Berie also only had Clinton as opponent there, instead of over half a dozen opponents. Of course he's not able to pull the same numbers with so much competition

In the last polls, Buttigieg was about where he landed, so he didn't get that many undecided votes. Klobuchar however never polled above 14%, she got the lion's share of the undecided votes. Tom Steyer in another recipient of those, who stayed around 2% in polls but got almost 4% of the votes

This race is so incredibly open. Five candidates already got delegates and two more have a plausible shot to get some. Nevada and South Carolina are demographically different to the first two states, so we could expect different results - or not, if the bandwagon effect moves the voters from Biden to Pete or Amy. And then looms Bloomberg as a dark horse, and we will not know before Super Tuesday about his chances. I didn't expect the race getting so interesting.

We will see if the next contests start to bring consolidation behind some candidates, or if it keeps being undecided.

You keep saying the same thing. There were 3 candidates in the debates and many others on the ballot.

There can be a million on the ballot, but only those over 15% get any delegates. if there's only one who gets above 15% he gets all the delegates, even if he just gets 15.1%. And the more are over 15%, the more the delegates are divided upon candidates. Klobuchar wasn't expected by the polls to be above 15%. That's not Bernie underperforming, that's Klobuchar overperforming. How can this be so hard to understand?

Let the Trump-troll be, he already proved he prefers his alternative facts above reality.

PM sent ~ CGI

In both CNN and Suffolk, there were about 11% of undecideds in New Hampshire. To get a boost of 3 - 5% out of these over the polling average would be significant.

Of course, we'll never know exactly how many votes came from undecideds, and how many came from Biden and Warren.

By the way, currently I calculate >283K votes among all candidates with somewhat over 90% of the precincts reporting. So we can expect that the record turnout of 2008 is beaten (only 4K missing) - but barely.

In later polls, the amount of undecided dropped to around 6-8%. At the same time, Pete rose to about 24-25%. So most must have gone to Klobuchar - although Write-ins, Bennet, Deval, minor candidates and withdrawn ones still got over 3% of the vote taken together.

This is probably also the reason why Yang dropped out: He was polling at around 5% and only got 2.8%, showing very slow momentum.

Lol, the amount of spin and ignorance in this is majestic.

You know, in the grand scheme of things, this outcome is MUCH more encouraging to me than what the Iowa Caucus seemed to suggest! The main and most important thing here really is that, unlike in Iowa, turnout for the New Hampshire primary was unusually high; significantly higher than in 2016. In fact, with 97% of the votes counted, total turnout for yesterday's New Hampshire primary so far stands at 283,655, which is near the record 287,527 set in 2008, with more votes still to be counted. This turnout could, in fact, set a new record by the time the last votes are tallied, in other words!

Turnout in the nominating contests matters in that it serves as a gauge of motivation. This turnout level on the Democratic side indicates high motivation, in stark contrast to the low turnout levels we saw in Iowa, and high motivation on the Democratic side at this stage is a good sign for the prospects of a Democratic victory in the fall. The smooth-as-glass operation of the New Hampshire primary, compared to the disaster that was the Iowa Caucus, is also a further indictment of the caucus system and a strong argument in favor of open primaries.

The winner was Bernie Sanders, no surprise. With 97% of the votes counted, the results are as follows:

Sanders: 25.9%
Buttigieg: 24.4%
Klobuchar: 19.8%
Warren: 9.3%
Biden: 8.4%
Steyer: 3.6%
Gabbard: 3.2%
Yang: 2.8%
Write-ins: 1.5%
Patrick: 0.4%
Bennet: 0.3%
Others: 0.1%

The aforementioned turnout level was achieved even despite the state's Republican-controlled government implementing a new law that requires car registration to vote, which they know full well is an arbitrary policy intended purely to minimize turnout among younger voters for any given election (thus generally advantaging Republicans). However, the new law may have dampened turnout for Bernie Sanders a bit in this primary, as this showing was much lower than the 60% share of the vote he won in New Hampshire in 2016. (Of course, there are also many more candidates to choose from this time around, but notably there was only one rival in the same "lane" of the party as Sanders in this election, and even combined, the votes for Sanders and Warren so far add up to only 35.2% of the total, so still a major slide for the progressive wing as a whole compared to 2016.)

