2016 elections - because it's never too early

[katmai]

Cruz with a slim lead, but the numbers are small, I assume these are more rural sites reporting first?

Historically, yes.

Cruz and Clinton need to rack in large early leads before the later greater urban votes start coming in (which I assume favor Trump and Sanders).

Last thing i read was Sanders needs college towns as Des Moines was expected to be Hillary territory.

[jimmy olsen]

40% in

Clinton 51.5%
Sanders 47.9%

[alfred russel]

40% in

Clinton 51.5%
Sanders 47.9%

If Clinton were to lose, I'm sure she will put a brave face on it, but that would have to be a very sad concession speech.

[Phillip V]

40% in

Clinton 51.5%
Sanders 47.9%

If Clinton were to lose, I'm sure she will put a brave face on it, but that would have to be a very sad concession speech.

She will be slaughtered in the news and by the water coolers all over the world.  Iowa would have crushed her dreams a second time.

Meanwhile, I am now following the NYTimes election map.  It is better:  http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

[jimmy olsen]

44% in


Clinton 51.3%
Sanders 48.2%

[Habbaku]

Looks like Clinton will squeak out a win in Iowa, then get slaughtered in New Hampshire.  That should make for interesting news going forward.

[Habbaku]

I really hope Cruz wins in Iowa so Trump doesn't.  Cruz can go down in flames a la Santorum, but if Trump takes Iowa he may just gin up support in more sane states.

[jimmy olsen]

25% in for the GOP

Cruz 29.9%
Trump 26.8%
Rubio 18.9%

[Eddie Teach]

I really hope Cruz wins in Iowa so Trump doesn't.  Cruz can go down in flames a la Santorum, but if Trump takes Iowa he may just gin up support in more sane states.

It'd be better if he got third so the race became Trump vs Rubio early on, but that's probably not gonna happen.

I think Trump benefits the most from a cluttered field. He has the highest negatives.

[celedhring]

40% in

Clinton 51.5%
Sanders 47.9%

If Clinton were to lose, I'm sure she will put a brave face on it, but that would have to be a very sad concession speech.

She will be slaughtered in the news and by the water coolers all over the world.  Iowa would have crushed her dreams a second time.

Meanwhile, I am now following the NYTimes election map.  It is better:  http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

Gotta love the breakdowns they have when scrolling down. The democrats have a "higher/lower college graduates" category, which is replaced by a "higher/lower evangelicals" for the GOP :p

[alfred russel]

I really hope Cruz wins in Iowa so Trump doesn't.  Cruz can go down in flames a la Santorum, but if Trump takes Iowa he may just gin up support in more sane states.

I think Rubio ends up the nominee, but I'm not sure how we get there. Santorum was a dumbass who did dumbass things and had no money, all of which conspired to undermine his campaign, such as when he spent a few days campaigning in Puerto Rico only to lose the primary there by a zillion. Cruz is evil, but smart, and has money.

Iowa and New Hampshire are not red states. If Cruz wins Iowa, and Trump New Hampshire, where does the Rubio magic come from?

[jimmy olsen]

40% reported


Cruz
18,981 Votes
29.1%
Trump
17,018 Votes
26.1%
Rubio
13,235 Votes
20.3%

[jimmy olsen]

Dems tightening. 63% in


Clinton
50.7%
Sanders
48.7%

[Eddie Teach]

Iowa and New Hampshire are not red states. If Cruz wins Iowa, and Trump New Hampshire, where does the Rubio magic come from?

Thing is, Rubio can come in third and have it be considered a win due to momentum. He had been getting 10-12% in polls for ages. Course, he'll need to continue that momentum in upcoming states.

[jimmy olsen]

50% in for the GOP

Cruz
24,890 Votes
28.9%
Trump
21,736 Votes
25.2%
Rubio
18,159 Votes
21.1%