.

Not to rain on any proverbial parades, but I think the potential trouble for Clinton is overstated. For whatever reasons, Bernie is the WHITE MALE candidate. He won a state which has some of the highest proportions of white males voting. As long as Hillary continues to be much stronger with the minority and female vote, his chance of victory overall is rather small. Not saying that Bernie can't turn things around, but I think that a symbolic small defeat for him still hurts. Not because it is a victory for Clinton, but because he needs bigger victories than a close loss in a state almost tailor-made for him.

I do think Clinton will be fine, but I don't think she lost a lot of support because of her gender. Iowans tend to vote the issues quite well.

Bernie has huge appeal to minorities and women. The people that vote for Hillary simply because she has a vagina aren't feminists.

The real demographic split between them is age. 84% of people under 30 voted for Bernie on the Democrat side. 60+% of people over 65 voted for Hillary. If Bernie can bring out the young crowd like Obama did, he'll win. If he can't, he won't.

"The people that vote for Hillary simply because she has a vagina aren't feminists."

Indeed many are. They are the old school bra-burners from the 70s. They see Hillary as their last chance to take the White House for a woman.

This is false of course--a woman will eventually become POTUS. But 2016 is the last chance for a Baby Boomer to become President, male or female, and Hillary is the queen bee they can identify with. They have wanted her for 25 years.

I wasn't saying that Clinton is better (or worse) because of her demographic support. I wasn't saying that people are feminist (or not) based on their support of Hillary. The point is, whether you like it or not, she does poll a lot better as a whole than Bernie does on minorities and women.

And, I really think this young crowd narrative is missing something. Obama had MUCH BETTER support from minorities. Like much much better. Hillary so far has MUCH STRONGER numbers in hispanic and african american communities. Whether or not Hillary or Bernie is a better candidate for minority communities is a separate issue. It certainly isn't impossible for Bernie to turn it around, and there are prima facie reasons he appeals to minorities, but he has not shown anything to suggest he can turn around the minority vote enough to win the nomination. The young white vote is not enough, especially in the democratic primaries, to win you the nomination.

@Jeff ... that's not what a feminist is. That's called a misandrist.

Where are you getting your numbers, Soc?

Call it what you want, but that is the mindset. And they do call themselves feminists even if the terminology has evolved in the past 40 years.

I'm also interested in SDs source.

Here's some info about Democrat demographics and voting trends in South Carolina:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-atkinson/polls-underestimate-suppo_b_9117790.html

The terminology hasn't evolved since the 1970s. It's evolved since the 1770s, but feminism was and is the fight for equality between the sexes. Voting for a woman because a) she's a woman and b) she's not a man is misandry. I'm picky about it because it's a common misconception and it stems from misandrists like those you reference.

because you'll be a skeptic bo I will use a few sources:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/hillary_clinton_s_ties_to_black_democrats_will_save_her_campaign_from_bernie.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-leads-nationally-by-double-digits-but-margin-shrinks/2016/01/26/7e73971c-c477-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/109083/20160115/presidential-election-poll-2016-hillary-clinton-has-strong-lead-among-black-latino-voters-sanders-winning-white-vote.htm

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-28/clintons-firewall-black-voters-the-key-in-south-carolina

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1175a2TheDemocraticContest.pdf (you have to just search for nonwhites)

I actually saw a lot more this morning, and I've seen polls that indicate that Clinton is losing her lead in every demographic, except for minorities where her lead is increasing. I'm not saying this can't change, but look at basically any polls that show racial demographics and there is only one winner.

Feminism isn't necessarily the fight for equality. Most feminists fight for this, even 'radical' ones, but you can be a feminist fighting for the matriarchy.

If anything, that suggests a lack of exposure. I don't know how to explain that.

Fighting for a matriarchy is not fighting for equality in the same way that fighting to maintain the patriarchy is not fighting for equality.

SD, the trend line matters more than the point in time polls. It's a movement.
#FeelTheBern

Iowa and New Hampshire are more for eliminating candidates that can't get significant support than crowning a winner. In a few weeks when you get several states at once you pretty much see the front runner that has the power for a national campaign over some one concentrating in the early states.

Now if Sanders doesn't get a significant win in New Hampshire when it's so close to his home state, then he isn't going to have the support to continue.

The Republicans are going to slowly dump the losers that can't get support. Some like Bush will hold on because they have large home states that can give them a shot.

I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that Jeb Bush is the first Bush in his line of Bush's born since the outset of the 1900s that won't become president.

I'm all for the matriarchy.

You can want him to win, you can feel the bern, and maybe the cause of some poor polling is media, but none of this changes the fact that not only is Clinton doing better in minority demographics, but she is not even losing ground there.