According to both exit poll data and the demographic composition of the areas where he got the most votes, Sanders' support was driven by urban voters in college towns, both by students and poorer workers without a college degree, and especially men falling into these categories. These are groups that Democrats struggled to either turn out or win the votes of (as applicable) in 2016, notably. Pete Buttigieg, Sanders's main rival, generally won in the rural areas of the state and in at least one wealthier, more Ivy League college town. Amy Klobuchar, strikingly, placed third in this contest, faring better than in Iowa, winning mainly among suburban women; the demographic group primarily responsible for the Democratic Party's major victory in the 2018 midterm elections, following a strong debate performance last Friday in which Klobuchar dropped many of her traditional canned lines that made her sound like a generic senator in favor of a more emotional, believable tone and an emphasis on her working class roots. That last point is also notable.

The clear losers of the evening were Elizabeth Warren, who acquired single-digit support in her own proverbial backyard (the progressive vote is clearly consolidating around Bernie Sanders), and even more so Joe Biden, the former Vice President of the United States and hitherto national front-runner for both the Democratic nomination and the presidency itself. Biden didn't even bother remaining in New Hampshire for his national address of the evening, having placed fifth. Instead, he jetted off to South Carolina where he appears poised to make his last stand. Meanwhile, billionaire Michael Bloomberg has poured over $250 million in advertising for his own campaign into the 14 states that vote on March 3rd, known in political speak as Super Tuesday for the large number of states voting simultaneously that day. Bloomberg is clearly expecting Biden to fail and plans, in turn, to capitalize (pun definitely intended) on that failure by stealing his voters on March 3rd, thus replacing Biden as the standard-bearer of the neoliberals. The collapse of the Joe Biden campaign (and at this point I think we can call it that because he has underwhelmed expectations at every stage so far and his national support is also now in state of free-fall, having been built entirely on the now-discredited insistence that he is the "most electable" candidate) is especially remarkable here in that this is poised to become the first time that a current or former vice president will have been defeated for their party's nomination when they opted to run. So who says the Biden campaign isn't a history-making one?

This election appears poised to see Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination, and, frankly, if the turnout for the New Hampshire primary is any indication, maybe, just maybe, even the presidency itself! To this end, we are now witnessing the launch of a conservative "stop Bernie" movement in Nevada, which will, on February 22nd, become the next state to vote. It's no wonder that representatives of the rich and powerful are concerned, given what Sanders represents and given that Latinas and Latinos compose a disproportionate share of Nevada's population compared to nationwide. 40% of New Hampshire's Hispanic voters cast their ballots for Sanders last night, which suggests that Sanders is even more popular among this segment of the population than he is among white voters. It's surely notable that Joe Biden, considered the only candidate who could rival Sanders in a state like Nevada with a large Latino population, has opted to skip ahead to South Carolina instead. That should tell you something further about what's most likely to come on the 22nd.

Michael Bennet, Deval Patrick, and, in an IMO sad note, Andrew Yang ended their campaigns last night in the wake of the New Hampshire outcome. Yang I will miss. I really came to like him as a person even if I felt that he was running on too limited an array of policy ideas. Nevertheless, he has had a major, positive, and indeed outsized impact on public opinion. Whereas perhaps 3% of Americans supported the idea of establishing a universal basic income for the whole population before his campaign launched, today about 55% favor one, including two out of every three Democrats. Clearly his messaging on that was effective and has had an impact that's likely to last. In at least that sense, Yang can, in fact, claim that his campaign was a success. I'll miss him.