And I know fighting for the matriarchy isn't fighting for equality - that's why I said not all feminists are fighting for equality, and neither is feminism necessarily the fight for equality. Unless you're comfortable coming in as a man and dismissing countless important feminist thinkers as feminists, just because you don't want them to count.

+1 DO

I don't necessarily think that wanting Hillary as president is anti-equality, or hating on men. Even if we look past her over-qualifications for the job, there are huge symbolic reasons as to why feminists might want a female POTUS by 2016. I'm not saying this is the only thing feminists need to look at when voting Hillary, in fact a lot of US feminists I know are actually in it for Sanders - but it is definitely nothing to take likely. I think ultimately it can incentivize more women to go into politics, and open the door for more women to be in leadership positions. Obviously all the woes won't go away, but I can dig a female POTUS.

I also find it sad when people say "you're only voting Hillary because she's a woman", when it was probably unacceptable as fuck to say this about Obama's race back in 2008. If Clinton wasn't as qualified as she was she wouldn't be up there getting so close to being pres. She has legitimate voters on her side, and the way the opposition tries to undermine it by pulling the gender card is pathetic.

Also, nice to see someone on largely the same wave length as me on this website Socrates.

I think the president is such a position that nobody is overqualified and really the only factors we can justly consider are ones that would directly relate to abilities as president, of which being female is not. That said, she's clearly qualified, she's a much better candidate than many others even if you prefer Bernie, and the fact is that we can't simply ignore her gender, because sexist assholes will argue that her support is inflated by people who just want a woman, which is really just a massive strawman meant to lower her support, and exactly the same thing people tried to do to Obama.

Fair enough - just me trying to emphasize that she's qualified as fuck and people who say its only because of her gender are trash.

Personally I find that voting for somebody just because of their gender (or race) to be just as stupid as voting against them for the same reason. Unfortunately, we have people doing both of these things. Fortunately, they largely cancel each other out.

No argument there, DO.

Do they cancel each other out? That would be an interesting subject for a poll.

I'd venture they don't even come close to canceling each other out with respect to race (minorities are called as such for a reason), but they may for gender (roughly equal numbers).

I doubt there are an equal number of people against Hillary because she is a woman than people for her because she is a woman, but maybe.

You would have to distinguish between polled registered voters and those that are actually going to vote. Because if you go back to older voting data back in the 1980s, Democrats out numbered Republicans in registration, but Republicans were more likely to show up and vote than Democrats. Which explained Republicans gaining offices when Democrats didn't like their choices and just stayed home.

There was a recent poll that showed Trump leading in most disliked candidate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186494/carson-best-liked-presidential-candidates.aspx
But that hasn't stopped him with people showing up to vote in Iowa.

@Randomizer: "There was a recent poll that showed Trump leading in most disliked candidate...
But that hasn't stopped him with people showing up to vote in Iowa."

That's because Trump is a *polarizing* figure, not just a *disliked* figure. The 24.4% of votes you see in Iowa are people who *love* Trump for "telling it like it is," "addressing the illegal immigration crisis," "revealing the worthlessness of the political establishment," "standing up to the liberal media," and so on.

So the people who love Trump will turn up to vote for Trump. But there's still a ceiling on his performance (barring some crazy momentum shift) because of how many people *actively* dislike him.

http://www.iowapoliticsnow.com/news/national/government-and-politics/trump-calls-for-iowa-election-do-over/article_ad9b672e-caab-11e5-a69c-5b72f746932b.html#utm_source=iowapoliticsnow.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail-updates%2Felection%2Ftucson%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read%20more

Trump may or may not be calling for a do over in Iowa on charges that Cruz stole the caucus. I guess Trump isn't used to politics and like some businessmen that lose the bid on a deal, he decided to eliminate the "winner" by claiming fraud.

I don't blame him for being upset by Cruz's antics. He might have an interesting way of showing it as far as the political game goes, but he's got reason to be pissed off.

+1 bo

It's not as bad as in Arizona where voters were getting robo-called with the wrong election date.

I hate the "not as bad as X" argument. That doesn't mean it's cool, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be upset. He should be angry and I'm glad he is. As shitty a candidate and human being as a whole that I think he is, he's passionate and he wants to win. Every candidate should.

Trump was pushing the whole Birther reason against Cruz to have him disqualified for being born on Canadian soil. I guess he got it from watching "30 Rock" and seeing it used to try to disqualify McCain.

I think the last "clean" election was for Washington. :)

http://www.ibtimes.com/ted-cruz-endorsed-preacher-who-said-jews-will-be-exterminated-if-they-dont-embrace-2279719

Can't make this stuff up, folks.